From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Basement Cruise Missiles?
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:23:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park


From sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)

>From <TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu>
>
>     A recent _New York Times_ op-ed piece (1 April 1992, "Offshore Threat--
>  Cruise Missiles," p. A25) by Kosta Tsipis, the director of MIT's science and
>  technology for international security program,

I think he was the chowderhead, ah, expert who was predicting U.S. high-tech
weapons would belly-flop in the Gulf War. Please administer enough salt on his
prouncements in order to get your blood pressure checked. :-)

>  claims that simply built
>  cruise missiles armed with a GPS (Global Positioning System) homing devices
>  and fired from offshore could render the U.S.'s SDI effort pointless.

SDI has yet to be built. There's a half-dozen low-tech ways to put nukes on
target into the U.S., such as delivery by Cessna or Federal Express (You laugh.
Ship from Europe, labeled as "sensitive industrial material." A good ex-Sov
designer could certainly get something in a nice 300-500 lbs package). Who
cares if it found by Customs? Maybe I *want* customs to set it off..

>     QUESTION:  How easy would it be to build a cruise missile with the follow-
>                ing specs? (These are taken from the article).
>
>                ** accuracy to within ten feet of target when fired from a

Uh. No. Can't buy this one. However, 100-500ft accuracy with a moderately-sized
nuclear weapon is perfectly acceptable for everything except for hard targets.

>                ** use of GPS/gyroscopic homing with an autopilot

One of the Populars (Mechanics, Science) or Omni recently described el-cheapo
mini-gyroscopes for under $500. Plastic. Use two or three for redudency.

>                ** could be fired from a range of 300 miles offshore

Sure. Limit yourself to coastal cities, no problem. 

>    My initial opinions/comments:
>                1. How would you get it offshore?  U.S. SOSUS nets make it
>                   difficult for subs, other recon/intel. efforts could foil
>                   surface launchers (what would the U.S. do, for ex., if a
>                   civilian yacht with two big rectangular boxes on its super-
>                   strucutre left, say, Libya and approached U.S. waters?).

We've been trying to seal off Florida from South American Unapproved
Agricultural products for YEARS. 

If one accepts the loss at face value of one North Korean freighter carrying
Scuds by U.S. Naval forces, it might be easier than you think. 

>                2. AWACS planes with look-down radars could detect low-flyers,
>                   and could be stationed at key locations during a crisis
>                   situation.  F-15/AIM-7/AIM-120 could be shooter aircraft.

Assuming it's not a Pearl Harbor-situation, sure. If not, you'd have to watch
everything. 

>                3. Cruise missiles (accurate ones) must be more difficult to
>                   build than he says, or else more countries would already
>                   have them.  I know guidance systems and avionics are tricky
>                   to design and build.

Build? <shrug> Buy the tech from the Chinese. They have a willingness to accept
currencies from any number of countries. Or sub-contract with them for Silkworm
II missiles with lower radar signature and GPS-enhanced guidance. 

There's also the possibility of detuning GPS during wartime (which continues to
upset the civilian community), but then again, the Russians still have GLOVNAS
<sp>, aka "GPS-ski" and are more than willing to sell you a full solution to
all your navigation needs....


  For a country which has exported more comedians to the States than any
  other place on earth, the Canadians have very humorless grad students.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --