mjackson.wbst147@xerox.com (01/19/91)
From: mjackson.wbst147@xerox.com Organization: Xerox Corp. / Advanced Product Technology & Engineering Item 1: This morning [Friday, January 18 - please, someone, tell Bill how to include original dates on digested messages!] some "weapons expert" was discussing cruise missiles on CBS; Morley Safer observed that two brand-new high-tech weapons systems, the Tomahawk and the Patriot, appear to have performed extremely well in their first operational use. (This assessment was based on reports of Tomahawk performance during the first strike, and the successful shootdown by a Patriot of an Iraqui "Scud" [yes, I know they're not really Scuds; see below] incoming to Dhahran.) He expressed some surprise at this given the usual impression one gets of cost overruns, testing failures, etc. in weapons programs. The expert pointed out that the Tomahawk and Patriot programs had been pretty good, that is that the cost overruns and schedule slips had been relatively minor. Question: can someone run down the cost, schedule, and test performance history of the Tomahawk and Patriot? A comparison to other programs (particularly for other weapons soon to be tested operationally for the first time) would be helpful also. Item 2: I understand that the Iraquis are using at least two different local modifications / improvements to the Soviet Scud ballistic missile. They also have (or had) both fixed and mobile launchers. Questions: does the type of launcher dictate missile range or payload in any way (e.g. is one missile type not launchable from a mobile platform)? If so, does (would) the elimination of the fixed launch sites sharply reduce the payload deliverable to Israeli territory (possibly below the chemical threshold)? Thanks. . . Mark <MJackson.Wbst147@Xerox.COM>