|
There will be five global sattalite navigation systems online by 2023. Turning off gps might not be good enough by then.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Even small failure rates amplify the amount of weapons you need. If spot x absolutely need to be destroyed or disabled how many do you fire? 2 weapons with. 95% success rate doesn't actually mean 100% hit. It REALLY doesn't with 80%. So now every Target needs more missiles targeted. Now you need more launchers. Now maybe your cheap missile requires you to purchase more ships which are probably a billion+ a pop if you are the US. There are other circumstances you can just chuck a pile of middling missiles but definitely not just pay 1/4 the price and fire twice as many.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Plus if we’re taking peer conflicts you have to ask what the value of the poo poo you’re hitting with the low end of your high/low mix is and how it furthers your goal. The V weapons are a best case scenario for using those kinds of platforms and even there they just didn’t matter. London getting blown up a bit sucks for londoners and looks bad for the government but it changes gently caress all as far as the war goes. Now, if they had effective guidance and could reliably target specific infrastructure poo poo starts changing. V2s taking out key deep water ports in August 1944 becomes a real headache. It’s worth noting that the Germans tried exactly that with Antwerp and it just didn’t work because the tech wasn’t there. Even at the time they realized that the v-weapon campaign wasn’t effective and were trying to make it actually contribute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:i for one can't understand why the us military does not field the v-1 buzz bomb which has a cep the size of london and instead spends millions of dollars on a cruise missile that can navigate without GPS, operate in a hostile EW environment and be stored for lentghy amounts of time in extreme temperatures and harsh conditions and still work We did. In the 40s. We had a few versions of the V1 post war. Direct copies. I think even a naval version. I’ll dig up a photo of one from Udvar Hazy in a moment. Even at the time there was a vague justification involving shore bombardment or early SAC stuff but everyone knew it was more about getting institutional knowledge for the fledgling rocket forces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
We also used a V1 to deliver mail. (Okay fine it was a regulus cruise missile) There's a reason we don't use the v-1 now though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mail
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Here it is:  It’s the Republic JB-2
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
For now a swarm type attack would likely end up being a prop-driven aircraft, rather than a cruise missile. They're smaller, can have a comparatively tiny storage or launch platform profile using deployable wings, cheaper, and if your goal is to scare SAMs or hit soft targets such as radars, infrastructure, missile systems, etc, then you do not need a hundreds+ pound payload that comes with a cruise missile. A high dud rate would still be highly undesirable, but a high intercept rate still wouldn't be much of an issue if cost is manageable, they have legs on them, and they're accurate enough to threaten soft targets rather than blowing up a tiny warhead 50 feet away from the radar. Here's some video allegedly showing Saudi F-15s intercepting Qasef drones from Yemen, as well as some other drones. It's an expensive way to solve a problem, to be sure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNpr24uLr-g Video alleging to be Houthis testing out warhead upgrades on a Qasef: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h8xkAapCpo Video of Houthi drone attack on Yemen government event. (Warning: Blood in video, no gore, people died in this attack) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_ynRdprWWA And here's a video of a Harop test showing off EO/IR guidance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V9mbC-Esmg Harop used operationally to hit a bus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRFB44l3Os Even for drones and the like that have no stealthy component to them aside from size, the tyranny of always having to be prepared for some dickhead to fly in from a wide variety of azimuths, or potentially from 360 degrees if you're really unlucky, is a pain in the rear end. And there are a lot of considerations that go into "just turn off GPS," not the least of which is that even a cheapo thing can just use GLONASS or BDS or Galileo depending on where the fight's on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Cheap-ish cruise missiles swarms are being developed. Lockheed has a program; there may be others. The idea is to make them capable enough to kill what they hit, and capable enough to hit when supported externally - they don't have to do everything themselves. Launch them from a LO platform, spam a bunch of EW, take advantage of the fact that even modern air defense has to work pretty hard against massed attack, and you're in business. This isn't amateur hour though. Cheap means you're probably looking at seven figures instead of eight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Flying at treetop level in an EM contested environment without hitting anything for a thousand miles is the expensive part. RandomPauI posted:There will be five global sattalite navigation systems online by 2023. Turning off gps might not be good enough by then. Anyone interested in electronics can jam GPS, GLONASS, etc. for a small city with about $500-1000 in parts per frequency band. Less if they can position it somewhere high or the city is surrounded by a mountain. The signals from space are really, REALLY small and the price of building prototype RF electronics has fallen to nearly nothing, especially below 2GHz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Anyone interested in electronics can jam GPS, GLONASS, etc. for a small city with about $500-1000 in parts per frequency band. Less if they can position it somewhere high or the city is surrounded by a mountain. The signals from space are really, REALLY small and the price of building prototype RF electronics has fallen to nearly nothing, especially below 2GHz. Right, so what does that do for you if the threat is that some adversary launches a GPS-using one-way drone at your major metro area maybe once every 2-6 weeks? gently caress GPS forever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
2-6 weeks? Probably. If a bomb was going off in NYC every two weeks we would see some drastic poo poo. The real question is what you do when it’s a different metro area every two years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
No way. The cost of some bodies or fixing infrastructure regularly would be far less than the cost of halting GPS usage in a major city. If it were daily, maaaaaybe, and even then I bet very temporarily until other systems could be rapidly fielded or deployed to defend the city. There's just way too much money tied up in GPS and commerce for it to get turned off that easily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
. opsec
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
It gets even trickier for countries without the US's capabilities and wealth. For other countries, not necessarily an option to rapidly field gee whiz tech, so it would really take some cold-hearted but necessary calculus to decide if jamming up nav systems was worth whatever damage was arising from one-way drones or cruise missiles. Existential threat? Sure, jam it up. Remotely located power plant? Yeah. City center with a cuple million people that's seeing maybe 5-10 people killed per month? Ehhhhhh, navigation is pretty important for commerce and travel and healthcare and policing and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
More cynically, if you're firing a thousand GPS guided weapons at legitimate military targets in major metro areas, that makes it a hard call to turn off GPS and have them back up to whatever crappy inertial nav or dead reckoning they have and potentially land among civilians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:There will be five global sattalite navigation systems online by 2023. Turning off gps might not be good enough by then. GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, Beidou and what's the fifth one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, Beidou and what's the fifth one? Navic, probably. India wants to turn its regional satellite navigation system into a global one eventually. Though 2023 seems optimistic for that. Also the UK wants its own since Brexit will boot them out of Galileo. Dunno how likely it is to actually happen, wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Video alleging to be Houthis testing out warhead upgrades on a Qasef: This is a credible threat against soft infrastructure. If these things can fly 500-600km and pick an individual target and hit it with this style warhead, then soft stuff like refineries and electrical substations now need actual air defense of some sort. Even a couple of metalstorm-style disposable point-defense turrets capable of autonomously defending from a half-dozen threats would go a long, long way to protecting against these "drone strikes."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Japan will have its system up and running by 2023, Quasi-Zennith. QZSS just supplements GPS for now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
The military takes the idea of developing drone swarm tech for advanced reconnaissance and hunter-killer role very seriously. They put a lot of effort of it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CGAk5gRD-t0
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It’s worth noting that the Germans tried exactly that with Antwerp and it just didn’t work because the tech wasn’t there. Even at the time they realized that the v-weapon campaign wasn’t effective and were trying to make it actually contribute. Yeah, the V-2's only method of guidance was timing the engine cutoff. The Germans did try aiming at specific targets (that bridge over the Rhine comes to mind as a precision target they shot at), but it's not something the existing missile could do. The timing cutoff had two methods: a ground-based signal controlled by doppler radar, and an accelerometer. In desperation the Nazis tried to deploy a new method to improve the timing, a series of bunkers and radars that they built in the Netherlands, but I'm pretty sure once they were finished they had to be abandoned, so the entire system was never used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:The military takes the idea of developing drone swarm tech for advanced reconnaissance and hunter-killer role very seriously. They put a lot of effort of it. Yeah, not the first time that's been posted, but who can ever forget that loving NOISE. They don't even need to *do* anything except fly around and make it impossible to sleep or concentrate on anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, not the first time that's been posted, but who can ever forget that loving NOISE. Wonder if they can make them ramp up/down their engines in unison and belt out some Mussorgsky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
They did it with dot matrix printers, shouldn't be too hard with three additional motors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Wonder if they can make them ramp up/down their engines in unison and belt out some Mussorgsky. They did that at the last Superbowl with their drone show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:An 80 percent dud rate is fine for a spammable cruise missile. It just needs to be dangerous enough that you can't ignore it. No. Rent-A-Cop posted:Because a cruise missile that's cheap is one that's flying high, slow, and high-observable, and that's a target for AAA from the 1950s. ... This is a better way of saying what I was going to say. Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Would the drone swarm logically be the eventual next generation SEAD/DEAD method since SAM ranges are outranging ARMs more and more? Or do the lil drones themselves have poor range? I can't imagine their battery can last that long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No. We've already covered why you can't just shut off GPS, and it's not *that* hard to back things up to dead reckoning/INS given a known initial launch point. Your cell phone contains all of the necessary sensors, although some of them are a bit dodgy. The purpose of such a missile is to force the enemy to have air defenses, not to get through them, and perhaps to make it easier for other less lovely weapons to get through them (by forcing dispersion and depletion of ammunition). To that end, it only needs to be sufficiently dangerous as to warrant bothering to defeat it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
AA are pretty great against drones in general because their relative low upkeep and cheap upfront cost, but their is a big asterisk in there that gets over looked a lot and that is that their coverage is poo poo, especially against low flying targets. And then he best and easiest way to countering AA coverage is with hard intelligence and pre-baking flight paths to go around AA threats rather having the drone assess the same situation dynamically:.. E: Pardon my lack of prooofreading, I’m bit drunk from the Texan game. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Alternatively if you just have a zillion drones, cruise missiles, whatever you want to call them because they're cheap fiberglass tubes with a go kart engine, you can just throw a few at every conceivable soft target and inevitably get something that isn't defended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Navic, probably. India wants to turn its regional satellite navigation system into a global one eventually. Though 2023 seems optimistic for that. What is the advantage of being “in” Galileo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What is the advantage of being “in” Galileo? Access to the encrypted channel, which, aside from the obvious spoofing resistance, also gives higher-precision positioning and better jam resistance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Went to an air show in the springs today. Air shows are always rad, and the F22 is just incredible to see in person.                       
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Just have to say - thanks for posting the pictures of the airshow! I really wanted to go but was too sick today. The F-22 looks awesome!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
it’s still nuts to me that a modern fighter is more or less the same size as ww2 bombers
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:it’s still nuts to me that a modern fighter is more or less the same size as ww2 bombers Carries more payload too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:We've already covered why you can't just shut off GPS, and it's not *that* hard to back things up to dead reckoning/INS given a known initial launch point. Your cell phone contains all of the necessary sensors, although some of them are a bit dodgy. The purpose of such a missile is to force the enemy to have air defenses, not to get through them, and perhaps to make it easier for other less lovely weapons to get through them (by forcing dispersion and depletion of ammunition). To that end, it only needs to be sufficiently dangerous as to warrant bothering to defeat it. Saturation is certainly a tactic that has its place, but your fiberglass tube with a lawnmower engine has to appear (to whatever sensors the enemy uses) to be a viable threat. Which means they either need to believe that your Military Special drone is either a legitimate threat on its own (which is unlikely for most targets, given the cost constraints we're working with) or it has to look like something that IS a viable threat. So like...flying a cruise missile profile. Which makes it expensive again. Using something like this as a terror weapon makes more sense than a conventional strike weapon. You're just not going to get the performance you need without it costing as much as they actually cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Saturation is certainly a tactic that has its place, but your fiberglass tube with a lawnmower engine has to appear (to whatever sensors the enemy uses) to be a viable threat. Which means they either need to believe that your Military Special drone is either a legitimate threat on its own (which is unlikely for most targets, given the cost constraints we're working with) or it has to look like something that IS a viable threat. So like...flying a cruise missile profile. Which makes it expensive again. Using something like this as a terror weapon makes more sense than a conventional strike weapon. You're just not going to get the performance you need without it costing as much as they actually cost. Unless my fiberglass tube drones fly to a position on earth and then detonate a frag warhead and shred your radars/missiles/oil refinery
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Unless my fiberglass tube drones fly to a position on earth and then detonate a frag warhead and shred your radars/missiles/oil refinery As a general rule, if something seems easy but nobody does it, it's not actually easy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Unless my fiberglass tube drones fly to a position on earth and then detonate a frag warhead and shred your radars/missiles/oil refinery An oil refinery is a pretty loving soft target that's much easier to hit than a radar. You're extremely unlikely to dead reckon your way into a solitary dish, vs a multi-acre refinery that's loaded with combustibles. WWII proved that this is not easy, and that was WITH the benefit of dudes looking for landmarks and targets on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 03:50
|
|