Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Patriot
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.055525.13701@amd.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 20:05:37 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.055424.14676@amd.com> <1991Apr11.033353.4075@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Lines: 58
Approved: military@amd.com


From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)


scott@xcf.berkeley.edu writes;
[re: Patriot exploding during launch]
> There is one shot in particular that I remember where the first round goes
> up with another closely following (common case).  However, about a few
> hundred feet in the air, the follow-on missile detonated in a huge shower
> of flame and sparks (looked very much like a Fourth of July display), while
> the initial round continued to climb and impact on it's target.

   I saw ONE case similar to this that really bothers me.  This was
shown on CNN during a night intercept.  The *first* Patriot exploded
approximately four seconds after launch.  A second was fired and flew
through the overcast before disappearing from sight.  CNN (and other
networks that showed this footage) reported that the explosion was a
direct hit on an incoming SCUD.

   Aviation Week reports that most intercepts occur approximately 24
seconds after launch.  A direct hit only four seconds after launch
would indicate an extremely late launch.  There was also no visible 
material moving in a path to the ground as would have been taken by
debris from a SCUD.  Such debris was clearly visible following many
other intercepts.

   The explosion pattern was quite large and bright, far more so than
for any other intercept that I've seen.  This one was the closest to the
camera though.  On the other hand, the explosion looked different in
kind -- it looked like a large spherical fireworks display.  My immediate
impression was that it was very similar to the Titan IV solid rocket
booster explosion at Vandenburg.  There seemed to be much more material
involved in this explosion than would be present with the detonation of
a fragmentation warhead.

   Aviation Week's description of Patriot operation mentions that
Patriots are launched in pairs.  Even if the first missile destroys
the target, the second will detonate agains the debris cloud.  If the
first missile was a direct hit, why did the second continue into the
overcast?  It would seem that either the first launch was a failure,
or the second missile failed to detonate at the correct point.

   My conclusion is that what we saw was the catastrophic explosion of
a Patriot booster.  If the press was told that this was a direct hit,
then they were being supplied with misinformation. 

   This failure does not mean that the Patriot is not a good system,
but simply that there are failures occurring that the military is not
talking about, and that are significant to the operation of this
weapon.

   I called AP and suggested that they follow up on this, but have not
heard anything back from them.  I would appreciate hearing about any
articles about this case that anyone on the net has seen.

-- 
Steve
stevenp@decwrl.dec.com