Comments on: Missile lock-on!

By: Sam J.

Sam J. — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:26:04 +0000

Ritchie:

That’s thinking out of the box for sure. Very interesting. I never heard of these. Thanks.

These things would be great for aircraft. They’re really impressive. You could make a slot in the wing and launch them from the front or rear. To launch from the rear or the front just rotate the plate. The slot would be small so it wouldn’t harm the planes drag much. Since they stack like plates you could have a magazine of them in the bomb bay that fed them into the launch slot. Let’s say you had a high risk target. One plane could fill it’s bomb bay with these magazines and launch masses of these plate bombs while another carried the bombs for the target. Since the magazines fit into the bomb bay the whole bomb bay could be re-configurable for different weapons systems for different attack scenarios.

By: Ritchie

Ritchie — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 02:06:57 +0000

Pye Wacket was the codename for an experimental lenticular-form air-to-air missile developed by the Convair Division of the General Dynamics Corporation [1] in 1957. Intended as a defensive missile for the B-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber, the program saw extensive wind-tunnel testing and seemed promising; however the cancellation of the B-70 removed the requirement for the missile, and the project was cancelled.

By: Sam J.

Sam J. — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 11:11:42 +0000

I happened to be thinking about missile systems lately. In the past missle systems seemed an insurmountable task to defeat. Hence the vast sums spent on cruise missles and stealth. Today this seems to not be true but I haven’t heard anyone else say so or comment on it. High ground always has the stronger hand. With a CCD camera, possibly with some limited thermal capability and a cheap processor with some limited neural net software, why in world should anyone worry about missiles? Just carry a few small anti-missile missiles on the plane. If a missile is fired the plane tells the mini missile killer where it’s coming from, launches and the mini-missile killer optically tracks the missile on the way down and hits it. Missile gone. You need a hell of a lot less energy to fire down than up. The cost of the ground launched missile will always be higher. You could carry a lot of them or one plane could carry a lot of missiles, to clear the ground missiles, while another, higher, carried the bombs

By: Lucklucky

Lucklucky — Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:04:14 +0000

Not anymore true with electronic scanned radars and low signature radars so it is increasingly difficult to know when someone is just scanning you.

That is one of the reasons for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_approach_warning_system

They need to detect the missile.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 01 Sep 2018 04:52:17 +0000

Tried or faked. A drone exploding a half-mile away in the air is a lot easier on a faking politician's nerves than the rifle bullet zooming riskily close (near spoiler) in Donald Hamilton's classic Line of Fire.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 01 Sep 2018 04:20:22 +0000

Suarez predicted the idea of drone assassination in this novel; it was recently tried in Venezuela a few weeks ago against its president.