One single stealthy unmanned aerial vehicle may easily sneak into the battlespace alone to do its mission and get out without being detected. But what if you have many and their wake turbulence is detected as the move thru the air. Or what if all their heat signatures, which are small add up to a larger one and it is seen by infrared detection? What if all the different angles bouncing off each other causes an anomaly or disruption in other waves, such a cell tower frequency plumes, satellite radio or other such situations? I propose a double solution to penetrating enemy airspace undetected with a series of massive UAV unmanned aerial vehicle swarms. Additionally I propose that these autonomous aircraft have with them payloads to deliver, communication to disrupt and amongst them a large number of single mission UAVs. That is to say units we do not want back which are merely robotic kamikaze units to kill the enemy, where the entire aircraft including the frame is made of explosive material of the highest grade. Is it evil to suggest such things? Absolutely not, you see when the politicians fail to reach a compromise with mischievous nation state dictators who sponsor international terrorism and such a political impasse leads to war and your enemy then threatens to strike using international terrorism events or to blow your allies off the map; well then it is not evil to suggest a strategy capable of total annihilation of said enemy. And I think Carl von Clauswitz would back me up on this as well. By using the slipstream of a larger stealthier aircraft the UAV swarms can stack them selves and fly in tight formation even locking them selves together if needed to remain perfectly in place, creating the least amount of additional anomaly of heat, airflow disruption, radar reflection or sound. We need to develop anti-radar formation swarm strategies for fast moving unmanned aircraft, as the modern battlespace is changing and we must stay on the bleeding edge. It is the difference between winning and losing a battle. Consider all this in 2006. |
