WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > Asymmetric Warfare

Posted by: Imperialist June 24, 2006 01:10 pm

In my view our Army should focus more on niche projects and technologies rather than waste money on second-hand junk that would be quickly depleted in any conflict and impossible to replace through internal production. Conventionally, no matter how many second hand planes and ships we buy, we will be entirely dependent on NATO for any effective support.
A large fleet of UCAVs and a good doctrine for their use, can be affordable in my view. It would only take will and dedication, since "commissions" would probably not be very juicy.
UCAVs should be integrated in teams also armed with ATGMs and MANPADs.

Well, until then, an interesting article:

Unmanned Mini-Helicopter Gets 'Weaponized'
http://www.defensereview.com/article846.html

Posted by: 120mm June 25, 2006 02:12 pm

Yes, hallelujah, YES!!!

As I stated in an earlier thread, I could build a fully combat-capable UCAV for the cost of a luxury car. And make it semi-stealthy to boot! All with a very minimal investment in R&D. The designs, materiel and hardware are all out there, and can be purchased "off-the-shelf".

As your Minister of Defense said earlier this year: Romania needs to specialize in Intelligence gathering and Mountain troops.

And while we are on the subject of UCAV, why not UCGV? (Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicles).

The problem with all this is in defining capability: In a low cost UCAV or UCGV, it is perfectly fine to use lesser capable systems in firepower/protection/mobility/C4I as long as they can be made to fit within an overall combat system, because you no longer have the concerns about crew protection + the vehicles are relatively cheap.

The cost of upgrading systems is not so great, either, as you are allowing other countries and companies to expend vast amounts of money developing new technologies, and then you are just buying it off the shelf. The great powers have such a lag time between tech. development to fielding that you will have equivalent technology at a lesser cost.

Posted by: Imperialist June 25, 2006 03:08 pm

Hi 120mm,

I have "drawing board plans" for both UCAVs and UCGVs for Romania, but I am not a military specialist nor an engineer, so they wouldnt probably impress anyone from a practical raw data view, maybe only as concepts per se, needing further professional research and development. Hopefully after I get out of college I can spend more time on these small amateur projects.

I found this very interesting too:

http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/Helios/HTML/EC02-0031-7.html

It can loiter twice as high as a B-2 or B-52. Weaponising these flying wings with AAMs and making them smaller is worth a R&D effort, even if those actions lowers its ceiling capabilities. Putting swarms of these fellows in the air and cheaply leaving them to loiter could mean nightmares for enemy aircraft especially if done in layers and combined with good SAM systems on the ground.
But maybe I'm dreaming....

take care

Posted by: 120mm June 26, 2006 05:22 pm

Modern day aerial mines? I see no reason why someone couldn't do it. Currently, on the US/Mexican border, drug-runners are sending homebuilt UAVs with GPS autopilots packed with drugs across the border. They are programmed to land, where the drugs are removed, the airplane is fueled, and it is sent back to Mexico.

The aircraft are small and made of composite materials (which are extremely easy to work with) so they are somewhat stealthy. If drug-dealers can do it, why couldn't a nation-state do something similar for defense purposes?

Posted by: Jeff_S June 27, 2006 05:14 pm

I remember seeing a proposal a few years ago at a military communications conference for a tactical communications network using UAVs. Basically it put mobile phone relays on UAVs that loitered over the battlefield, with a few at higher altitudes that provided satellite uplinks for out-of-theater comms.

Obviously the whole network was encrypted and had other survivability features, and it wasn't suitable for all threat environments. But it still seemed useful. The nodes were cheap enough that losing a few was not a big crisis, and this made the overall network more robust.

Posted by: 120mm June 27, 2006 07:22 pm

There is a serious move among telecom companies to field very high altitude UAVs on a lighter-than-air chassis. We have solar powered lighter-than-air vehicles that can fly higher than weather patterns, which leads to incredible loiter times

Posted by: Imperialist June 27, 2006 08:33 pm

http://www.spyplanes.com/pdf/convoy.pdf

http://www.spyplanes.com/movies.html#convoy50

QUOTE ("120mm")

Modern day aerial mines? I see no reason why someone couldn't do it.

How about modern day flying "watchtowers"?
I am sure they could place several high resolution cameras on a "slow-flying long duration high-altitude uninhabited aerial vehicle" to keep an eye on hundreds of sq km of roads in Irak. A lot of IED planters would end up caught or killed. A fleet of those babies could sweep the whole of Irak continuously.

Posted by: Jeff_S June 27, 2006 09:46 pm

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 27 2006, 02:22 PM)

I've heard of this too. What's the limiting factor on the loiter time? Some hardware failure?

Posted by: Jeff_S June 27, 2006 09:52 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 27 2006, 03:33 PM)

What would you do with the imagery generated? Have buildings full of analysts looking at it? Some software to identify suspicious patterns of behavior, then have the analysts look at a much smaller set of images? Or just use it after the IED had gone off, so you could get a look at the guy who planted it?

It's easy to drown in too much data. And it eats network capacity to move it around.

Posted by: 120mm June 28, 2006 11:15 am

QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jun 27 2006, 09:46 PM)

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 27 2006, 02:22 PM)

I've heard of this too. What's the limiting factor on the loiter time? Some hardware failure?

Limiting factor on loiter time is solar cell degradation and direct aspiration of the helium into the atmosphere. Of course, the electric motors will need periodic service as well, but think of all the useful ozone they'd produce.

Posted by: Imperialist June 28, 2006 11:32 am

QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jun 27 2006, 09:52 PM)

I was thinking more like video cameras, not photo cameras.

Posted by: 120mm June 28, 2006 09:09 pm

You would have the same management problems with video cameras. There needs to be some discriminator, but in that is a weakness that the enemy can exploit. You can't avoid it.

I say go simple and use electronic/magnetic anomaly stuff only, combined with human operators.

Posted by: Jeff_S June 28, 2006 09:33 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 28 2006, 06:32 AM)

I was thinking more like video cameras, not photo cameras.

As 120mm noted, the issue applies to both. If you're going to catch people acting suspiciously, you need to define suspicious behavior, and that's going to be constant cat-and-mouse game, as well as an employment scheme for lots of analysts.

Posted by: Imperialist June 28, 2006 09:48 pm

I honestly dont see the definition of suspicious behaviour and higher analyst employment to be an issue. Maybe it is technically impossible or nobody actually thought about it. I dont think the US values money more than the lives of the soldiers sent there.

Posted by: 120mm June 29, 2006 11:01 am

I think Jeff S was speaking to "information flow management". If you run a video feed, without closely defining what, where, who you are looking for, you quickly accumulate more data than can be managed unless you have some way to screen data quickly and efficiently.

One key discriminator is electrical fields produced by vehicles and magnetic anomalies produced by large metal objects like armored vehicles.

I would solve some of the issue by pushing UCAVs down to the lowest possible levels, arm them to deal with immediate tactical problems, and allow the normal intel reporting chain to develop the data. The issue here is practice. If your system gets a good workout and often, it can be even more efficient than computer programs.

Posted by: Jeff_S June 29, 2006 02:39 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 28 2006, 04:48 PM)

I honestly dont see the definition of suspicious behaviour and higher analyst employment to be an issue.

But it is the issue. Is the guy pulling the dead goat off a cart a farmer collecting a dead animal? Or a freedom fighter planting a roadside bomb? Just collecting lots of video, still photos, radio intercepts or whatever is an interesting technical exercise. The analysis is what makes it into useful intelligence. Without improvements in analysis (via better technology or better techniques) having more collectors can make the problem worse by increasing the information overload. The challenge is having accurate, useful information available to the decision maker at the right time. Oh, and while you're doing that, don't overload your networks or give useful information to the enemy.

QUOTE

Maybe it is technically impossible or nobody actually thought about it.

It's not technically impossible, and plenty of people are paid lots of money to think about it.

QUOTE

I dont think the US values money more than the lives of the soldiers sent there.

The US values both, but not equally. One of US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's big initiatives is to use more advanced technology to substitute for large numbers of soldiers on the ground. So lots of money is being spent in this area. Whether he is correct in general, and how applicaple it is to Iraq, is a question for a different thread.

Posted by: Jeff_S June 29, 2006 02:48 pm

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 29 2006, 06:01 AM)

I think Jeff S was speaking to "information flow management".

I was. The other question is where the fusion function is performed and what its goals are. Speaking as a communicator I would rather not pull all those gigabytes out of theater just to look at them and send them back in.

QUOTE

I would solve some of the issue by pushing UCAVs down to the lowest possible levels, arm them to deal with immediate tactical problems, and allow the normal intel reporting chain to develop the data.

I agree closer to the shooter is better. The trick is to not be so busy looking at video screens that somebody sneaks up and cuts your head off. If computers can help with the "triage" of data (moving target indicators, heat signatures of active vs. inactive vehicles) that could help simplify the problem.

Posted by: Imperialist June 29, 2006 04:43 pm

QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jun 29 2006, 02:39 PM)

Sure, but the key is practice. They can start monitoring smaller areas along some patrol routes and build a pattern of actions that are characteristic of IED planting. Maybe they wont spot anything, but then they have an IED explosion in that spot the next day, and they can rewind the tape and see what was the pattern, who was there and how they did it. I dont doubt it will take some patience, some money but they do want to try and win this war, right? And of course, they should pay me to come up with crazy ideas like these...

Posted by: 120mm June 29, 2006 06:17 pm

IMO, you are on the right trail, Imperialist. The "pilots' union" in the USAF is constantly attacking UAV use and production, so that we have relatively few UAVs years and years after they became practical. And because we have so few, they are controlled only at the highest level, or are "dumped" on a lower tactical unit with little or no warning, so that the intel developed is usually no good.

I'd let the tactical guys figure out how to secure the operators/analysts.

Posted by: Jeff_S June 29, 2006 07:11 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 29 2006, 11:43 AM)

Sure, but the key is practice. They can start monitoring smaller areas along some patrol routes and build a pattern of actions that are characteristic of IED planting.

Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Building a definition of "normal" so that you can define suspicious, whether it is for algorithms or human analysts.

But we should not forget the enemy adapts too. If we notice that the guy sitting under the palm tree is always the one who is the spotter for the IED detonation, they'll move him into a building, or a car that trails 200m behind the vehicles. It's like evolution on speed.

Posted by: Jeff_S June 29, 2006 07:19 pm

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 29 2006, 01:17 PM)

And because we have so few, they are controlled only at the highest level, or are "dumped" on a lower tactical unit with little or no warning, so that the intel developed is usually no good.

Supposedly the Future Combat Systems program changes this. The simulator/game they are distributing has UAVs down to the platoon level. At each higher echelon they get more and more capable (weapons, greater endurance, better sensors and so on).

Of course, building a game or writing some concept studies is one thing, actually fielding units with these is another. And the Pilot's Union remains strong. Why can't they focus their energies on robot soldiers to replace human infantry, rather than on blocking greater use of UAVs?

Posted by: Imperialist July 14, 2006 10:06 pm

IDF confirms warship hit by explosive-laden UAV

A Hizbullah strike on an IDF warship off the Lebanese coast damaged the ship severely, The IDF confirmed to The Jerusalem Post late Friday.

According to security officials, the ship was struck by an unmanned aerial vehicle packed with explosives, a new tactic for Hizbullah.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994586&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: Imperialist July 14, 2006 10:34 pm

Or maybe not?

What rocket could that be?

Posted by: Florin July 15, 2006 04:29 am

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 28 2006, 06:15 AM)

QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jun 27 2006, 09:46 PM)

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 27 2006, 02:22 PM)

I've heard of this too. What's the limiting factor on the loiter time? Some hardware failure?

You don't need to build them lighter than air, to worry about the spillage of helium or hydrogen. Heavier than air planes, with photovoltaic cells and electric motors, were already built (at least one type, I don't know in how many pieces). This plane is flying above clouds, at very high altitude, for many months, and I am just wondering how it keeps flying over night. I guess it does not carry rechargeable batteries (they are heavy even with the most efficient and expensive versions, i.e. nothing is better than 150W / kg; some may offer 600W / kg, but these are not rechargeable). I guess the plane keeps flying over night because at very high altitude you always have some light, due to the curvature of Earth. It is said that on the very high mountain peaks you can see the dawn and the twilight/sunset in the same time.

Now, considering something else in what do I quote: The photocells can work continuosuly for more than 20 years, so they will not be the first thing to fail.
That would be the bearings of the motors. The electric motors used are asynchronous with squirrel cage rotor, or synchronous with permanent magnets in rotor, and for these types the only mechanical contact is in the bearings, which may be roll bearings, or of sliding type. To end, a good designed motor can last few years, even if it is used round the clock. In a documentary they said that type of plane had the bearings worn after few months, but that means they simply did not design the bearings better. Maybe they bought existing electric motors to fit in the project, instead of designing a special motor for it.

Posted by: Florin July 15, 2006 04:39 am

QUOTE (120mm @ Jun 25 2006, 09:12 AM)

..........
And while we are on the subject of UCAV, why not UCGV? (Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicles).

The problem with all this is in defining capability: In a low cost UCAV or UCGV, it is perfectly fine to use lesser capable systems in firepower/protection/mobility/C4I as long as they can be made to fit within an overall combat system, because you no longer have the concerns about crew protection + the vehicles are relatively cheap.
....................

Oh, but they were around for so much time...
Did you know that the first "Goliath" mini-vehicles were used in combat in July 1943, during the battle of Kursk? And the Germans used another type of mini-vehicle in the same battle, but I forgot its name.

Posted by: 120mm July 16, 2006 11:45 pm

Reply to two posts: The bearing issue is not so far away from being solved. IBM has made some materials that are self-repairing, using nano-technology. Bearing and gear wear are two of the issues they are going after, and it looks promising.

On the longevity of UAVs, the capability has been there since the 1930s. Starting during the industrial revolution, though, decision-makers' as well as popular opinion has prevented mechanization and automation due to an unreasoning fear of "machine replacing man".

It seems the pilots "like" to fly their expensive toys.