RE: TV SF's glorious past ;-)

>>>  Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:24:18 +0000
>>>  From: Phillip Atcliffe <P-ATCLIFFE@wpg.uwe.ac.uk>
>>>  Subject: RE: TV SF's glorious past  ;-) - Reply
>...
>>>  equipment from Monday's episode) are still very much theory.
Actually, the
>>>  sub-launched fighter is the most feasible piece of equipment of the
lot, with the
>>>  possible exception of the Mobiles. There have been sub-launched
aircraft since
>>>  World War I! They just haven't been mounted on the front of the sub
up
till now...
>
>Sub-launched aircraft have been launched by catapult or RATO  
>while the boat was on the surface.
>
>
>>>  The short, cynical answer to the great one-missile question, which
has
chewed
>>>  up Mb upon Mb in such forums as the UFO mailing list, is that, that
way, the
>					 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Oh  my  god  .
>
>>>  more control over the budget, and you can _really_ appreciate the
Moonbase
>>>  gals this time around. 
>
>Well, there is that... <g>
>>>  Not to mention Ayshea...
>?
>|  john_medway@zycor.lgc.com  |  Landmark Graphics Corp  | 
512.292.2325  |

	The 1-missile Interceptors are quite reasonable- think of the
assorted '40s-'50s-'60s manned interceptors with either a single salvo
of
rockets or a small number of big missiles- also remember that the SHADO
is
pushing technological limits to try and whack the occasional UFO- the
Interceptors are closer to F89 Scorpions than to F15s!

Aargh! That looks as if I'm taking it seriously!  I do apologise! 

Right then, U.F.O. in FT/MT...

Rob Paul
NERC Institute of Virology 
Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SR	  Tel. (01865) 512361
rkp@mail.nerc-oxford.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  "Once again, villainy is rotting meat before the maggots of justice!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--