Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: MANPADS
Message-ID: <12456@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Dec 89 07:03:13 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University
Lines: 60
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz

From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
In article <12360@cbnews.ATT.COM>> Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) writes:
>> ...
>>The RBS-70 with its laser beam guidance is an interesting example. It
>>is perhaps the only real "all-aspect" MANPADS and is totally
>>unjammable. 
>> ...

>I suppose it depends on your definition of "MANPADS". Stinger, Grail
>and the like consist of little more than a launch tube. They can be
>setup quickly and carried by a single man. RBS-70 consists of a large
>launch tube, control unit and seat for the operator on a pedestal. Its
>setup is more lengthy and its "man portability" is less due to its
>size and weight. Most people would not want to try to carry one alone.


     To create an effective weapon capable of destroying a sophisticated 
aircraft today does not necessarily mean that is has to be small.  MANPADS 
is by definition a MAN Portable Air-Defence System.  If its crew-served or 
not does not enter into it.  If the missile is to be small enough to be 
carried by one man then you must trade off against its ability to destroy 
its target with a single hit (smaller warheard) and its ability to mount a 
useful attack system (IFF).
     A good point is a quote in a recent Aviation Magazine (AIR 
International September 1989) which quoted the designer of the SU-25 
Frogfoot at the Paris air-show.  He, in the spirit of Glasnost, was 
describing the experience gained with operating the Frogfoot in Afganistan. 
He said that the small warhead of the Stinger (and its IR guidance system 
which means that it attacks the tailpipe rather than other parts of the 
fuselage) was defeated by increasing the armour around the tailpipes, 
a new sheet of armour between the engines inside the fuselage (to prevent 
the spread of fire) and a fire suppresion system.  They also added more 
flares to the dispensers. After these addition he claimed that no more 
Frogfoots were lost to Stingers.  This is similar to the Isreali experience 
with SA-7's and SA-14's.  They increased the length of the A4's tailpipe 
and added a better fire suppresion system.
          The RBS-70 on the other hand has a larger warhead (because its 
bigger! :-), has an IFF system and is unjammable/undecoyable.  It can also 
strike the target from any angle so increased armouring of the 
tailpipes/engines will not necessarily be a great boon.  While its bigger, 
heavier and needs more men to operate/carry it.  I think the trade offs are 
justified.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
                                        |
Brian Ross                              |Snail Mail:- 
"Bill Bracket the self-made man who came|
in a a packet"                          |     Brian Ross
----------------------------------------|     Sociology Dept.R.S.S.S.
E-Mail Addresses:- bxr307@coombs.anu.oz |     Australian National University
                                        |     CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601,
                   bxr307@csc.anu.oz    |     AUSTRALIA
                                        |
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-