jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) (08/29/90)
From: jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) Several postings to this newsgroup have asserted that there is "no doubt" that cruise missiles could be "quite literally flown through the kitchen window" (or, more to the point of the question that started all this, through the window of some foreign head of state whom we wished to assassinate). I request that the people who made this claim please cite *tests* that show that the claimed performance has in fact been demonstrated. There is a big difference between claimed or theoretical performance and actual performance. Is there any record of an actual cruise missile ever having been flown a realistic distance (hundreds of miles at least) exclusively under the control of its onboard guidance system, and then through a kitchen-window sized target? I would be impressed by a single case of this ever having been done, although for military planning purposes it would have to have been done many times, enough times to establish the reliability. There have been many cases reported in the press in which cruise missiles went totally off course during tests. How did this "kitchen window" business get started anyway? I saw an interview with Robert Cooper, who was then director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, that was made about 1985. Cooper said that one of the results of a research project that DARPA then had going *might* be a guidance system that could send a cruise missile "through a particular window in the Kremlin." Cooper did not say this technology was at hand. I hope it is clear why uncritical acceptance of exaggerated claims is not a good thing. Incidentally, this cruise-missile-as-assassination-weapon business recalls the US bombing of Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli in 1986. In that incident, laser-guided "smart bombs" were supposed to make it possible to destroy Qaddafi's house without doing much damage to surrounding residential neighborhoods. In fact most of the F-111's assigned to that target were not even able to make their bombing runs, due to technical problems, and one of those that tried went far off course, bombing a residential neighborhood near the French embassy instead. According to the account of that raid in David C. Martin and John Walcott's BEST LAID PLANS (Harper and Row, 1988), the Air Force staff charged with planning the mission were well aware of the difficulties and strongly recommended against including that target, but someone on the National Security Council staff insisted anyway. Jonathan Jacky, University of Washington, Seattle jon@gaffer.rad.washington.edu
jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (08/30/90)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) In article <1990Aug29.014406.7218@cbnews.att.com>, jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) writes: > > Several postings to this newsgroup have asserted that there is "no doubt" that > cruise missiles could be "quite literally flown through the kitchen window" > (or, more to the point of the question that started all this, through the > window of some foreign head of state whom we wished to assassinate). > > I request that the people who made this claim please cite *tests* that show > that the claimed performance has in fact been demonstrated. As far as "kitchen windows" and cruise missiles are concerned, I remember seeing some photographs in Aviation Leak a couple of years back. They showed a Tomahawk cruise missile approaching a target RA-5C Vigilante sitting in a simulated revetment on the ground. As the Tomahawk passed over the Vigilante, it exploded. A shower of cluster bombs rained down on the hapless Vigilante. Poof, no more Vigilante!!! I think I remember reading in the article that the test Tomahawk had been launched from a submarine a couple of hundred miles away. I'm impressed!!! With such performance, I suspect that a Tomahawk could be flown right through Saddam Hussein's bedroom window. This would only work, of course, if you happened to know where Saddam was sleeping on a given night. I suspect that Saddam keeps moving around quite a bit right now, just to prevent such unpleasant surprises. Joe Baugher ************************************* AT&T Bell Laboratories * "Make it so, Mister Crusher! * 200 Park Plaza ************************************* Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 (708) 713 4548 ihlpm!jfb jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com Who, me? Speak for AT&T? Surely you jest!
gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (08/31/90)
From: gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <1990Aug29.014406.7218@cbnews.att.com> jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) writes: >Several postings to this newsgroup have asserted that there is "no doubt" that >cruise missiles could be "quite literally flown through the kitchen window" >(or, more to the point of the question that started all this, through the >window of some foreign head of state whom we wished to assassinate). > >I request that the people who made this claim please cite *tests* that show >that the claimed performance has in fact been demonstrated. There is a big >difference between claimed or theoretical performance and actual performance. The tests run since the missiles were debugged (past the first operationsl production batch) have had something like a 94% "hit" percentage with a CEP of something like 2 meters. [ <= figures the Tohmawk TLAM-C ] For example, the oft-shown (though somewhat debated) sequence of the tomhawk flying from off the California coast to nail a single airplane target on the ground was flown w/o outside interference. Most skeptics of this weapons performance are working with flight-test era test results, not current ones. (personal pontification: a common problem...you have to read current sources). While 2 meters may not fly through the window of choice, I have little doubt that it's good enough given what building (or room) someone's going to be in at time X. (Next problem: guaranteeing their being there then...). >Incidentally, this cruise-missile-as-assassination-weapon business recalls >the US bombing of Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli in 1986. In that incident, >laser-guided "smart bombs" were supposed to make it possible to destroy >Qaddafi's house without doing much damage to surrounding residential >neighborhoods. In fact most of the F-111's assigned to that target were >not even able to make their bombing runs, due to technical problems, and one >of those that tried went far off course, bombing a residential neighborhood >near the French embassy instead. According to the account of that raid >in David C. Martin and John Walcott's BEST LAID PLANS (Harper and Row, 1988), >the Air Force staff charged with planning the mission were well aware of the >difficulties and strongly recommended against including that target, >but someone on the National Security Council staff insisted anyway. 'Technical Problems' in this case weren't. They were Rules Of Engagement problems. The ROE for that mission absolutely required two systems seperately ID the target, positively, or weapons could not be dropped. One plane had a perfectly good radar attack profile and perfectly overflew their target vainly trying to get their IR camera to work to get the needed '2nd ID'. (The flight crew were NOT happy). Most of the planes did make runs. All but two hit their targets (the one above and the one that had a bomb rack problem and lost one into the french embassy (I think, that's what I heard: I don't think there was an official explanation of this one...) ). == George William Herbert == ******************************************* == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == * Warning: This Person Contains Chemicals * =======Anywhere, My Price======= * Which are Known to Cause Cancer, Birth * == gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu == ******** Defects, and Brain Damage! ******* == ucbvax!ocf!gwh == The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today