Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: "Computer Models Leave U.S. Leaders Sure of Victory"
Message-ID: <1990Dec21.024911.9152@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 21 Dec 90 02:49:11 GMT
References: <1990Dec19.010219.24876@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 17
Approved: military@att.att.com
Full-Name: Linus's Usenet



From: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery)

>From: jim bowers <FQV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
>If radar uses a balistic solution to figure out the location of
>artillery, won't this be all screwed up if rocket assisted projectiles
>are used?  These don't follow a simple ballistic path.

I believe that the radar takes enough data points to calculate the
actual trajectory, based either on a ballistic trajectory, or on a
rocket-assisted trajectory.  It probably can assume (but I'm guessing
here) that the rocket burn is "stable" (i.e. constant over a period of
time, or has other known characteristics) when it calculates the
trajectory of a non-ballistic "bullet".

				dave