major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (04/05/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) Initial reports out of Desert Storm seem to be giving our Hi-Tech weapons systems some pretty good marks. I'm sure detailed technical analysis will take some time - but here a thumbnail sketch of some 'high-visibility' systems: M1A1 Abrams Tank. After the 100 hour operation, readiness status of tanks in VII Corps and XVIII Corps exceeded 90%. The 3rd Armored Division covered 200 kilometers with its 300+ tanks and none broke down. Seven tanks reported being hit by T72 tank rounds in which the M1A1 sustained no damage. Crews reported that the thermal sight allowed them to acquire T72s through smoke (and oil fire smoke). Apparantley the T72s could not. M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Crews reported that the IR sights (infrared) were very effective, even during sand storms. The 25mm Bushmaster cannon was more lethal than expected. There were no reported transmission failures during operations (the 'media' had played-up potential faulty transmissions). Patriot. Of 47 SCUDs fired against - the Patriot successfully intercepted 45. "In the historical analysis of this war, Patriot will be one of the key systems which influenced the outcome." AH64 Apache. On the night of January 17, 1991, Apache attack helicopters from the 101st Div's Aviation Brigade fired the first shots of the war. Two teams of four Apaches each conducted a deep strike into western Iraq to destroy early warning radar sites. The teams achieved complete surprise. Eight Apaches fired 27 Hellfire missiles and destroyed both radar sites. The resulting 'blind corridor' allowed the Air Force to begin striking Baghdad without being detected. The Apaches fired 100 2.75inch rockets and 4,000 rounds of 30mm ammo. There were no gun jams. The mission took 15 hours and covered 950 miles (round trip) - all aircraft returned with no damage. The 4th Bn, 229th Avn Bde's Apaches destroyed approximately 50 enemy tanks in a single battle. OH58D Kiowa Warrior. The 'Scout' helicoptor was used to designate targets for the Apache attack helos. Some Kiowa-Apache hunter-killer teams reported 15-20 tank kills per mission. SINCGARS (Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System). Reports indicate the system experienced 7,000 hours mean-time between failure (MTBF) compared to the 200-300 hours of the VRC-12 family of radios. The 1st Cav Div used SINCGARS at retrans sites and reported a 30% increase in range capability. (Source: LTG Richard West, Ret. Director, AUSA Institute of Land Warfare, April 1991 Conference.) mike schmitt
scott@xcf.berkeley.edu (04/06/91)
From: scott@xcf.berkeley.edu bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) writes: > Patriot. Of 47 SCUDs fired against - the Patriot successfully intercepted > 45. "In the historical analysis of this war, Patriot will be one of the > key systems which influenced the outcome." I saw an aweful lot of the Patriots explode on launch or fly into the ground during the news coverage. This was very disturbing to me. I know someone else was asking questions about this earlier but nobody commented on the phenomenon. Has anyone heard anything conclusive about this high failure rate? I can see why DOD would not want to volunteer any information on Patriot flaws since this system came out as one of the biggest heros of the war. Wouldn't want to shatter people's pride by tarnishing a hero's image. (I think this is a wise policy, as long as the problem is honestly being investigated) -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum) (04/06/91)
From: joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum) >From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) >Patriot. Of 47 SCUDs fired against - the Patriot successfully intercepted >45. "In the historical analysis of this war, Patriot will be one of the >key systems which influenced the outcome." Before touting the effieciency of the patriot missiles, could somebody give a rough estimate regarding the cost of NOT intercepting them? I seem to recall that, except for one scud, those that actually came down whn an intercept was attempted (or would have been attempted but the patriots were not yet available)did damage on the order of cuts, bruises, and minor structural damage--not the million or so that each patriot intercept cost. Further, it would also seem that the best solution to a missile defence system would be to saturate it-- and the patriots are far more expensive than the missiles they were shooting down. So, my question is: are the patriots an effective weapon system, or merely a shield against political fallout? Joshua Landrum
pss4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul S Shannon) (04/06/91)
From: pss4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul S Shannon) In article <1991Apr6.020949.14323@amd.com> joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum) writes: > >From: joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum) > >>From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) >>Patriot. Of 47 SCUDs fired against - the Patriot successfully intercepted >>45. "In the historical analysis of this war, Patriot will be one of the >>key systems which influenced the outcome." > >Before touting the effieciency of the patriot missiles, could somebody give >a rough estimate regarding the cost of NOT intercepting them? I seem to recall >that, except for one scud, those that actually came down whn an intercept was >attempted (or would have been attempted but the patriots were not yet available) >did damage on the order of cuts, bruises, and minor structural damage--not the >million or so that each patriot intercept cost. Further, it would also seem >that the best solution to a missile defence system would be to saturate it-- >and the patriots are far more expensive than the missiles they were shooting >down. So, my question is: are the patriots an effective weapon system, or >merely a shield against political fallout? > Joshua Landrum I don't believe the patriot was ever designed to defend cities, that it was to protect SAM sites and airfields, etc. But consider the cost of the political fallout: Israel entering the war would have been disasterous for the coalition. Isn't that more costly than the number of patriots used (maybe 100. I don't know the number, but I think they launched at least two at a target to increase the hit probablity). The argument that is will be considered one of the most important weapons of the war is for the political shield it provided. And defenses of this type are generally more costly (in terms of dollars) than anything the attacker invests. Consider the Battle of the Atlantic in WWII. The Allies spent 10 times the amount of money in ASW than Germany did in submarines, but you can't argue that it was not worth the cost. If the ASW failed, Britain could well have been eliminated from the war.
digex@world.std.com (doug e humphrey) (04/07/91)
From: digex@world.std.com (doug e humphrey) It was asked, what is the cost of not intercepting them. In truth, there is no precise way to asnwer that question, because the monetary part is most likely the least important. One of the costs of not interception the Scuds would have been that the target countries, Israel and Saudi Arabia, *might* not have been able to persue the path that the United States found in the best overall interest. Who can know what they would have done if the Scuds were allowed to inpact? Note that the one Scud that got in on the military barracks in Riyahd caused something like 30% of the combat casualties of the entire war. If even 10% of the 40-odd Scuds managed to do as well, then it would have well more than doubled, nearly tripled the number of people lost. Cost of human life, and cost of *terror* and fear in the civilian populace are hard to quantify, which is why looking at it from a dollar standpoint alone is not valid. It pretty much goes without saying that Israel would not have been able to stay out of the war if it were not for the Patriots. All it would have taken would have been a couple more nicely placed (random chance) hits and a few hundred civilians killed, and they would have had to act (I have had long talks about this with my CPA and his friends in Baltimore, all of which are Israeli citizens and Israeli military, and were getting packed to go over and join the fray if combat had broken out). A few million bucks to knock a Scud down? Who cares. A lot of people are quite happy enough that it was possible to take them down at all. Doug Humphrey Digital Express Group Crypto Systems for the masses! [And that's enough on this topic; its drifting astray from our technical charter. --CDR]
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/09/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >From: scott@xcf.berkeley.edu >I saw an aweful lot of the Patriots explode on launch or fly into the ground > during the news coverage. The Patriot launches by being blown from its box...so I suppose that *all* Patriots explode on launch, sort of. (Wonder how the neighbors would deal with me driving out of the garage that way?) Spectacular start, and the boom as it goes through Mach 1 a bit above the ground gets your attention, too. Haven't seen any of the flying-into-the-ground video.
phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (04/09/91)
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum) writes: >Before touting the effieciency of the patriot missiles, could somebody give >a rough estimate regarding the cost of NOT intercepting them? I seem to recall It is not the cost of not intercepting them, but what could have been the cost of not intercepting them, particularly if loaded with NBC. >that the best solution to a missile defence system would be to saturate it-- >and the patriots are far more expensive than the missiles they were shooting Doesn't matter, we can afford to outspend nearly any adversary we might have. It's not how much you spend on the war, but whether you win or lose. American lives are much more precious than dollars.
stan@gatech.edu (Stan Brown) (04/11/91)
From: emory!Dixie.Com!stan@gatech.edu (Stan Brown) fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Haven't seen any of the flying-into-the-ground video. I definately remeber seeing images of Patriots that burned out before reaching their targets falling to the ground and exploding. -- Stan Brown P. C. Design 404-363-2303 Ataanta Ga. (emory|gatech|uunet) rsiatl!sdba!stan "vi forever"
paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (paj) (04/11/91)
From: paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>
References: <1991Apr10.024450.21206@amd.com>
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) wrote:
>Haven't seen any of the flying-into-the-ground video [on Patriot launches]
I have. It was on the BBC a few times. A number of Patriots went up. One
of them slewed over to the right, hit the ground and exploded. Looking at
the sillouettes of buildings in front of the explosion, it looked big
enough to demolish a house or two. Since the Patriot warhead is an
outsized fragmentation grenade, I would not want to be near one when it
went off.
You know how roman candles shoot small flares a few meters into the air, but
some only go up a foot or two? Well thats just what it looked like.
--
Paul Johnson UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj
GEC-Marconi Research is not | Telex: 995016 GECRES G | Tel: +44 245 73331
responsible for my opinions. | Inet: paj@gec-mrc.co.uk | Fax: +44 245 75244amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (04/11/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) Now that the official war if over, much of the public media has turned around and saying stuff like how bad the patriot really was. A bunch of people have also come out of the woodwork to say how bad it was.... Things like launch failures, uncontrolled flight (paths), hitting buildings... I have no problems believing that ALL of this is absolutely true. HOWEVER, it is very unfair. Essentially the patriot 'system' was intended for a point defense. This would mean using a battery (or 2) to defend a fairly small area like a airport or (large-ish) munitions dump/store. How it was generally deployed in the gulf, due to political considerations and media reports. Was nearly as a general air defense system. Funny but, throw a X-hundred pound(s) of scud in the air, then a Y-hundred pound(s) of patriot in the air and the amount of missile 'parts' landing will approach X+Y. Besides that the momentum of X going A mph & Y going B mgh will really help the large pieces to do crazy things like make gaping holes in building... Besides that, with several missiles zooming around the speed of sound towards a target (which under some conditions may not actually have been acquired by the tracking system yet, or so I understand) and that target disappears (either because it breaks up or is hit by another patriot). I wouldn't be surprised at all to see at minimum confusion of the tracking control system and have it either confuse the tops of buildings as targets or not see them in time to avoid hitting them. No matter what, in short order they will run out of fuel and return to terra firma with great impressiveness. The patriot system was barely even fired before this war, and using it in a city environment almost certainly was not something that was specifically written into the spec sheets or tested. Without a doubt, improvements to the software and hardware of the system will be made from the experience gained from this deployment. With 20/20 hindsight, the cost of deployment (missiles used, labor expended, and colateral damage) can be compare to a new estimated potential damage estimate of the scuds, and it probably can be said that using the patriots in israel cost more than they were worth. This still doesn't touch the real secondary value of the system. Doubtless, it kept Isreal out of the conflict, and provided a real defense for the chemical scud threat. -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (04/17/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1991Apr12.055321.14466@amd.com>, emory!Dixie.Com!stan@gatech.edu (Stan Brown) writes; > I definately remeber seeing images of Patriots that burned out > before reaching their targets falling to the ground and exploding. I think not. By the time a Patriot booster burns out and can fall to the ground it is usually outside of visual range, particularly at night. Intercepts occur at about 5 to 7 miles distance, at about 25,000 feet of altitude. There were cases of missile guidance failure during initial boost. The missiles impacted the ground before booster burnout. There may have been booster failures (explosions) during launch as well, but both of these are different than expended boosters falling back to earth. -- Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com
rcg@lpi.liant.com (Rick Gorton) (04/18/91)
From: rcg@lpi.liant.com (Rick Gorton) > From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > AH64 Apache. On the night of January 17, 1991, Apache attack helicopters > from the 101st Div's Aviation Brigade fired the first shots of the war. > Two teams of four Apaches each conducted a deep strike into western Iraq > to destroy early warning radar sites. The teams achieved complete > surprise. Eight Apaches fired 27 Hellfire missiles and destroyed both > radar sites. What kind of sites were they? 27 Hellfires would make a pretty loud "Bang" no matter what the target. The REALLY impressive part of this is the fact that they achieved complete surprise. rick
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (04/23/91)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee indicates that some of the high-tech weapons did not perform nearly as well as was first thought (or at least claimed). Although the witnesses presumably have their own axes to grind, their claims are interesting, to say the least. One witness, a professor at MIT, says that damage from Scuds may have tripled after the Patriot missles were deployed. The interceptors often hit the debris from the Scud breaking up in mid-flight. And the extra debris, from the Patriot itself, caused damage. Other witnesses claim that far fewer of the Scuds were intercepted than the Army claims. There are also reports of Tomahawk missles getting lost and hitting apartment buildings and pools. The Stealth fighter wasn't as stealthy as it should have been, and the planes suffered fuel problems. Six of 60 Harriers were lost, a high percentage. On a positive note, the witnesses so far have loved the A-10; it's been credited with 1000 of the 1700 tank kills attributed to aircraft.