Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!amdahl!amdcad!military
From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David E. Emery)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Artillery Target Acquisition (was re: B-2 Question)
Message-ID: <26782@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 16 Aug 89 06:14:55 GMT
References: <8884@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David E. Emery)
Donald Ritchey's description of sound/flash is accurate (good
memory!).  The U.S. Army dropped sound/flash from its target
acquisition a while ago.  Other countries, particularly the Soviets,
continue to develop much more sophisticated sound/flash systems.
These are not limited to "developing countries", either.  

The problem with radars is their signature.  A division has 5
counterbattery radars (3 AN/TPQ-36 and 2 AN/TPQ-37).  (That's it, too.
There are no radars at Corps right now.)  To the Soviets, with their
tremendous emphasis on EW, turning a radar on will "light up their
screens".  We have rules like "don't radiate longer than 6 seconds",
and "move after a total radiation exposure of 10 minutes".  

Once Ivan hits a radar, it's gone!  Sound/flash have a tremendous
advantage as passive systems (they're also cheaper).  I suspect we're
re-examining our decision to remove sound/flash from our target
acquisition units.

				dave emery
				emery@aries.mitre.org
				(CPT, Field Artillery, NH Army NG)