Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Future of SAM
Message-ID: <1991May8.034456.11150@amd.com>
Date: 8 May 91 01:40:29 GMT
References: <1991May7.062324.12399@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: ucb
Lines: 18
Approved: military@amd.com


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


In article <1991May7.062324.12399@amd.com> Robert_Bell@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Bell) writes:
>I used to be sam technician in the British Army and i have yet to see a
>low level sam system better than the British Aerospace RAPIER system.  It
>comes in towed and tracked versions and is very accurate.  We used to
>test fire them against towed drones which were approximately the same
>size as HARM missiles and achieved kill rates in the upper 90% range.

Although the RAPIER is a very nice SAM system, but I doubt it could 
shoot down a HARM is flight. Most target drones are subsonic, while
the AGM-88 HARM missile flys at greater than 2.5 Ma. Other anti-radiation
missiles are also very supersonic. This makes them VERY hard to hit.

Frank Crary
UC Berkeley