On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:04:22 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
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?

After travelling 40 miles, both missiles ewill be doing about the
same speed, I imagine. Though the one that starts higher will get
there quicker, and with more fuel (and therefore potential to
manouvre) remaining.

So it depends whether you count KE or KE + chemical PE.

But you asre right in the sense that launching high and fast gives a
greater kill probability.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).