Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (32831)	6/21/2002 11:31:41 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So it can lock in on the sun but can it lock in on and track an aircraft? Also what's the range. I know you where posting about amateur rockets that can go dozens of miles in to the air but they are not very small and they probably will not work well as anti-aircraft weapons. What is the range of the 5 feet high version? I don't think any of the rockets shown would be effective anti-aircraft weapons, but I get your point that the technology is improving. In the future the technologies involved in making an effective anti-aircraft weapon may be so simple that they would be impossible to control. If that is the case Israel isn't the only country that has to worry. I can imagine Al-Qaida operatives launching a few missiles in to the holding pattern above a major US airport. We might have to have countermeasures installed on jumbo jets... Tim

To: Bilow who wrote (32831)	6/21/2002 3:11:03 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, this reminds me of an old story from the stillborn RMA of the late '70s/ early 80s. Remember the FOG-M? Fiber Optic Guided Missile, it was like a TOW but played out a fiber optic line instead of wire , which gave the launcher a video view from the missile. The original prototype was supposed to have cost $10k/$20k or something, it was built with consumer camcorder components. It seemed to be sort of a skunkworks orphan, it got featured on 60 minutes as a cool thing, but appeared to die a death of a thousand cuts when the mainline military developers took over. Couple refs: Selling Innovation : FOG-M, William McCorkle and the US Army ksgcase.harvard.edu He called the invention the Fiber Optic Guided Missile, or "FOG-M," a remote-controlled anti-tank system that he felt would neutralize Soviet military superiority in Central Europe. Inventing a weapon does not mean it will be built, however. McCorkle's ten-year quest to persuade the Army to buy FOG-M led him through half a dozen agencies, Congress, and ultimately the highest levels of the Pentagon. The not-exactly-stirring conclusion of that story is hinted at in fas.org In 1994 the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (USD(A&T)) proposed an advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) of the fiber-optic guided missile (FOG-M) technology. The Army has made two previous attempts to develop and field a combat system based on the FOG-M technology. Each time the Army has failed, due to a combination of technology, cost, and operational concept problems. It is still unclear which combat arm should operate a fiber-optic guided missile and for what missions. Other concerns include target identification and acquisition, rate of fire, fire control, range, organization, and additional force structure requirements. Previously prepared organization and operational concepts documents have failed to adequately address these issues. Cost has also been a major concern. The last Army effort was terminated when the cost of a single missile exceeded $400,000. This ACTD, unlike previous technology demonstrations, is designed to produce usable hardware even if the concept does not prove worthy of a large follow-on acquisition program. Even so, the cost of residual missiles and fire units will be extremely high (missiles and individual fire units may cost up to $500,000 each), and cost growth from initial projections is an all-too frequent occurrence. I couldn't find any info on the original low cost version. From an odd source, though, I found this interesting bit on one angle of why it had to die: The U.S. Army in fact invented the concept of FOGM. As an exercise in low cost creative thinking it was brilliant. . . . Threat analysis revealed that there was one signficant threat to the AH-64 before 2000, and it's what you mentioned: >>Even attack helicopters would stay clear of areas where EFOG-Ms were reported, since EFOGMs can be used against them.<< We realized that in 1977. And when that datum fell out of analysis, it was the end of FOGM for that generation. General E.C. "Shy" Meyer, then Chief of Staff, crushed the FOGM boomlet personally. Why should we do the Soviet's development for them? It took the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) almost no time to get the blueprints for most of the AH-64 itself. Only way to keep them from getting FOG-M was to not build it, even as an R&;D (Research and Development) project. I was told Meyer had said he would personally end the career of anyone, military or civil service, who spent one more penny or said one more word about FOGM. It was another example of the aluminum strip 'window' radar jamming story from World War II. Discussion, comment and criticism continued in thinking circles outside. But it was impossible for anyone in possession of the facts to educate the well meaning outsiders without educating the non-well meaning Soviets, too. jerrypournelle.com The AH-64 is the Apache helicopter with Hellfire missiles. I can't see anybody trying to match the US military head-to-head in the foreseeable future. If somebody figures out how to mass-produce something like the FOG-M, though, at $10K/$20K a shot, using off the shelf components, it could be a bit of an equalizer.

To: Bilow who wrote (32831)	3/4/2003 8:30:43 PM
From: Elsewhere	Respond to of 281500

On the subject of home made guided rocketry, and the likelihood that the developed world will eventually be faced with them Here's the Tom Ridge response: Model rockets may be grounded msnbc.com New rules from Homeland Security Act unfair, hobbyists say By Jim Banke, SPACE.COM HOUSTON, Feb. 25 — A provision deep within the regulations of the new Homeland Security Act is threatening to shut down the popular hobby of model rocketry because the propellant used to make the rocket’s solid-fueled motors is now classified as explosive material. ...

To: Bilow who wrote (32831)	3/4/2003 8:44:54 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

When Hitler took power, he immediately outlawed all German clubs shooting Sunday rockets... and had the players enrolled. That's how von Braun got in.

To: Bilow who wrote (32831)	5/30/2004 7:45:20 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi all; A further note on home brew anti-aircraft missiles. We were discussing this back in June 2002, and I noted that hobbiests in the US were perfectly capable of making antiaircraft missiles. I recently saw another article on the subject. It seems that the BATF wants to require a Federal explosives license in order to own rocket engines. This is, naturally, being opposed by the model rocketry types. Here's a link to recent legislative stuff: nar.org -- Carl