Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!convex!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk (Timothy Brown) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Patriot Question Message-ID: <1991Feb15.071341.11125@cbnews.att.com> Date: 15 Feb 91 07:13:41 GMT References: <1991Feb13.222821.7734@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK. Lines: 27 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Timothy Brown In article <1991Feb13.222821.7734@cbnews.att.com> rdz@dec-lite.stanford.edu (Ramin Zabih) writes: >From: rdz@dec-lite.stanford.edu (Ramin Zabih) >... I was wondering whether >this shortcoming is a result of the Patriot being originally designed for >anti-aircraft, rather than anti-missile, defense. >[Various comments on the difference between anti-aircraft and anti-missile > missiles]. Another thing to remember is that one doesn't have to destroy a plane entirely, since the planes weapons are not so much for inflicting heavy but random damage on its target like the SCUD, rather for localised (but strategic) damage. If an aircraft is shot down odds are that it and its payload will fall on someones house rather than your nuclear power station, a sad but more acceptable situation. The plane just has to fall out of the sky to be (relatively) harmless. A SCUD will fall out of the sky anyway, and cause damage unless it completely misses the city. Instead of reprogramming/rearming the Patriot, it would probably be a better idea to redesign the whole thing. They'd make a better job of it that way. -- ,------------------------------------------------------------------------^^ | HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED... BUT BRITISH JUSTICE CONVICTED THE WRONG |oo| | MEN. FREE THE HUMPTY DUMPTY 6! (or mailed flames sorry) \v / '-Sorry, can't respond to international E-mail^(YET)---tb2@doc.ic.ac.uk--mm