From: Spike Jones (spike66@attglobal.net)
Date: Sun Aug 26 2001 - 12:18:04 MDT
> John Clark wrote:
> > As an Extropian I'm against things that won't work....
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Yes, and while we are at it, lets get rid of all those pesky airplanes.... They
> are obviously not worth the investment needed to make them truly useful.
One of the less mentioned applications of the PAC3 missile is
an anti-aircraft weapon. The Patriot missile started life as an
anti-aircraft system, but later versions were named Patriot
Advanced Capability, or PAC, since its role was expanded
to include warhead intercept.
The failed July 9 PAC3 intercept attempt was only partially
unsuccessful, since it was a simultaneous firing of two missiles,
one at an incoming warhead, the other at a drone aircraft which
was using all the latest and greatest evasive technologies other
than full-on stealth, i.e: radar jamming, flares, chaff, endgame
manuevering, other goodies still in the bag. The warhead was
missed but the airplane was hit. I notice they arent scheduling
any more PAC3 tests against aircraft targets. Generally the
customer will not do a test in which the target has much less
than about a 50-50 chance of escaping.
Looks to me like the world is on the verge of rendering fighter
planes useless, if ground based lasers and PAC3 missiles are
sold around the globe. These ground based systems would cost
pennies on the dollar what it would cost to maintain a modern
air force.
That would be a kick, eh? If defensive technology really did
finally gain the upper hand on offensive tech? If the world's
military forces began investing more in anti-aircraft weapons
instead of the jets? Military expenditures started *dropping*
world wide? Bad for business I suppose, but it would make
me the happiest poor guy you ever saw. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:07 MST