jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Jeff Berkowitz) (01/21/91)
From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> In article <1991Jan19.042753.5935@cbnews.att.com> Edward Vielmetti <emv@ox.com> writes: > I am curious as to just what kind of a thing the mobile SCUD > missile launcher platforms are. There is a photograph of an Iranian mobile SCUD-B on page 35 of the August 1990 "Scientific American", part of a rather prescient article titled "Third World Ballistic Missiles". The vehicle is a large purpose-built truck which appears to have eight wheels. It is shown in a city street, surrounded by people. It would be easy to hide this vehicle in the ways that have been suggested. And in article <1991Jan19.042546.5785@cbnews.att.com> jackson@ttidcc.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes: > Is it possible for bombs dropped > from high altitude to change course on the way down based on some kind > of internal recognition, e.g. they locate tank silhouettes, etc? Systems of this type have been proposed, and some have been built. I do not believe, however, that there is any such system with a significant operational presence at this time. The systems that have been demonstrated tend to be oriented toward recognizing tanks, and would not be useful against the types of fixed targets (like bunkers and buildings) that we've been seeing in the "gun-camera" films. The media frequently uses the phrase "smart bomb" to refer to Paveway technology: the target is "painted" with a laser and the bomb homes on the light spot. The laser illuminator can be carried by the launching aircraft or by another craft "loitering" in the area. The bomb is finned but unpowered. The original Paveway is Vietnam-era technology and is probably obsolete, but the idea remains the same. > If not, I don't understand how the raids on Baghdad, which were said to > be flown "above the range of flak", could be classed as precision. Bogosity warning! :-). There were reports from Baghdad in the first two days in which the correspondents said things like "...we assume the raids were flown by B-52s, because we couldn't hear the planes...". These reports were then picked up by the anchor desks, which reported on at least one occasion that "high flying B-52s" had bombed Baghdad. The inaudible airplanes were actually F-117A "stealth" strike aircraft. In addition to being nearly invisible to radar, they are very quiet thanks to creative engine design, ducting, and probably other things that are very well classified. This use of F-117s over Baghdad has now been confirmed, eg, in the Portland Oregonian this morning. Regarding the Patriot, I have to add a human interest bit on behalf of a very close friend/relation and longtime employee of the manufacturer (Raytheon). As has been widely reported, the system didn't include antimissile capabilities when originally specified. If you've ever been forced to deal with "feeping creatures" in a large system you can identify with their situation when DoD requested that antimissile capabilities be added. And all this was against the backdrop of a hostile atmosphere in Congress. Well they busted butt, and they did it, and who knows how many lives were saved in Dhahran because of it. There are a lot of high fives in Waltham and those people deserve all our accolades. -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb | Bugs are God's way of saying Sequent Computer Systems jjb@sequent.com | you have too much free time.