Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: U.S. Ground Vulnerablity
Message-ID: <1990Sep14.042856.2024@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Sep 90 04:28:56 GMT
References: <1990Sep2.061204.3795@cbnews.att.com>,<1990Sep12.014955.29266@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 44
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
>>Maverick missiles pick things out of ground clutter quite nicely, using either
>>IR (prefered) or TV.
>
>Sure they work nicely, for suitable values of "nicely". :-)  Rumor hath
>it that when you test them in realistic conditions, they don't work nearly
>as well as the glossy brochures say.

IR is the preferred mode of guidance for the Maverick these days because it
does better against ground clutter and it is easier to pick out targets (being
that a running diesel tank produces more heat than trees, bushes, and 
inflatable decoys. Since the AF is still buying them, it
must be somewhat better than an iron bomb, eh? It might not be 90%, but
anything better than 50% kill ratio is MUCH better than overflying the target
and it's SAM systems.

During the night, unless you leave the engine off, a diesel will stick
out like a sore thumb, between the engine and the heat it releases from
all that metal soaking in the sun. Daytime hours for IR are a bit more
tricky. 

>>Horse hockey! The Army has had an Advanced Medium Range Anti-Tank missile
>>in R&D for 10 (ten) years ...
>
>Horse hockey, is that like elephant polo? :-)  Lots of things go into R&D
>and never emerge, because they simply don't work well enough to field.

Some weapons get killed due to budgetary and politicial considerations as
well. FOG-M is another example of a weapon which doesn't have a political
caucus, but a couple of definite uses.  

Gimme a break here, Henry. As I noted, the current squabble is not around if it
will/won't work (it will, adequately), but how fast to fund it, because the
Dragon anti-tank missile is a DOG.   

>much more practical way to kill tanks.  The Norwegians already have an
>operational top-attack missile.  They didn't bother with f-and-f, though;
>I think their missile ("Bill" I believe it's called) is a beamrider.

Bill rides a laser beam. Reflected beams can be picked up by sensors for warning
purposes (ie: "Pop smoke when being illuminated).