In message , phil hunt
writes
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:50:39 +0000, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft. There's a reason why (for example) ground-launched
Chapparal SAMs are credited with much less range than air-launched
Sidewinders, despite being the same missile.

I imagine this is a lot less true for long range missiles such as
Phoenix or Meteor.

Not at all. The more energy a missile has when it tries to intercept,
the more chance it has to score a kill: just as true for a long-range
weapon as a short-range missile.

Just pause and consider a target forty miles away and at 40,000 feet;
will your missile arrive with more energy if you fire it from sea level
or co-altitude? From 200 knots or 600 knots? And is it pointed at the
threat or does it have to turn onto the bearing?

The two sources of energy for a missile are its own motor (fixed and
constant for a given weapon) and the speed and altitude of its launch
platform.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk