emery@aries.mitre.org (David E. Emery) (08/16/89)
From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David E. Emery) Donald Ritchey's description of sound/flash is accurate (good memory!). The U.S. Army dropped sound/flash from its target acquisition a while ago. Other countries, particularly the Soviets, continue to develop much more sophisticated sound/flash systems. These are not limited to "developing countries", either. The problem with radars is their signature. A division has 5 counterbattery radars (3 AN/TPQ-36 and 2 AN/TPQ-37). (That's it, too. There are no radars at Corps right now.) To the Soviets, with their tremendous emphasis on EW, turning a radar on will "light up their screens". We have rules like "don't radiate longer than 6 seconds", and "move after a total radiation exposure of 10 minutes". Once Ivan hits a radar, it's gone! Sound/flash have a tremendous advantage as passive systems (they're also cheaper). I suspect we're re-examining our decision to remove sound/flash from our target acquisition units. dave emery emery@aries.mitre.org (CPT, Field Artillery, NH Army NG)