Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Shoulder-Launched AA Missles Message-ID: <11964@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Dec 89 03:54:53 GMT References: <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: UCLA Lines: 44 Approved: military@att.att.com From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > ... Let me put forth >a deliberately somewhat hyperbolic hypothesis and see what discussion >it brings out. There are lots of possible things to discuss here, but let me bring up a few points. >I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes >much of the modern air force obsolete. Certainly, you mean just those aircraft which have to expose themselves to such fire, like CAS aircraft. Aircraft on air superiority missions or ones using stand-off weapons against high-value targets are not likely to enter the engagement envelope of light SAMs. >The major reason is the cost >differential. Obviously, one SAM costs less than a CAS aircraft. But, the cost differential must of course be matched to average number of shots necessary to bring an aircraft down and the damage the aircraft is doing in the meantime. >Secondary considerations are size and portability. >In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less >cost and from pretty much any position. A large range of factors goes into the effectiveness of a weapon. The Stinger was very effective in Afghanistan when introduced. But lately, from recent press reports, it seems the Stinger has lost much of its effectiveness due to improved tactics on the Afghan Air Force. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696