Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Future of SAM
Message-ID: <1991May2.035948.19691@amd.com>
Date: 1 May 91 03:55:24 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.044658.4761@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 35
Approved: military@amd.com


From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)


phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
>Artillery now likes to shoot and scoot to avoid counterbattery.
>When are we going to see SAM systems that do the same thing?

Many SAM launchers ARE able to fire and move. These include the Soviet
SA-13 Gopher, SA-9 Gaskin, SA-8 Gecko, SA-6 Gainful and the shoulder
fired SA-7 and SA-14. American mobile SAM units include the Patriot,
Hawk, Avenger, Chaparral and Stinger launchers. Most of these systems
are IR not radar guided. In general the radar guided launchers take some
time to set up and/or move. They could not, for example, "dodge" a 
Wild Weasle-type aircraft or a HARM missile. They can, however, be moved
between recon aircraft or satillite overflights. I think, after the losses
in the Gulf of Iraqi fixed and slow but mobile launchers, more emphasis
may, in the future be placed on the ability of a launcher to rapidly 
shift its location.

>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?

HARM and (I think) Tacit Rainbow are much smaller than aircraft, heavy
anti-ship missiles or ballistic missiles. They also travel very fast
(>3 Ma) while most aircraft and anti-ship missiles are subsonic. This
makes HARM (and also IR anti-air) missiles much more dificult to shoot
down.

By the way, does anyone know the current funding status of the Tacit
Rainbow system?

Frank Crary
UC Berkeley