_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lUAVs and satellites
fulfill different functions. Also, are we talking geosynchronous (spelling)
satellites?
gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu wrote: <snip>
Beth wrote on 03/07/2006 11:24:18 PM:
> G'day,
<snip infinite money question>
> Also on a similar topic. With UAVs now able to stay up so long are
Certainly sounds like a probability for some missions, but I assumed there
were still missions, such as large area, continuous monitoring, that the
satellite was still the way to go.
Does anyone know if this is a debate that's come up? I don't have access to a
lot of literature, but what I do see doesn't mention it.
Also, don't the UAV's need satellites for support, especially for GPS?
Glenn: No Comment on that one except it varies by the UAV I "suppose."
This seems to support my contentions, as well as suggesting the satellites are
necessary to handle the UAV bandwidth requirements:
http://www.northernskyresearch.com/ISR-June2005.pdf
I am now officially over my head.
The_Beast
G'day,
When referring to satellites I was thinking more along the lines of purpose
built ones. With the degree of scientific and existing satellite cover (and
alternatives to GPS going up from a variety of countries, with a lot of
commercial and less military backing) these days, it just seemed that military
satellites seemed less necessary. Then again what do I know?!;)
And yes you're right Doug it could well all just be as simple as a politician
slipping on the totem poll (or the left hand not knowing what the right hand
is doing).
Cheers
Definitely not talking about geosynchronous satellites. Their orbits are much
too high to be effective at surveillance, i.e. sub 2 meter photography.
Well, even if satellites today aren't able to do sub 2 meter photography
from higher orbits, this by no means says that they couldn't do it in a future
where FTL travel is possible. The government obviously never releases their
best satellite photography publicly, but even what they have released (that
probably has seen a significant and deliberate drop in quality from what they
have in hand themselves) is good enough that I personally have no doubt that
reading license plates from orbit is a fairly trivial accomplishment for them
these days.
This begins to remind me of the debate about planetside weapons versus orbital
ones, in which it was posited that in the far future satellites and other low
flying spacecraft wouldn't really be all that safe close to a well protected
planet. Hammer's Slammers posits that just about anything that flies above
ground tends to die in their glorification of super hovertanks. I would tend
to think that it wouldn't be quite that extreme, but it would be an
interesting dynamic.
E
[quoted original message omitted]
> Eric Foley wrote:
> extreme, but it would be an interesting dynamic.
Of course this mainly happens since said super hovertanks are armed with
utterly science fictional "powerguns" that convert each round of ammo into a
dense bolt of copper plasma traveling
[quoted original message omitted]
> john tailby wrote:
Density.
> John Tailby wrote:
> The Slammer universe seems odd if big LOS rule because that leads into
Non-LOS weapons *are* used occasionally - that's one of the reasons why
the
Slammers have Calliope area-defence vehicles to shoot down any incoming
artillery shells before they can do any damage.
> Self guided smart munitions give a big stand off capability without the
> LOS weapons being able to retaliate.
Only if the smart munitions get a chance to attack anything before they're
destroyed by LOS area-defence weapons...
Regards,
Actually the Slammers use computer networked control of the Tri-barrels
on their tanks and cars for anti-artillery defense. Other units use
dedicated Calliopes for anti-air/anti-artillery cover.
Non-LOS weapons are used often by the Slammers - Firecraker rounds (AP
glass fibre shrapnel rounds), Smart AT rounds, incendiaries etc. Such
rounds are used a)usually against lower-tech opponents who don't have
powerguns or b) used in huge numbers that the anti-artillery defenses
can't shoot them down fast enough and are overwhelmed.
In the HS universe, for a powergun equipped army, if you can see it (loosely
speaking) you can kill it. Unless rounds are coming
nap-of-the-earth or at high enough velocity that your detection time is
negligible, anything detectable is dead.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]