Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: jch@GS48.SP.CS.CMU.EDU (Jonathan Hardwick) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: antimissile systems Message-ID: <1991Feb4.065843.21933@cbnews.att.com> Date: 4 Feb 91 06:58:43 GMT References: <1991Jan23.040415.5172@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan27.112410.29337@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Carnegie Mellon University Lines: 27 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Jonathan Hardwick In article <1991Jan27.112410.29337@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> |> >From: moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) |> | [stuff on other systems that I've deleted] |> |> > I believe the (british) sea wolf has some AMM capability. |> |> Possibly. You have to distinguish cruise missiles from ballistic missiles. |> The former are basically small fast aircraft, and there has been a lot of |> interest in shooting them down, with a lot of systems claiming some degree |> of ability. Ballistic missiles come in much more steeply at much higher |> speeds, and very few systems can do anything about them. Sea Wolf just |> might be good enough, although its effective range would be quite short. |> One of the most impressive Sea Wolf tests proved that it could intercept a 4.5 inch shell, fired (I believe) from a nearby warship. Granted, this was probably under ideal conditions, but I think Henry is being a little hard on Sea Wolf when he says that it "just might be good enough". Sea Wolf / Phallanx (sp?) seems to be the British Navy's current AMM solution, with Phallanx trying to hit anything that Sea Wolf can't. Of course, Sea Wolf also has an anti-aircraft role. Jonathan Hardwick, jch@cs.cmu.edu