Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: rdz@dec-lite.stanford.edu (Ramin Zabih)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Patriot Question
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.222821.7734@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 13 Feb 91 22:28:21 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 18
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rdz@dec-lite.stanford.edu (Ramin Zabih)
It seems that the Patriot's major shortcoming is that when it intercepts a
SCUD, the SCUD can still do significant damage.  I was wondering whether
this shortcoming is a result of the Patriot being originally designed for
anti-aircraft, rather than anti-missile, defense.  For instance, the size
of the explosive charge necessary to knock out a hostile airplane is
presumably smaller than that for a missile.  Also, it seems to me that an
anti-missile missile would want to hit the target directly, while an
anti-aircraft missile might be programmed to explode nearby the target.
Does anyone know if these factors are responsible for the occasional SCUD
damage?  How hard would it be to increase the warhead size, or to program
it to achieve a direct hit?
--

Ramin Zabih                                  Computer Science Department
rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU                Stanford University