szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Nick Szabo) (01/23/91)
From: Nick Szabo <szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> In article <1991Jan18.182446.1944@cbnewsc.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes: > >... >This is a historic moment: the very first time a ballistic missile >has been destroyed in battle by an air defense system! >.. This raises a few questions: (1) Can the Patriot be used against ICBMs? How close is the Patriot to violating the ABM Treaty? (2) The Patriot has so far proven effective (9 out of 9 ballistic missiles destroyed with 1 "friendly fire" misfire), but it must hit its targets at the last moment. Couldn't we build a more effective system without the ABM Treaty? (3) Given the proliferation of ballistic missile, chemical, and nuclear capability around the globe, and the growing instability in the Soviet Union, should the U.S. reevaluate the use of ABMs for protecting U.S. cities and military assets from missile attacks? -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/04/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Nick Szabo <szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> >(1) Can the Patriot be used against ICBMs? How close is the Patriot > to violating the ABM Treaty? It should be possible to intercept an ICBM with a Patriot, if the Patriot is in *precisely* the right place. As for the treaty, I believe systems like the Patriot -- a heavy antiaircraft system with an "incidental" antimissile capability -- are exempt. > hit its targets at the last moment. Couldn't we build a more > effective system without the ABM Treaty? Perhaps. Patriot is also just about at the limits of what can be moved by air in a reasonable way, an important consideration when a war brews up in an inconvenient place. Bigger radars and heavier missiles could compromise its portability. More generally, I don't think there is much doubt that we could build more effective antimissile systems if we tried hard. Just where the upper limit is located is a debatable point. >(3) Given the proliferation of ballistic missile, chemical, and nuclear > capability around the globe, and the growing instability in the Soviet > Union, should the U.S. reevaluate the use of ABMs for protecting > U.S. cities and military assets from missile attacks? This is policy rather than a technological question, and probably does not belong in sci.military. I think it is proper to observe that a lot of people are going to be asking that question much more seriously than in the past, given recent demonstrations that missile defenses are possible and useful. (Side observation: it occurred to me a few days ago that Patriot, meant to be the US Army's definitive heavy antiaircraft system, may never be allowed to shoot at an aircraft! There are lots of systems that can shoot down aircraft; Patriots are too valuable for missile defence to be wasted on planes.) -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/05/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Feb4.062022.19173@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >(Side observation: it occurred to me a few days ago that Patriot, meant >to be the US Army's definitive heavy antiaircraft system, may never be >allowed to shoot at an aircraft! There are lots of systems that can >shoot down aircraft; Patriots are too valuable for missile defence to >be wasted on planes.) Horse hockey. Su-24 comes in to make a runway attack, it will get shot at by whatever can be thrown at it. You don't know if it has chemicals or a lot of bombs. You don't take the chance, either. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan for DECUS president * SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (02/05/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > (Side observation: it occurred to me a few days ago that Patriot, meant > to be the US Army's definitive heavy antiaircraft system, may never be > allowed to shoot at an aircraft! There are lots of systems that can > shoot down aircraft; Patriots are too valuable for missile defence to > be wasted on planes.) Actually, the Patriot is designed to replace the Hawk (also built by Raytheon) as the High-to-Medium Altitude Air Defense System - originally designed against Aircraft - the improvements for ballistic missile defense is an add-on. Hawks are still in the active inventory providing Low-to Medium Altitude air defense. "Lots" of ADA systems are: Patriot Missile (Hi-Mdm) Hawk Missile (Lo-Mdm) Chapparal Missile (Short Range - Low) Track Mounted Avenger (Short Rg - Low) HMMVW Pedastal mounted Stingers Stinger (MANPAD - man portable - shoulder fired) Vulcan (20mm gun) point defense system. mike schmitt
brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks) (02/05/91)
From: Peter Brooks <brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> >>From: Nick Szabo <szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> >>(1) Can the Patriot be used against ICBMs? How close is the Patriot >> to violating the ABM Treaty? > >It should be possible to intercept an ICBM with a Patriot, if the Patriot >is in *precisely* the right place. > I was reading somewhere (Aviation Leak?) that an ICBM reenters at about Mach 28. Since the Patriot is a Mach 3 missle, the chances of a successful intercept are slim at best. They specifically stated that the Patriot was not intended for ICBMs, but for tactical ballistic missles and the odd aircraft. >From my (foggy) memory of the ABM treaty, the US was allowed to deploy 1 bank of missles. We had developed the Sprint for the purpose, but we never used the opportunity to deploy. Pete Brooks
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/06/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >>... There are lots of systems that can >>shoot down aircraft; Patriots are too valuable for missile defence to >>be wasted on planes.) > >Horse hockey. Su-24 comes in to make a runway attack, it will get shot at by >whatever can be thrown at it. You don't know if it has chemicals or a lot of >bombs. You don't take the chance, either. So you shoot it down, and a Scud gets through that night because you're short of Patriots? Don't be silly; the military gets paid to take chances. Deploying your weapons wisely includes saving your most capable weapons to deal with the most difficult threats. Although I don't know for sure, it would not surprise me at all if the Patriot batteries are under orders to fire at aircraft only as a last-ditch self-defense measure. -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry [mod.note: For once, I think I disagree with Henry. Seems to me that the Su-24 poses a much greater threat. The Scud, assuming it doesn't go out of control and miss completely, is very inaccurate. Its warhead weight is pretty low, even for chemical munitions. And it only flies once. The bomber, on the other hand, carries a greater payload, delivers it more accurately and intelligently, and if you don't shoot it down, will be back tomorrow to do the same thing. - Bill ]
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/07/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >>Horse hockey. Su-24 comes in to make a runway attack, it will get shot at by >>whatever can be thrown at it. You don't know if it has chemicals or a lot of >>bombs. You don't take the chance, either. > >So you shoot it down, and a Scud gets through that night because you're >short of Patriots? The Scud is a Mickey-Mouse weapon which has a mickey mouse payload, no proven ability to carry chemical weapons (Despite working day and night the Iraqis haven't figured out how to get an adequate way to disperse chemicals out of an RV). The Su-24 has a greater bomb load and greater accuracy to unload missiles. Plus a certified ability to carry chemical weapons. Unless you know something I don't, there aren't any shortages of Pats in the Persian Gulf War. If anything there are lots of "Block 1" Patriots available, which are designed to kill airplanes, and fewer "Block 2" Pats designed for a dual-role. Regardless, you use what you have at hand to take out the threat. >Don't be silly; the military gets paid to take chances. They also work on manageable risk. They haven't engaged every SCUD either. They will engage every serious threat. An Su-24 is a more serious threat than a SCUD. >Deploying your weapons wisely includes saving your most capable >weapons to deal with the most difficult threats. Although I don't know >for sure, it would not surprise me at all if the Patriot batteries are >under orders to fire at aircraft only as a last-ditch self-defense measure. That's absurd. "Sorry, we couldn't shoot at it because they didn't attack us directly." If a plane flies into a Patriot's area of coverage and it is designated hostile, it WILL be shot at. Even if the wreckage is later identified as friendly :-(. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan for DECUS president * SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU