Asymmetric Warfare, articles, ideas and more

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 29, 2006 04:44 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.

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.

This post has been edited by Jeff_S on June 29, 2006 07:14 pm

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?

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...icle%2FShowFull

Or maybe not?



What rocket could that be?

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 15, 2006 10:48 pm

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.

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.