Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: U.S. Ground Vulnerablity Message-ID: <1990Sep20.022349.15495@cbnews.att.com> Date: 20 Sep 90 02:23:49 GMT References: <1990Sep2.061204.3795@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep12.014955.29266@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep14.042856.2024@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 49 Approved: military@att.att.com From: att!utzoo!henry >From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >....Since the AF is still buying them, it >must be somewhat better than an iron bomb, eh? Since there is at least one verified case of the AF continuing to buy hardware that was known not to work at all, apparently in the belief that the manufacturers would somehow fix it since the contract said it had to work, I don't think this follows... :-) I suspect a Maverick *is* better than an iron bomb; however, it also costs a wee bit more, both in dollars and in sortie time (since the planes can carry more iron bombs than Mavericks, in general, and the iron bombs are more reliable and need less attention). Numbers are crucial; the issue is not whether it works at all, but whether it works well enough to make up for the added costs. Do the Israelis use Maverick? Now *that* is a good, and relevant, test. >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... Assuming you've got clear weather, of course. Valid enough in Kuwait, barring the occasional dust storm, I'd guess. >... 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. Replacing it with another dog won't help. There is a whole lot to be said for buying something that is known to work rather than chasing the Holy Grail of fire-and-forget, at least when we are talking about an urgent near-term replacement for a real turkey. If the objective is to get something that *works*, *now*, it is necessary to deliberately accept that you will be buying second-rate hardware... because the first-rate stuff is never properly debugged yet. >Bill rides a laser beam. Reflected beams can be picked up by sensors for warning >purposes (ie: "Pop smoke when being illuminated). Considering the number of laser beams that are likely to be flying around, I suspect such automatic systems will get disabled quickly. Yes, beam riding has its disadvantages, but it wins on simplicity and accuracy. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry