Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Future of SAM
Message-ID: <1991May15.061005.3427@amd.com>
Date: 14 May 91 18:03:51 GMT
References: <1991May14.051700.7076@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amd.com


From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma)


Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
>Wrong, the A-10 has armor all over, the cockpit does get the most
>armor though.  Think of the A-10 as a flying tank, it is invulnerable
>to AAA, but vulnerable to SAMs.  (SAMs are very similar to anti-tank
>missiles.)

Invulnerable to AAA?  I'd think that some radar-guided 100mm would
mess up a Hog no problem.

As for SAMs being like ATGMs, no way.  I believe a good number of SAM
designs have proximity detonated warheads (which send several thousand
ball-bearings into the airframe.  Maybe IR-guided SAMs are contact
detonated, but even then I don't think they utilize shaped charge
warheads (like ATGMs).

Of course, I'm only an interested layman.  I could very well be wrong.  ;-)

-- 
Taki Kogoma
tkogoma@triton.unm.edu