| Author |
Topic:
The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/15 9:45pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
4/15 9:47pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
Early this week, the USAF announced that around the end of July, it will release a new doctrine for cyber-warfare.
The doctrine is thought to be the first comprehensive plan for such operations, and for another first, will include offensive use of cyberspace. The doctrine focuses on how cyber-warfare can supplement, and in some cases, replace actual "kinetic" weapons and operations.
Some of the capabilities sound like they stepped right out of a scifi movie, like using cyberspace to shut off the power grid for a city instead of invading, or flooding a target area's radar grid with false images... I wonder what Matthew Boderick and Joshua are doing these days?
Even the overall commander has a cool name:
Major General William Lord, Air Force Cyber Command.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
4/16 8:59am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Those sound like pretty cool ideas. IIRC, the Navy has had a version of the Tomahawk for awhile now that's supposed to be loaded with carbon-fiber "chaff" to short out power grids. This is obviously way beyond that, though.
I wonder when we'll see our first Venator-class attack cruiser. 
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
4/16 11:48am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Mr44 posted:
Some of the capabilities sound like they stepped right out of a scifi movie, like using cyberspace to shut off the power grid for a city instead of invading, or flooding a target area's radar grid with false images...
I remember hearing about the R&D going into "e-bombs" just before the Iraq invasion: missiles with warheads that create EMPs or somesuch that would blow out electrical grids & fry electronics. But the way I heard it was that some of these warheads were already field-tested in Baghdad or some other cities in the first days of the attack. Anybody know if this was the case?
But there's still a downside: eliminating local control of power grids or LAN systems might cause the local population to panic and would create a refugee crisis. I can see this tactic facing future accusations of being a war crime--the deliberate causing of refugee/humanitarian crises to weaken a state's government and/or military functionality. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/16 12:21pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
But there's still a downside: eliminating local control of power grids or LAN systems might cause the local population to panic and would create a refugee crisis. I can see this tactic facing future accusations of being a war crime--the deliberate causing of refugee/humanitarian crises to weaken a state's government and/or military functionality. What do you guys think?
The full doctrine will be released in a couple of months, but I can't think this would be any bigger issue than what is already allowed during war. If a massive artillery barrage or bombing run has the same effect but with more physical damage, then this would be a vacation. Especially if the military blanketed the area with fliers beforehand:
"Lay down your weapons and cease hostilities or we'll turn your power off."
The offensive action wouldn't be turning off power on its own, beyond the psychological effect, but rather, it would make it easier for an army equipped with night vision technology and such to operate.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
4/16 5:43pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Mr44 posted:
If a massive artillery barrage or bombing run has the same effect but with more physical damage, then this would be a vacation. Especially if the military blanketed the area with fliers beforehand:
"Lay down your weapons and cease hostilities or we'll turn your power off."
Hmm...
There are no American leaflets in Baghdad! They are American lies!! There are no American leaflets in Baghdad...
There is no power outage in Baghdad. The leaflets are American lies!! Where is the TV camera?? There is no power outage in Baghdad...
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/19 9:58pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
This week, there are 2 more military energy use stories that are being reported by Jane's.
1)The British company Cubewano has just about finalized a new lightweight engine designed for use in UAVs and other small-bodied machines that runs on heavy fuel oil. Heavy fuel oil, which is also called residual fuel, is the product that remains after gasoline and other common fuels are distilled from crude oil. While not more energy efficient than a standard motor of the same type, it runs on a product that is largely overlooked.
And in news that may be slightly more interesting from a technological standpoint:
2)Boeing released the details of the first successful flight of a manned 2 seat aircraft that was powered by hydrogen fuel cells. The fuel cell powered aircraft completed 3 missions from a US base in Spain.
I know one of the "big deals" about hydrogen fuel cell technology is that since hydrogen is nearly limitless in the environment, the fuel cell can operate continuously. But someone else who knows more about the technology will have to fill in the details.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
4/29 7:55pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
A nice article on the new Air Force tanker decision. Boeing's outrage over this is pretty remarkable.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/29 8:06pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Well, both sides have pretty strong arguments.
The EADS tanker performs better in just about every category, but Boeing has a good point in that it designed its offering to remain compatible with the existing infrastructure, which is why it's plane was smaller and had less performance.
That's what sticks out for me- that the price assessment left out the cost to upgrade the infrastructure required for the new jet. The EADS tanker doesn't fit in most of the hangars, can't use a majority of the runways, and will require an increased investment in spare parts, etc..
Both have good points, but I would like to see the total cost that is needed to upgrade the infrastructure that the new plane would need, to be able to see how competitive it actually is.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 9:01pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Well, last week the United States launched it's second littoral combat ship.
Pretty sweet looking, if overpriced. Does raise the question of whether the Navy should focus on blue water or coastal warfare capabilities. But since we've got more tonnage of ships than the next 17 navies combined, including allies, I think we can focus on littoral combat now.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
5/7 2:57pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Littoral is obviously the way to go. With the Russian Navy mostly a rusted hulk, and um..nobody..at all...even close to us for blue-water, there's no trouble with building ships designed to fight & win close to shore, which is a much more potentially dangerous zone than blue-water could ever be.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/7 3:10pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
And I believe that the Navy is developing a new gun specifically for shore support, (The "high altitude/high arc cannon, or similar title) and another 35mm gun that is specifically designed to counter small fast attack craft or fast surface skimming missiles. The AHEAD gun looks to be a further development of the 20mm gatling system. It fires 1,000 rounds a minute, and each projectile releases 152 smaller submunitions out in a cone pattern.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/8 2:04am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Speaking of naval warfare, has anyone read about this?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
5/8 3:18pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Training, the article fails to point out, is always worst-cased. For example, when my company went to JRTC in early 2005, we were down to 13 dudes left "alive" out of 130 by day four.
Does that sort of thing happen over here-obviously not.
And when are people gonna stop beating the dead China horse? I'm getting pretty sick of seeing it.
And frankly, you're not sinking an aircraft carrier for real unless you have a speedboat with a nuke aboard. Their tonnage is too high; you can damage one to the point where it can't conduct flight operations, (which obviously would make it pretty worthless) but trying to sink one with conventional weapons is something the Russians maybe could have done, on an exceedingly good day. Speedboats? Uh, no.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/10 10:55am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Mmm yeah, but wasn't U.S. naval doctrine in the Cold War centered around preventing SSBN's from getting into range of inland targets? If that's the case the carriers don't have to go anywhere near land and they'd still be useful for maintaining naval superiority over large swaths of ocean.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Title: Modly McHume:
the Senate
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/10 2:37pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Yeah, exactly.
There are many things you have to keep in mind here.
First off, the Millennium Challenge was organized to field test new, unproven, littoral technology as the Navy moves away from a deep water bipolar force. Super carriers are designed to operate in a blue water ocean, so the goal was to adapt them for a brown water setting.
Secondly, the Persian Gulf is only 34 or so miles wide, which relates directly to point one above.
Third, The US Navy engineers their ships to be extremely durable, with redundant systems for redundant systems. A "hit" on an aircraft carrier doesn't automatically result in a "kill." Maybe by the 13th or 14th such hit, the carrier might begin to feel it.
We can look to two real world examples of incidents that happened for comparison.
The USS Cole, a much smaller destroyer, was bombed by a suicide boat in 200, and although 17 sailors were killed because the bomb blast lined up with the galley during lunchtime, the Cole's keel wasn't even damaged. Had the Cole been on alert, or general quarters, the blast wouldn't even have taken them out of the fight.
Even the Stark, which was a simple missile frigate, was hit by 2 Iraqi Exocet surface skimming missiles back in 1987. It too, wasn't on alert, and it's missile defense systems were on "stand down" mode so it bore the full brunt of the attack. The Stark motored back to a port in Bahrain, and then returned to Florida where it was repaired and upgraded.
But more importantly, Boba is completely correct. Military maneuvers are designed to test specific aspects of operations. Flaws are then discussed and corrected. What Van Riper failed to realize is that the goal wasn't to win or loose, but to test the technology.
Since the US is the current big boy on the block, there's a sense of turning everything into a Davy vs Goliath match, and the exercises aren't looked at as they are supposed to.
-----signature-----
Some People Spend an Entire Lifetime Wondering if They Made a Difference
..............................................................
Senate Mods Don't Have that Problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
