Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WillyPete
Phage, you're right. Area denial munitions like that are the key.
But.
Those systems aren't ready and are not cheap.
How secure are they? Can the enemy also block the signal when your tanks are rushing across and re-arm them? Can they turn them off or locate them when they decide to advance?
Can they see them with other equipment and then destroy them?
|
Not ready eh? Well, take a look at this:
http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/SHM/index.html
In the spring of 2003 they report: "Planned Completion of Phase II - Enhanced subsystem performance and 50-plus prototype minefield operational testing and demonstration. System technology transition to the U.S. Army."
As for your concerns about their effectiveness the U.S. military has probably the most experience in creating and maintaining secure networks in times of conflict. Penetrating/signal blocking/turning them off by remote are all going to be exceedingly difficult to impossible for even the most technologically advanced countries much less those who use goats for transportation. Even if their presumably variable and disguised transmissions are detected and jammed they can still become a traditional mine field until communication is regained. Even if they can be detected, clearing mine fields without communications disruption could get pretty nasty as they could detect an area being disarmed and say, tell one of the other mines nearby to jump to that location and detonate 20 feet above the location of the last mine disarmed.
Metal storm is an interesting concept but in my view is not an alternative to a mine field. There are too many obvious points of failure:
1) Mine fields are designed as a defense that does not require personnel manning a station to be effective. The metal storm system has a human element, which flies directly in the face of this core concept.
2) Remote detection of intruders can be a problem; a mine might have little trouble detecting being run over or tampered with, while I predict huge problems with metal storm monitoring a large area with little to no preparation.
3) Mine fields are a distributed design by default; disabling one mine still leaves the rest of the field to deal with. Metal storm offers a few vulnerable points in the form of the launchers which if destroyed will KO the entire field.
4) There are too many points of total failure in the design; if they disable the remote detection, the whole field is cleared. If they destroy the launcher, the field is cleared. If they remove the personnel manning the console, the field is cleared.
This is not to say that the technology does not have a use, just that it is not in my view a substitute to the good old-fashioned mine field concept.