Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Gulf Lessons re length of ppeliminary bombardment
Message-ID: <1991May23.063107.17:52@amd.com>
Date: 22 May 91 17:11:02 GMT
References: <1991May20.052128.21457@amd.com> <1991May21.024354.13558@amd.com>,<1991May22.035151.28374@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 26
Approved: military@amd.com


From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)


phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
>A cruise missile is
>just a slow, small airplane, it should be possible to shoot them down.

A small, low-radar profile airplane which hugs the ground and gets lost in
clutter. Not so easy to shoot them down. 

>B-52s of course are sitting ducks.

IF they operate in a "clean" electronic environment sure. If you have EF-111
jammers blocking radars, F-117s targeting command centers, and F-4Gs launching
on anything which emits a SAM pulse, they aren't so bad at all.

>A desert war is probably the best conditions that are possible for air
>power. I suspect that we will never again see air power play such a
>decisive role in future conflicts.

Next-generation weapons, with longer stand-off range and better accuracy
promise to make air power more lethal. Our greatest sin was not building enough
"smart" weapons. 

SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU