Re: [GZG] Monster ships

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lCharles,

One thing to keep in mind in your discussions with Oerjan:, he works in
the
weapons development field. He knoweth very well what he speaketh. He was
also our number one front line man in working up mass/cost points in the
FB
material when it was being developed, so his numbers will usually be
spot
on.

:-)

Mk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Charles Lee <xarcht@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I wish I could meet you in person. I'ld shake your hand. A calm and
logical
> debater. We may not agree but I think both are lookin at the others
evidence
> and thinkin.
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 1/13/10, Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se>*
wrote:
>
>
> From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se>
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Monster ships
> To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 5:36 PM
>
>
> Charles Lee wrote:
>
> > Thank you for responding with logig and fact. The fact that so much
has
> come to lead this time is evidence that missles and guided munitions
are
> powerful.
>
> Of course they are. If they weren't, no-one would bother buying them.
>
> > But think of the fact it took over two or three decades to come
closer.
>
> Except that it didn't. What took most of those two or three decades
was for
> the (western) defence politicians to decide that the threat was
serious
> enough to spend the money to develop a specific counter-technology.
Once the
> money was granted, actually developing the counter-tech has usually
taken
> around *one* decade, or less - and that's in peacetime. War tends to
speed
> things up considerably. Also, Soviet/Russian and Israeli defence
politicians
> have historically been *way* quicker to open their purses for defence
tech
> developments - though their purses aren't as big as the western ones,
and
> many of their achievements haven't been widely published in the west
until
> recently.
>
> In the ATGM case, the first major use of ATGMs in combat was the Yom
Kippur
> war in 1973. The Soviets used their first tank-mounted PD system in
combat
> no later than 1982 (may have been earlier), and the Israelis fielded
> reactive armour in Lebanon in 1982. (Note that this was *combat* use,
> indicating that the respective counter-systems had finished
development
> earlier than this.) The bigger western powers didn't really appreciate
the
> ATGM/LAW threat (or rather, thought that their ECM systems and passive
> armours were sufficient to deal with it) until their own troops
started
> running into insurgents equipped with half-decent AT weapons - mostly
in the
> wake of 9/11, which was less than ten years ago... and the western
hard-kill
> PD systems are coming online now.
>
> For ships, the first ASMs were deployed during WW2 - but being
> radio-controlled, they were countered by dedicated ECM systems within
a
> year. (Like I noted above, war does wonders for defence tech
development
> :-/) The first reasonably autonomous ASM used in combat was the Styx
> (sinking of the Eilat, 1967). At most six years later the Israelis
already
> had effective ECM systems in place to counter it (used in the battle
of
> Latakia, 1973), and the USN deployed their first Phalanx gun-based PD
system
> in 1978.
>
> > Missle designers aren't sittin on their laurals.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Offence is easier to design and build than defence. This fact is
ferever
> been proven. A sdad fact of man's mind.
>
> Not true at all. Defence only lags behind because it is pointless (or
at
> least considered so by the politicians) to develop a defence against a
> non-existant threat. Once a threat is taken seriously enough by the
people
> who control the money however, it rarely takes long until a defence
tech
> against it has been developed. (Getting that tech into the field can
take
> longer, particularly if there's no ongoing war at the time.) Once the
new
> defence tech is in place, we on the offence side have to work our
butts off
> to either come up with some way of outsmarting this new defence tech
or come
> up with a completely different threat that requires a completely
different
> defensive counter-tech. Merely outsmarting the new defence tends to be
> fairly easy for the defence tech to counter with minor adjustments of
their
> own; coming up with a completely new threat is *very* difficult, and
even
> when we succeed we can only expect to keep the upper hand for a decade
or so
> if we're lucky.
>
> To return to the tank-vs-ATGM example, it is surprisingly easy to
design
> and build something that detects an incoming missile and throws a
cloud of
> shrapnel into its path - the Soviets did that in the late '70s - but
it is
> difficult as hell to build a missile capable of avoiding or surviving
such a
> cloud of shrapnel. OK, if you know exactly how the specific enemy
defence
> system you're up against works you can exploit its particular
weaknesses;
> eg. the Hellfire and Javelin both dive onto their targets exploiting
that
> the current Russian PD systems cover the horizon but can't fire
straight
> up... but all the newer tank PD systems under development today
(including
> the next-generation Russian ones) *can* fire straight up, removing
that
> particular vulnerability. And so on.
>
> So no, I very emphatically disagree with your notion that it is easier
to
> develop better weapons that it is to develop defenses that counter
them :-/
>
> Regards,
>
> Oerjan
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
>
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?t
o=Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>