Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: jjb@sequent.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.070752.13682@amd.com>
Date: 19 Apr 91 03:02:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.055056.13916@amd.com> <1991Apr13.015125.23382@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 29
Approved: military@amd.com


From: jjb@sequent.com


sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>Most things which were shot at by cruise missiles were also designated to be
>bombed again by manned aircraft because planners didn't trust the cruise 100%
>(very difficult to get an after-action report from this first-generation
>missile :-). 

The smiley at the end of this got me to thinking: what could you do to
get an on-the-spot target assessment from a cruise missile?  How about
carrying your own drone, equipped with a TV camera and UHF uplink?
Launch the drone, hit the target, drone can transmit the after-action
report.

Amateurs (me) usually seem to underestimate the important of intelligence
(or lack of same); witness the number of war games that feature complete
information (ie cardboard counters on map) but purport to be "simulations"
(hah).  Maybe the value of this information would justify the complexity/
expense of such a system?  Is there an easier way?  (I know, KH-1X pictures,
but this is not a good answer.  Coverage can't be guaranteed, clouds, etc).

PS, in a previous post I described the Tomahawk as having a "pulse jet
engine"...total nonsense, pulse jets are long obsolete.  Mea culpa.

-- 
Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM	  uunet!sequent!jjb | If you can't trust the comics,
Sequent Computer Systems  jjb@sequent.com   | what can you trust? -Bullwinkle