henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/19/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: pierson@cimnet.dec.com >Which makes me wonder about a 60mm mortar class round WITH SEEKER TECHNOLOGY. >We talked mortar-vs-AFV last spring. It seemed a little unlikely to me that >a mortar could hit a moving AFV. Seekers could change that... In a similar vein, it recently occurred to me that it might be practical to put a simple, cheap laser homing head in a 70mm aircraft rocket. Doesn't matter if the failure rate is significant, because those rockets are fired in salvos anyway. Could be a practical way of scoring a lot more hits in a first-pass attack with relatively cheap weapons. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
pierson@cimnet.dec.com (10/20/89)
From: pierson@cimnet.dec.com
To look on "the other side" of the "smart weapon" situation, at least in
AT work, how easy is a simple seeker going to be to fool? Could the IR
seekers be decoyed down by a pile of smoldering rags? Can the uWave seekers
be suckered with $1.98 corner reflector?
The radar seekers, at least, could be "taught" to only go after moving targets
(via Doppler), can something similar be done with the IR seekers?
Even with Doppler, it seems to me that a moving decoy could be built quite
cheaply. (remember the the DIVAD and the outhouse fan....)
(this angle is more of an issue for a "remote application" seeker, than one
fired at an identified target, with the seeker simply for terminal guidance.
THAT, however, assumes that some grunt or airplane driver is close enough...).
One aspect of the TV program on antitank that sort of kicked this off (which
hasn't been discussed here, yet) is interesting. There seem to be two
possible modes for delivering these AT weapons:
One envisions a recce aircraft behind our lines providing targeting
info for delivery (via artillery, a/c, whatever) of smart weapons
to points 100(s?) of km behind the "front". Once "in the area"
these weapons would be on their own.
The other mode is to apply these "at the front" or close to it.
The concern expressed with the first mode was that it would have "first strike"
capabilities and be destabilizing. The second lets the enemy get to (or
through "the front". Another aspect was the use of alternative sensor systems
to the a/c. The a/c would have inherent deep look (destabilizing)
capabilities. On alternative, a pre planted fiber optic mesh behind the
expected "front" ("Iron Curtain",), would provide targeting data only after
an assault developed, but would not be "destabilizing".
thanks
dave pierson |The opinions are my own,
Digital Equipment Corporation |The facts as accurate as memory allows.
600 Nickerson Rd
Marlboro, Mass
USA pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com