Missile Defense Strategies, Hit to Kill Ratios, and UAV Survivability

First I would like to make a statement:

"Governments Number One Job is to Protect the People"

So then here are some thoughts on Missile Defense Strategies and Hit to Kill ratios and UAV Survivability. Think of these ideas as a topic opener comment and thought.

Let's discuss using old technology and flight characteristics of antiquated flying objects and birds and insects to make it difficult to hit in the case of an offense rebuttal and reciprocal response to an ICBM being launched against us. I believe that an object which flies randomly during flight like a butterfly may be harder to hit, shoot down or catch. This is significant for UAV survivability and understanding how to shoot down older technology in SAMs, older ICBM, SCUD missiles and other onerous weapons and even the now ancient V-1 and V-2 rockets.

Knowing these characteristics and knowing our capabilities will also help us achieve higher kill ratios in missile defense systems to protect the American People and our allies if not the entire free world eventually. Missile Defense strategies and hit to kill ratios increased by use of science;

[http://www.winbmdo.com/scripts/sbir/abstra...=02&firm_id=111]

Therefore the best weapon would have a random vertical fin with it’s own algorithm that would osolate and not allow an adequate fix on itself by the seek and destroy air to air kill projectile. This is a problem with a primitive V-1 or V-2 type rocket or the later SCUD missiles, the old technology will wobble in flight and therefore is un predictable and will be harder to hit. We must develop offensive weapons which seek random characteristics and provide innate tendencies of unpredictability and therefore you have a weapon that cannot be hit as easy. For instance a direct hit would be less probable. With wobbling flight characteristics. Just like a stinger or patriot surface to air hand held or from small launch vehicle will be unable to hit it directly.

Defensive weapons, which only have to be close, like in hand grenades or horseshoes can attain adequate shoot and kill ratios and score direct hits with far superior accuracy. Defense weapons only need to explode in front of such a random flying target with a scattered group of projectiles, which explode on impact. Nano technology can do this similar to the flying mechanical insects with explosives we can now put at the end of a runway and they get caught in the jet intakes of the enemy on take off. Also such technology can be added to unmanned submarines and surveillance aircraft to make them harder to hit as a target. After all have you ever tried to get away from an alligator? Do you know why bunnies run zigzag? Why squirrels have start and stop patterns? Why the free safety cannot catch a running back? Think about it.

Change the flight characteristics and patterns to algorithms, which change like they do in security network software. A saying we had in soccer, when asked by the other team what our play was. We do not know exactly but the final touch of the ball will be towards the open goal line and it only purpose is to score. And this is why we never lost a game, only sometimes we ran out of time. Think about it, who cares how long it takes to get to the target, as long as the target is destroyed? (Offensive mission statement and scenario).

Defensive mission statement; allow for any type of projectile, with any type of flight characteristic. Surround the target or it's path. Multiple missiles can disperse projectiles in any direction to kill the target, no matter which way it goes such as a helicopter, flying saucer, or in the case of a unmanned fighting machine seeking out a fleeing terrorist on foot. Projectiles make all possible paths obsolete, you win by default. The enemy is cornered and must surrender or risk incineration if he moves. Or in the arena of a fair war, if the enemy retreats he is free to go, and thus the will to fight has been accomplished and so is the need for human conflict as per Von Clauzewitz memos.

We must remember that stealth is good for offense and surprise, but also inexpensive technologies and older technologies often make it easier for opponents to use when your sophistication is far advanced. A properly thrown stone could cause a jet engine to bend or break a fan jet engine causing it to come apart and crash. The stone is free; the jet aircraft was 30 million dollars and if the pilot does not eject in time that is another 500K in training lost, not to mention the loss of life. A UAV which flies like a butterfly, bird or bat has a better survivability ratio and an ICBM which has a bent fin on it has a better chance of not getting a direct hit from a missile defense system, which need four satellites in perfect synchronicity to pin-point, track, intercept and kill, due to GPS issues with Earth Wobble and electromagnetic interference and gravity components of various areas.

So there are many other important factors such as pre-release ball bearings, liquid metal or shotgun type munitions in the predicted path of said incoming object. The problem being is that the prediction is necessary and must be accurate to make the kill. This is bad if you are on the receiving end of a weapon, good if you are on the offensive play.

Either way the true trajectory of an object may be the simply answer to survivability, which is a cheaper solution to stealth technologies and other radio jamming devices which require lots of power. Even shooting down an object with an E-5 Airborne Laser unit is difficult if you cannot track the target exactly. The smaller the target the harder and the more power needed to approximate vicinity since you cannot be sure exactly where it is.

The best strategy maybe to simply have an unpredictable flight path, the more unpredictable the better. However even the most advanced methods of such can be over come by huge numbers and grid pattern fire power and algorithms predicting future flight path. A super computer on a grid could calculate by pinpointing previous osolations and flight path to predict the areas, which are most likely to correspond to future paths. So you can win the game by massive calculations and speed of fire and zone defense. Such as, if you know someone is within a football field so you use a C-130 gun ship and you simply eliminate anything showing up in that grid. You could even shoot down a funny shaped spinning meteorite, which has already hit the Earths atmosphere, a UFO (pretend I did not say that, since I am very pro-higher intelligent species, the human race is still questionable? Judging by the Jerry Springer Show and Darwin Awards and Los Angeles Freeways) or a SCUD missile, which has a bent tail. Or a UAV of an enemy which is bouncing up and down by wind currents as it flies over mountains, roads, rivers and canyons where low and high pressure and heat and cool air rise and fall.

An autonomous UAV flying and bouncing along would be hard to hit, but far from impossible to hit. May as well understand these ideas in order to further you defensive kill ratios or improve you survivability for maximum advantage for mission completion and/or recovery for another round.

Today we are now even seeing the emergence of space as another territory to control and or defend. Even the original grid satellite project Iridium used a perfect grid to allow data and messaging throughout the world. Bush’s Missile defense system breaks the grid in to three dimensions and each grid is defended by satellite, geo points and triangulation to down an incoming ICBM missile. We have coverage on air, land, and sea and now space. We do not only control the air we control all that is above the Earth. Someday we will be able to shoot down or even deflect meteors or comets.

As things change in the atmospheric battle space it might be Another reason why it is not such a bad idea to send unmanned fighter planes into a battle zone to fight and why it is necessary to have a missile defense system set up at our perimeters.

Rapidily advancing algorhthymic flight characteristics will make hit to kill ratios nearly impossible for defeating incoming nuclear ICBMs. Are we really safe?



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/23083