Re: Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts (Which is what the topic mutated into :o)

----- Original Message -----
From: <ShldWulf@aol.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts (Which is what the topic mutated
into
:o)

> rlbell@sympatico.ca (Richard and Emily Bell) said:
>
> >We have a terminology problem.<
>
> And how much of one I didn't realize till I read this post :o)
>
> First of all we are talking a bomb not a missile. (We don't have any
attack
> missiles as big as 2000 lbs. Well, OK, one... but really the AGM
> (Air-to-Ground-Missile)-130 is just a Laser Guided Bomb with a rocket
booster
> for increased range. It can't attack a target until after the rocket
burns
> out and it enters a descending glide path.)
>
> Your pretty much correct about beam-riders vs Semi-active. With terms
defined
> as such, then ALL current missiles and smart bombs are "Semi-active
seekers."
> Laser Guidance is basically both. The Seeker head is not accurate
enough
to
> lock on a target at large angles so if the illuminating aircraft is
not
THE
> launch aircraft, (usually not) then they aircraft have to approach the
target
> from the same area. The illuminator aircraft can orbit or stand off.
And
> while the seeker CAN use a lot of scatter from the beam, this is only
used
as
> a reference as the bomb steers to find the highest degree of radiation
in
the
> sensor view area. The bombs tend to "spiral" around the beam because
the
> free-floating seeker head is constantly scanning for the beam and
rolling
the
> bomb around the radius of the beam. This is the same technique used
with
all
> tracking weapons at the present moment, excluding "Active" weapons,
for
> example the Phoenix, which have their own "illumination" sources
onboard.
>
> My major point was, and is, that once released. a free fall bomb is an
easy
> target for Point-defense simply because it's path is so predictable.
Unless
> the release is at high velocity, (which presents it's own set of
problems)
> the bomb fly's a lot slower than the terminal velocity of most
missiles.
>
> Speaking of missiles. You stated another communication problem we are
having:
>
> >Needless to say, the warheads need to be large, as accuracy is
inversely
> proportional to range.<
>
> OK, big difference here. Air-to-Air missiles, which are the type you
are
> pretty much discussing in your post do NOT have large warheads. The
largest
> current AIM (Air Intercept Missile) the AIM-120 only has about a 75
pound
> warhead. (I'd have to get my CDC's to be absolutely sure :o) It is not
> "light" but while it takes 4 people to lift it and move it around,
anyone
> trying that with an AGM-65 Maverick would end up with a serious
hernia.
The
> AGM has a 500-or-1000 pound warhead on it I seem to recall off hand.
(Again
> we could lump the AGM-130 in here :o)
>
> Strictly speaking you could probably target a BB with an AIM-120...
but
the
> ship would not even notice the detonation. Mavericks, Harpoons, and
Exocets
> are very much a danger due to their attack profiles which tend towards
low
> and fast, whereas an LGB needs either a higher altitude drop or
requires
the
> aircraft to close to "pointblank" and drop the bomb as it overflies
the
> target. (In which case you wouldn't use and LGB but a stick of regular
"iron"
> bombs, and probably lose the aircraft as well :o)
>
> Randy
>

A question is how much dammage would even a exocet do to the armour of a
iowa BB? The missile in question was leathal to the HMS sheffield in the
falklands, but the sheff was tin foil armour. Just a question.

BIF
 "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred,
 strong in arms, thick in head"