Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: A few questions on Gulf hardware Message-ID: <1991Jan27.114300.598@cbnews.att.com> Date: 27 Jan 91 11:43:00 GMT References: <1991Jan24.041407.23496@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 53 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Adrian Hurt >... Can't the AWACS plane detect the launcher itself, when it >gives itself away by launching? Only by luck. Radar aircraft scan the sky only a few times a minute; they are built to deal with aircraft, which move relatively slowly. A ballistic missile would climb through the aircraft's field of view pretty quickly (military missiles climb *much* more quickly than space launchers, in general, for this reason and others) and the aircraft would probably be looking in another direction at the time. There is also a lesser problem in that aircraft are distinguished from ground clutter by their Doppler shift, which requires a significant velocity along the radar beam -- not necessarily the case for a missile being launched nearly vertically. The launcher itself is just a bump on the ground like a million other bumps. >2. What are the chances of a Scud missing its Israeli target and hitting >some Palestinians? What are the chances of a Scud aimed at Saudi Arabia >landing on Mecca? ... Basically, if the thing hits within a couple of kilometers of where you pointed it, that's a bullseye. So you don't get to be too fussy about choice of target. Israeli Arabs and/or "Palestinians" are just as likely to be hit as Israeli non-Arabs in an attack on Israel. But there is enough control that a hit on Mecca is pretty unlikely, especially since the lads aiming the things undoubtedly have orders to avoid it at all costs. >3. Apparently the Tomahawk cruise missiles fly low through the streets of >Baghdad. Reporters have described them going past their windows. What >are the chances of Iraq defending important targets against these missile >with large nets or other barriers set up between tall buildings? Such defence techniques have been discussed. They could be effective if the approach directions are predictable enough or the target is small enough. Of course, you have to replace the nets, and maybe the things they are attached to, with some frequency. :-) The most likely response to such a tactic would be streams of missiles rather than individuals. >4. With all the AA fire going up in Baghdad, and with the reported accuracy >of the American bombing, just what is the greatest threat to the average >Baghdad citizen - U.S. bombs, Iraqi shells, or splinters from exploding >Iraqi shells? AA shells typically have a time fuze in addition to their proximity fuze, I believe, the idea being that intact shells don't come down. Splinters are definitely a serious hazard in the vicinity of AA fire; if the claims of bombing accuracy are valid, I'd worry more about the splinters. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry