From: jayson@tbag.tscs.com (Jayson Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Patriot Missile Myth (was re: Perot)
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:31:22 EST
Organization: Tampa Bay Amiga Group

 
 5 Sep 1992 mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
 
>Oh... now the liberals are saying that the Patriot didn't hit a
 
"Liberal"  comes  from "liberty" which means freedom.  I belive in freedom,
unlike certain authority-worshipers with network TV educations.
 
>SINGLE scud!  The number keeps getting lower and lower!  Next, it
>will be negative!
>
>What nonsense!  (unsustantiated nonsense)
 
Patriot Missile success is a myth and your ignorance is astounding:
 
==========================================================================
Date: 27 Feb 92 13:01:00 EST
From: "UKAV03::W0400" <W0400%UKAV03.decnet@usav01.glaxo.com>
Subject: Patriot missiles misled by `accidental' decoys
 
Quotes from an article in the New Scientist 15 Feb 1992:
 
The  US  Army's Patriot missiles missed many of the Iraqi missiles that the
US  thought  they  had  shot  down  during the Gulf War, according to a new
analysis.   Iraqi's  modified  Scud  missile,  called  the  Al-Husayn,  was
difficult  to hit because it was so unstable that it broke into pieces when
it reentered the atmosphere, creating a confusing barrage of debris.
 
Ted Postol, a professor at MIT, re-examined the Patriot's war record at the
request  of  a  Congressional  committee.   He found that deploying Patriot
missiles  defences  did  not reduce damage during Iraq's missile attacks on
Israel and Saudi Arabia.
 
Postol  then  examined  videotapes recored by TV journalists that seemed to
show  the  Patriot  missiles  successfully intercepting Al-Husayn missiles.
Paytheon,  the Patriot's manufacturer, has used this footage to promote its
missile.   Incoming Iraqi missiles are visible on the videotapes because of
their velocity, about two metres per second, {that must be a mistype in the
article,  I  expect  it  should be two kilometers per second W.} makes them
glow  incandescently  as they re-enter the athmosphere.  The videotape also
captures the explosions of the Patriot interceptors.
 
Postol  played  these videotapes in slow motion to an audience of the AAAS.
As  the  Patriot detonations flashed on the screen, Postol stopped the tape
to  show how far these explosions were from the glowing Al-Husayn warheads.
In  most  cases,  the  Iraqi  Al-Husayn warhead appeared to fly straight on
unharmed.   In one case, there was a fireball as the Iraqi warhead exploded
on impact with the ground.
 
The  army  claims  that  the Patriots successfully intercepted 45 of the 47
missiles  they tried to shoot down.  But Postol says the tapes show that in
some  of  these  cases,  the  Patriots  missed  their targets by at least a
kilometer.  Postal measures this distance by comparing the relative motions
of  the  Patriot  fireball,  which  stays  in  one place, and the Al-Husayn
warhead.
 
The  Patriot  had a particularly hard time hitting the Al-Husayn because of
problems with the Iraqi missile.  Iraqi engineers had extended the range of
the  Soviet  Scud-B  missile  by  lengthening its fuel tanks and making its
warhead  much  lighter.   The changes made the missile unstable, and caused
the  Al-Husayn  to flop belly-first as it re-entered the athmosphere, often
breaking up in the process.  the Patriot missile had to distinguish between
the  Al-Husayn's  warhead  and other debris such as the empty fuel tank and
tail  fins  which  rained  from from the sky.  In effect, the Iraqi missile
released  unintended  but  effective "decoys" to distract the Patriot, said
Postol.  Ther Patriot had its own problems as well.  One software bug could
have  directed the Patriot to attempt to intercept an incoming missile at a
point below ground.  In one case this bug may have caused a Patriot to turn
back and dive into the ground.
 
Postol  argues  that the effectiveness of the Al-Husayn's unintended decoys
shows  how  extremely  simple  factors can frustrate attempts to shoot down
ballistics  missiles.   This  could  teach  scepticism  when  it  comes  to
evaluating  the claims made for missile defence technologies, such as plans
for the US Star Wars system.
 
Raytheon  disputes  Postol's  conclusions,  but  has  not yet made public a
detailed  analysis  that  would rebut his claims.  Defenders of the Patriot
believe the damage on the ground could have come from falling debris rather
than from detonations of the Iraqi missile's warhead.
 
From Comp.risks...
 
The  Army  acknowledged  on 7 April 1992 that its glowing claims of success
were  based on faulty data and indicated it is now certain that the missile
``killed''  roughly  10  Iraqi  Scud  warheads out of more than 80 fired at
Israel and Saudi Arabia, although the actual number could be greater.
 
[Source:   A  front-page  article by George Lardner in the Washington Post,
Army  Cuts  Claims  of  Patriot  Success:   Reduced  Figures  on  Missile's
Precision During Gulf War Are Issued, 8 Apr 1992.]
 
Also,  see  the earlier item on MIT Professor Theodore A.  Postol's article
and its aftermath, discussed in RISKS-13.32.  Postol was on Fox TV early on
the  morning  of  the  7th,  prior  to  the  Army  briefing, discussing the
Patriots.   He  suggested  that 10% was much closer than the 80% previously
claimed,  and  that  it  is  actually conceivable that NO direct kills were
actually achieved!]
 
 
Subject: Patriot: The missile that missed
 
From New Scientist 18 April 1992
 
Patriot: The missile that missed
 
While  defending  the performance of the Patriot missile last week, US Army
officers reduced their estimates of how many Iraqi missiles the Patriot hit
during  the  Gulf War.  The army now believes that the Patriot successfully
intercepted  24  missiles  out  of  about  85  attempts.   But it has "high
confidence" in only 10 attempts.
 
Even  as  the  Pentagon  renewed  its  defence of the Patriot's record, new
evidence  cast  additional  doubt  of  its  credibility.  The congressional
General Accounting Office revealed that the army's earlier estimates of the
Patriot's  success  were  wildly  optimistic and were based on over-hopeful
assumptions.   For  instance,  if  the army could not find an impact crater
from  a  Scud  warhead,  it  assumed  that the Scud had been destroyed by a
Patriot.   Yet  some  army  units  on  the scene never bothered to look for
craters, says the GAO.
 
The  Congressional  Research  Service, in a separate analysis of classified
Pentagon data, concluded that most of the army's evidence was weak.  Steven
Hildreth of the CRS says that he is only convinced that one Patriot missile
actually destroyed a Scud warhead.
 
During  the  Gulf  War,  President  Bush  announced  to cheering crowds the
Patriot had "intercepted" 41 out of 42 Scuds that it was fired at.  General
Robert  Drolet  defended  Bush's  statement  at  last  week's congressional
hearing,  saying  that  "intercepted" meant only that "a Patriot and a Scud
passed each other in the sky".
 
The  army  has  abandoned  an investigation of Ted Postol, the professor at
Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  who has been among the Patriot's
strongest  critics  (New Scientist 28th March).  Postol had been accused of
using  classified  data in an article he published that was critical of the
missile's performance.
 
[It  is very good news, if Ted Postol has been "cleared" and that no action
will  be taken against him.  However the double speak "intercepted" by this
article  leaves  me worried to say the least.  Most people will believe the
"successes"  and  thus  expect great things to happen.  When such over-sold
systems  fail, it is the scientists, who get the blame and the world starts
to reject their achievements instead.]
==========================================================================
 
 Jay Phillips * Tampa FL         * Bush has overtaken Reagan as *
 Amiga 3000 25Mhz/105HD/10MB     * the country's #1 worst liar. *
 USENET: tbag!jayson@tscs.com    * "Read my lips..." not again! *

--- Via UCI v1.02 (C-Net Amiga)