ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (09/23/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, September 23, 1986 9:05AM
Volume 7, Issue 16
Today's Topics:
RE: TV aboard weapon, using fiber communication
Towards an effective defintion of "autonomous" weapons
SDI
Caspar Weinberger on SDI performance requirements
National Institute for Public Policy
Are Minuteman/MX missiles now targeted especially for LUA?
Article says nukes transported in unescorted ships
Star Wars is an autonomous weapon, by said definition
Percentage of warheads on ICBMs
F-16 Software (forwarded from Risks)
1,000,000 lines of correct code? (forwarded from Risks)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 08:26 CDT
From: Mike Linnig <LINNIG%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: RE: TV aboard weapon, using fiber communication
> From: Rem@IMSSS:
>
> I haven't seen any mention yet on this forum of the TV program a week
> or so about a cheap anti-tank weapon whereby a commercially-available
> video camera is actually on the weapon, which spools out a very long
> light-fiber by which the video image is sent back to the soldier and
> the soldier sends servo commands back to the weapon. The soldier lobs it
> upward from a safe place, then steers it generally back down until he
> can see the terrain, then sights a target and aims the weapon generally
> toward the target, and is it gets closer the aim is refined until at
> the last moment the size of the target blows up to fill the screen and
> the soldier can't maintain tracking but it's moot because now the
> ballistic trajectory is sufficient to hit the target from a few feet away.
Such a weapon has been talked about for three or four years (as an idea
not as a developed product) that I know about. It was called FOGM
(for Fiber Optic Guided Missile). I can't imagine that it is too old since
high bandwidth fiber optic communication needed for TV is relatively high
tech, and new (perhaps ten years worst case).
> It's much cheaper than the "favored" anti-tank weapon (Sgt. York or
> whatever), and allows firing from behind a hill or in a bunker etc.
> where the shooter can't get shot back at by more conventional weapons.
> Apparently NIH (Not Invented Here) caused ten years of supression of
> this wonderful weapon (according to program). ANybody know the truth
> of this matter? Is this a 60-minutes-style Search-for-ET-style media
> hype, or is it a true case of NIH that needs fixing? Assuming weapon
> really does work, what are pros and cons of such a weapon?
One of the pro's is that the guidance computer can be built into the
launcher and not launched with each missile. The missle is thus smaller
and cheaper. You can also put more smart's into the system because the
computer does't have to fly. One concept I heard was having the launcher
based computer do image analysis and guidance. The human 'pilot' would
only have to designate the target to the computer, the computer would then
keep the crosshairs centered.
On the CON's side: range is obviously limited by the amount of wire
available. Of course, range is also limited by propellent, so it may
be that the wire length is not critical.
As far as NIH causing delays in deployment: Ten years isn't a delay,
the thing is still in it's infancy. Normal deployment cycles are
often more than 10 years. One missile system I worked on was 5 years old when
I joined the team, It's now seven years later and production is just
now cranking up (I didn't see the news program talking about NIH).
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 18:43:21 PDT
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu>
Subject: Towards an effective defintion of "autonomous" weapons
There's great difficulty in defining "autonomous weapons" so as to
separate some element that seems intuitively "horrible" about
robot-decided death. But a workable definition is necessary if, as
CPSR tentatively proposes, such