Re: FT: M&GT 2

Ok, I had to break this up into 2 messages, sorry.
Gerald: Missles in FT, (as appposed to Sub Munitons packs) are not 
even close to AIM's of today. Due to rangees involved and realtive 
velocities and such your looking at an FT missle being about Trident 
sized to be even remotly effective. Sub munittons munitions would 
probably  be about the size of a Phonix, if not bigger. (john: There 
ought to be a rule on the effect of ADS/PDS's on them anyway, i'd 
think as they can be intercepted. IMHO)  and both would use fuel to 
preform "evasive" manuvers to try and throw off the defenses of the 
target as well as manuvering for a hit.
One thing you stend to see in Anime is mass missle attacks, with 
missles cork screwing through the sky. Though we don't do that, yet, 
as it is too expensive, we have develope the sea/ground skimming 
missle and the plunging attack to try and confuse the enmey defenses  
for just the same purpose. The jist of this is the missles are 
getting  bigger anyway as we need more fuel to	preform these 
manuvers.
BTW: The official definitons are: Missles have guidence and 
manuverability. Rockets are unguided. (Point and shoot)
The problem with, (as illustrated by the KV rail gun) just firing a 
missle at high velociity and using a guidance motor for course 
corrections is this is only a "short" range option. Granted an 
Battle ship will never out run a missle, but at a range of several 
thousand kilometers, your probable target location area is huge. It 
would only take a few degrees off to be unable to close with and 
damage the target. (Launch an ICBM at a carreir from say  the middle of 
the US, you have to have a nuke just to have a chance of damaging 
the thing, and without terminal guidance you have little chance of 
that)
I know that FT has no set "range values" but just looking at the set 
up I figure the ranges	have  to  be  pretty big. Wet Navy  
examples tend to fall short when talking about a space battle no 
matter how you define it.

Randy