Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Shooting Down Cruise Missiles Keywords: cruise missile Message-ID: <1991Mar21.011227.6245@cbnews.att.com> Date: 21 Mar 91 01:12:27 GMT References: <1991Mar14.014808.18265@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar19.043130.6859@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 43 Approved: military@att.att.com From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >From: Jeff Berkowitz > >If a Tomahawk is ever observed, the point of observation is a very likely >place to shoot down future missiles. This is a definite weakness in the >weapons system. Worth pointing out to Tomahawk users. (No ;) here.) >Since the pulse jet engine probably makes a characteristic >noise, human observers can be taught to report the passage of the missiles. The Tomahawk uses a turbojet, not a pulsejet. Don't know of any current pulsejet-powered weapons. >Air defence radars can then be concentrated in these areas. Assuming that your radars are still working... >Once detected, Tomahawk is vulnerable to conventional techniques, like interceptors and >tactical antiaircraft missiles; it's not even supersonic. Still a hard target, though, especially if the Tomahawks fly different courses between checkpoints. If your ground radars are down, localizing cruise missiles by ground observers is going to be troublesome; the method isn't as fast or as accurate as radar, and if your comm is down (likely), it's even worse. Of course, if your radar and air force is still effective, the cruise missiles aren't going to nearly as useful to the attacking side. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------