Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: article submission
Summary: I beg to differ about sea-skimming missiles
Message-ID: <6034@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Apr 89 03:24:19 GMT
References: <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Interface Systems @ AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com

From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)

In article <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM>, brianb%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes:
> 
> The exocet was designed to hit the belt of ship and sink it, not burrow
> into it and cripple it.  You are going to do much less structural damage
> with a hit through the deck, and the exocet does not have the explosive
> punch to kill a ship that way.

No sea-skimming missile hits below the waterline, so it is unlikely to sink
a ship that way. They *do* home in towards the central command & control
centers as stated by a previous poster.

Exocet does not "pop-up" as far as I know, unlike the Harpoon, which does.
The resaon it does is not to evade enemy fire; in fact, by "popping-up"
it exposes itself more!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------