Re: Remote Combat Vehicles (Was: Fighting dictatorships w/ RC)
Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:28:26 EDT

In a message dated 4/25/99 6:39:14 AM PST, writes:

> Now, none of this addresses the electronic and information combat that
> increasingly dominate the actual ground battlefield. With second
> (c. 2010-2020) and then third generation (2020+) RCCVs, control of the
> dataflow to and from RCCVs would become decisive. I trust that
> encryption could protect the data flow from hacking attack,

i could easily imagine the c^3 centers that control all this being targets of the highest value... so i could see something like joint STARS/AWACS being better suited (then ground bases) to the c^3 role if only cuz of mobility. its a lot harder to hijack an AWACS type system then it is to just walk in the front door of a ground base... and enemy takeover of your assets would be the ultimate worstcase, right?

aircraft can be hardened (cept for radios), right? and anyway, if anyone ever gets the hang of optical computing, the need for hardening would go down a lot... speaking of which, whats the current state of optical computing? got any good addys for me to mull?

> but EMP weapons
> might well become extremely important for the defense against RCCVs. One
> imagine cryogenically-supported, superconducting capacitor EMP bombs being
> delivered aerially or with artillery, or even in the form of land mines.
> Internal automation could be hardened against EMP attack through the use
> photonics, but what of radio? Line-of-sight microwave and laser would be
> very important in such a battlefield, perhaps supported by a LEO direct
> network, supplemented by close-support ROV aerial laser nodes.

i was reading somewhere a while ago (yea, i know, no refs; sorry =/ ) about a replacement for chaff (and a lotta other things). it was called metallifog or somethin along those lines. i think it was some aluminium based compound, but it had the charactistic of being almost as light as air... almost. so, it fell veeeerrrrrry slowly...

i guess this stuff was supposed to be spread as a very fine powder/fog over a large area with airburst-type arty (with drastic ecological effects, i suspect =/ ), which would make radar basicly nonfunctional, with the added "benefit" of not allowing anyone in the burst zone to breathe.

the trick was that this stuff was practically impermiable with respect to microwave and optical transmissions. nothing got thru. wouldnt this really fuck with any attempts at large scale RCCV warfare?

> With
> sufficient miniaturization and hardening against acceleration damage,
> perhaps an RCCV force could even be supported by laser-node artillery
> barraged continually over a battlefront, but we're talking FAST switching
> and HIGH network architecture flexibility here . . .

shit. i hesitate to contemplate the complexity involved here. ::contemplates the complexity:: ::KABOOM dripdrip drip drip :: yes, that was my head.

but if were assuming the tech to make laser node arty shells, wouldnt it be safe to assume laser tech capable of swatting any incoming arty shells, node or otherwise? and if that level laser tech exists, all kindsa other interisting varibles enter into this little equation, i think...?

"like a knife fight in a telephone booth"