|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
United States: Patriot Batteries Lacked Data Recording Systems, Officials Say Some of the Patriot missile interceptor batteries used in the recent war with Iraq lacked data recorders needed to track their performance, while the recorders in other batteries were damaged, resulting in lost information, U.S. Army officers said this week (see GSN, April 24). The Patriot systems were redesigned in 1995 to include optical disks and “embedded data recorders” to preserve tactical information, according to a fact sheet prepared by Raytheon, which produces the Patriot. However, only some of the Patriot systems sent to the Middle East were equipped with the data recording systems, and of those, some were damaged due to wear, according to Army officials. It is unknown what effect the lost data will have on the Army’s review of the Patriot’s performance during the Iraq war, according to the Boston Globe, but the review will continue, a senior U.S. commander said. In some instances, hard-copy records will be used, said military officials, adding that such a system was out of date. The hard copies, which include tape drives and printouts, amount to “an antiquated portion of our system,” said Maj. Gen. Stanley Green, commander of the Army’s Air Defense Artillery Center at Fort Bliss, Texas (Ross Kerber, Boston Globe, May 8). Radars Could Have Played Role in Friendly Fire Incidents Meanwhile, military investigators are examining whether tracking radars generated false signals that confused Patriot operators, leading to friendly fire incidents, according to officials. In two incidents during the recent war with Iraq, Patriot operators thought they were engaging enemy missiles, not aircraft, the officials said. Some Army and industry experts believe that electromagnetic interference could have played a role in the confusion, according to the Washington Post. Such interference could have resulted from the close proximity of multiple Patriot radars, along with other battlefield electronic systems, they said. “This is the densest battlefield we’ve seen,” said Army Brig. Gen. Howard Bromberg, who headed U.S. air defenses during the war. “I believe there could be something there. That’s my personal belief,” he said (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, May 8).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
