Re: Battle blimps

KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au schrieb:
> > G'day,
> >
> > One other thought that just hit me. Are modern weapons
> > limited by "lowest possible speeds" like some of the WWII
> > anti-air stuff. I remember reading once that the Swordfish
> > (I think I've got the name right) did well against
> > anti-air in WWII as it went to slow for the weapons to
> > track it ;)
>
> Don't think this is really true for WWII AA guns. Slow planes were
> difficult to hit for fast fighters, mostly because they were very
> maneuvrable and could evade rather easily.
>

There actually were a few aircraft that, if pursuing a ship into the
wind,
would have a relative motion so low that they would drop under the
calibrated region of the mechanical computers.	The swordfish and a
japanese torpedoe bomber fit the bill.	As reprogramming a mechanical
computer to accommodate a slower target speed requires switching it off,
adjusting the rate gearing ratios (if that was even an option), and
waiting
for it to get back up to speed, and most engineers would know that
letting
common sailors poke their fingers inside a high precision instrument is
a
BAD THING (TM), the computers were designed with a fixed range of speeds
that they hoped would cover all possible targets.  The only reason that
any
of these mechanical gunfire computers would be programmable at all is
that
it makes a difference for long range gunfire if you are north or south
of
the equator (latitude shaft must be reversible).

The reason the signal processing software for the Aegis system is a
tightly
held secret (I assume) is that signal processors are easy to spoof if
you