Not sure what you're trying to say here. They didn't have DSMAC because they didn't need it. They had nukes onboard. DSMAC was/is for hitting small targets with a conventional warhead.
Maybe you are confused about DSMAC importance and why nuclear armed Tomahawk leaned on it. Some mistakenly believe TERCOM and GPS would have been enough. GPS was in the infancy in that time period and TERCOM was less useful than the terrain matching not requiring accurate pictures. Errors in DSMAC didn't cause the missile to lose it's location.
Honestly, I'm wondering if you know what DSMAC is.
If your target isn't mobile, it doesn't matter just how slow the missile is to get to it.
Pershing used a similar targeting system to the GLCM (terrain matching radar)
If you did then you already know highly relevant to GLCM accuracy and mostly irrelevant to the topic. You can spell out your point because so far you have not made one for why it should be relevant. GLCM can lose GPS and have TERCOM fail but complete the mission.
No. That was not an option for the Pershing I or II. The rocket completed its mission much sooner than GLCM but was targeted at coordinates and fixed sites with an option of using radar for terminal corrections. GLCM allegedly flew slower and 50% further.
Yes and no. It used a radar-based seeker for terminal guidance. Aside from that it was a intertially guided ballistic missile. It didn't use terrain matching like GLCM did.
"Maybe you are confused about DSMAC importance and why nuclear armed Tomahawk leaned on it.
That was my point. It used an image for targeting.
Block III would have been introduced into GLCM if not for INF. They proved it was feasible if authorized. Block III instead was focused on conventional strike.
W84 was on GLCM, not W80. The other part is nonsense.
Not as I recall it, by the early 80s we were well into the microprocessor revolution. I'd really love to see an analogue DSMAC system!
There's this minor thing called wind-drift. DSMAC is completely incapable of altering the impact point if the vehicle is miles from where it should be.
You said, "terrain matching radar". That suggested you were referring to GLCMs TERCOM system, which is not the same as DSMAC.
The GLCM had to confirm location over target which could use but did not strictly require TERCOM. Neither TERCOM nor DSMAC was absolutely required for that but could be by configuration. Only one system was absolutely required and it had thresholds of accuracy to match. But if you knew its not for a public discussion.
Maybe you are purposely stating misinformation. You probably shouldn't say that with such conviction.
The time period has to be considered. Imaging meant something different back then. Pershhing IIs radar was not an AESA with high fidelity processing. It was less sophisticated and was only capable of limited matching the preconfigured mask to radar returns after process filtering. But it wasn't like Google Lens where an AI could intelligently identify the values. People confuse what some of this stuff meant for the timeframe. Much of what was possible simply was not thought of yet by then. Technology has greatly evolved since that time but so have the number of geniuses involved.
I can only tell you what it is. I can't understand it for you.
Absolutely. However, he was discussing a situation in which both GPS and TERCOM had failed, but alleged DSMAC would still get a GLCM to the target.
Why would TERCOM fail? Not even sure you could jam it for long enough to matter. If the system in the missile went out then yeah, it's hosed. There were even some problems in Desert Storm because the terrain didn't have enough features of the required size along some desired paths to follow.
Okay, TERCOM and DSMAC for beginners. DSMAC is a terminal phase guidance system, it applies only in the last few miles of a cruise-missile's approach to target. TERCOM is a long range navigation system, its job is to get the cruise missile close enough for DSMAC to take over. TERCOM can work without DSMAC at reduced accuracy, DSMAC can't work without TERCOM or another method of delivering the missile into its DSMAC acquisition bucket. (Remember, cruise missiles are taking that picture from low altitude, they can't see very far and its only in a limited Field of View.
Or maybe I have a better understanding of the technology than you do.
Have you considered applying that approach to your own posts?
It's the time period in which I began my career in defence software development. I've got probably a rather more intimate understanding of the technology of the time than you do.
We're discussing the interrelation of TERCOM and DSMAC, Pershing II is irrelevant to the discussion.
See post #121.
In a thread titled, "Pershing Missiles". Nice.
The USAF disagreed. GLCM that deployed and systems kept for development were not necessarily similar. Remember the deployed systems had neither GPS nor TERCOM. The deployed version did require confirmation of location over a target within a threshold. There are details nobody should be discussing. But we can state DSMAC required much more work than TERCOM. Use in a terminal phase was a preference decision not a necessity. It was not limited to that phase and the real handicap was keeping relevant data within limited storage. And it was not a preferred system in the dark although it had a work around. Newer systems have far different technologies that work better. But in that time period there was no peer.
You were the one insisting on discussing cruise missile specific TERCOM and DSMAC in a thread relating to Pershing.
If you post something that's wrong, expect to be corrected.
DSMAC required its approach path to be calculated by transforming overhead satellite imagery into low-level contrast maps. That would have required supercomputer use at the time. There would not have been the available capacity to extend it beyond the immediate target area. It certainly couldn't replace long range navigation systems, especially for flight over water.
Evidence please.
That's not correct. GLCM had Tercom and an INS. GPS didn't exist back then and should not be part of this discussion.
Yep. And lots of Germans were sad that we wanted them to go away.
Single-stage Pershing IIs were actually a thing but they elected to deploy them all in the 2-stage variant.
Thank you so much for this, where did you find the Stasi docs? are they digitalized or you had to look them up?
If i am not mistaken, the document was digitised by the ETH Zürich Centre for Security Studies Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP)
