From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Patriot Missile re-evaluation
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:39:57 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr8.043641.15779@reed.edu> mehawk@reed.edu (Michael Sandy) writes:
]I watched a discussion about the Patriot Missile's preformance and
]was struck by something:

First, let's keep in mind the context in which these things are discussed.
The Patriot Missile is used as a surrogate for strategic missile defense
by both sides. Thus, the anti-SDI people try to smear the Patriot. The
Pro-SDI people try to make it better than it is. Guess which viewpoint
the press tends to have (hint: anti-SDI).

]Apparantly the equipment which monitored its flight and would provide
]information about its results interfered greatly with the operation
]of the missile.  So we have a situation where the weapon supposedly
]works better when noone can double-check the results.

This is a surprise? Anyone who has done programming realises that
detailed event logging takes time. I once worked on a monitoring system
for the Navy Tactical Data System. Since it was a combat critical
computer system (just as the Patriot system is), the would only allow
monitoring by a separate device that watched the I/O and deduced the
tactical situation from it (this was a very bizarre thing that we
designed). This was to prevent any possible degradation in a combat
situation.

]Further, the deployment of the Patriot missile probably increased the
]amount of damage in Israel because Patriot warheads and Patriot debris
]crashed into inhabited areas.  There was even a film clip where it looked
]like a Patriot crashed into a city right after launch.

This is certainly the assertion of the opponents. On the other hand,
in the war between the cities (Baghdad vs. Tehran), there were
an average of 45 deaths per Scud. In Israel there were only 3 deaths
in the entire war. Furthermore, one cannot explain this by early
warning, since the warnings forced people into ABOVE GROUND
rooms (more vulnerable to the SCUD warhead) because of fears of
gas attacks.

You don't have to intercept many warheads before you have greatly reduced
the destruction. There isn't much you can do about debris, although
blowing it up in flight tends to reduce its velocity (by reducing
its aerodynamic characteristics). Finally, in the "surrogate" for
SDI, the damage inflicted by debris is nothing compared to that of
a nuclear or chemical weapon that arrives with its warhead intact.

]The Pentagon expert explained an explosion on the ground following an
]"intercept" was probably the fuel tank of the Scud exploding on the
]ground, not the warhead.  I'm sure it was quite a consolation that the
]damage was done by exploding rocket fuel and not an exploding warhead.

I you look closely at the film, you will see some that are explosions
from the debris, and some that are clearly from the warheads exploding.
Even during the war, it was obvious to me that some warheads were getting
through. However, it was clearly the right thing to do at the time for the
Pentagon to lie about that - it kept Israel out of the war.

]The lame-brained Larry King didn't exactly follow up on this point, hanging
]the 'expert' with his own testimony wasn't on the schedule.

It isn't hanging the expert with his own testimony. A fuel explosion is
likely to be far less damaging than the warhead (especially since there is
little fuel left after the flight).

]The Pentagon expert was going on about how without the Patriot the Israelis
]would've had no defense, this was purest BS.  Without the Patriot they
]would've gone after the launchers, which is, of course, the best defense.

This, of course, is pure nonsense - as demonstrated by the fact that with
total air superiority we were unable to prevent Scud launches even on the
last day of the war.

Finally, all of this ignores the fact that the Patriot was operating outside
of its design parameters. It was originally designed as an anti-aircraft
weapon, with limited anti-missile capability tacked on later. Anyone who
knows anything about engineering will realize that this is far from the
optimal way to design an anti-missile system. Second, its mission was
to defend small areas (airfields, depots, etc), and thus in that case
a hard warhead kill is unnecessary - it is only necessary to divert
that warhead by a few degrees in its terminal approach. Third, the
Patriot has early 1970's technology (it probably has less CPU power
than a desktop PC, although I don't know this for a fact), and thus
does not reflect on what is possible with today's technology.

Recognize the Patriot debate as what it is: a surrogate SDI debate, with
the media's tendency for sensational muckraking thrown in.

Also notice that most of the big Pentagon systems that performed so well
in the gulf war were raked over the coals in 60 minutes and other
programs in the past. The Bradley was hammered by 60 minutes, but
it worked just fine - even scoring a bunch of tank kills, which is
pretty impressive from an Armoured Personnel Carrier. The Tomahawks
worked very well. The fighter bombers were excellent. The M-1 tank,
itself a target of numerous muck-raking attacks, proved itself
remarkably survivable - not one was seriously damaged by tank fire
from opposing tanks, even though many direct hits were suffered.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc