Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Ken Delaughder) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Future of SAM Message-ID: <1991May1.030348.20065@amd.com> Date: 30 Apr 91 13:56:29 GMT References: <1991Apr30.044658.4761@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 27 Approved: military@amd.com From: saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Ken Delaughder) phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >If SAM systems shoot down flying objects, why can't they shoot >down Tacit Rainbow and HARM type things? Isn't that the whole >idea behind Navy AEGIS/Standard Missile type systems? I've been concerned with the vulnerability of Air defense systems myself. I know that alot of the newer soviet systems use infra-red backups, so that the missles aren't completely useless when the radar goes. Just seems like the Weasels are good at their job! What about the feasibility of a CIWS (Close In Weapons System), aka Phalanx, for ground radars similiar to those aboard Navy ships? It seems to me that such a system would at least give the radars a chance, and might not be too expensive (less expensive for example that say an AWACS). Anyone got any ideas on if such a system has ever been considered, if it might work, etc? [DIVAD was an utter disaster, wasn't it? --CDR] -- Ken DeLaughder