Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!hplabs!paul@hpldola.hp.com From: hplabs!paul@hpldola.hp.com (Paul Bame) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Re: Another 2 Libyan jets Message-ID: <3301@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 20 Jan 89 05:13:32 GMT References: <3126@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: HP Elec. Design Div. -ColoSpgs Lines: 20 Approved: military@att.att.com After the good reasoning for not having rear-firing missiles, how about thinking of something more mundane like: Guns Small fragmentation bombs with proximity fuses and some kind of aerodynamic braking The idea is that the known speed and direction of the rear aircraft, the ability to place something reliabily close to that aircraft's path from the lead aircraft, the decreased reaction time of that pilot, and the possibility that smaller weapons may be useful (and much harder to see) may allow some pretty stupid things to be effective. (Probably not or we'd have them already) What about things designed to cause jet-engine failure by entering the intake (like fragmentation bombs perhaps). Would sand/gravel be enough? Steel cubes? How many?