Re: FT: Missiles and Gas Tanks

>On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gerald McVicker wrote:
>
>> I've got a real problem with this missile thing in FT.   You guys
talk as
>> if the missile would "run out of fuel" during its flight.  What if
the ship
>> that launched the missile imparts its velocity?
>
>It should do (and does, if you use the Newtonian movement rules on
>The Page or elsewhere). However, unless the missiles uses some sort
>of main engines - and quite powerful at that - it won't hit very
>well, because its trajectory will be very easy to predict - and a
>target ship will be able to move out of the way, unless the missile
>launcher is _very_ powerful and throws the missile at speeds similar
>to railgun slugs. Unless I misunderstood you entirely, your
>suggestion is roughly equivalent to trying to hit a jet fighter with
>a guided bomb instead of with an air-to-air missile.
>
>What do you military guys say - can an air-to-air missile run out of
>fuel? How radical maneuvers is it capable of?
>
>Later,
>
>Oerjan Ohlson
>
>"Life is like a sewer.
> What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry

This is very different from an air-to-air missile.   The energy required
to
manuver it would be in relation to the mass of the vehicle.  "Correct me
If
I'm wrong."  Therefore a missile would be eaiser to manuver than a ship.
 I
liken it to a naval warship trying to evade an anti-ship missile of
today.
There is NO WAY an aircraft carrier could out-manuver a missile.  So
check
for the point defense systems and work out damage if it fails.	Besides
an
air-to-air missile needs the fuel and the engine to maintain its
velocity
and its flight.   If you shot a missile out of say a " gravic propulsion
launcher" or some other sci-fi equivalent..it would maintain its
velocity.
All the engine would have to do is change its vector of movement.

Jerry McVicker

"Don't worry soldier, weapons will be available in a moment."