Antimissiles against ballistic targets ?

"Henning" <HRogge RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1170757843.977240.45620@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> There is one thing about antimissiles that I'm curious about...
>
> do they have normal EM sensors like lidar/radar and can they target
> things without an impeller wedge (an incoming ballistic missile for
> example) ?
>

Would seem to but maybe sort of stupid.
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "Henning" <HRogge.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com>
wrote on 6 Feb 2007 02:30:44 -0800 in alt.books.david-weber :
>There is one thing about antimissiles that I'm curious about...
>
>do they have normal EM sensors like lidar/radar and can they target
>things without an impeller wedge (an incoming ballistic missile for
>example) ?

I suspect they have some homing capacity, otherwise, why use EW to
confuse things?

OTOH it seems to me that maneuverability is going to be more of an
issue. at the accelerations (and speeds), countermissles are going to be
pretty much straight shot, out the bore like a bat out of hell with its
butt on fire, and hopefully there will be something in the way when it gets
"there".

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"Given our monstrous, overgrown government structure, any three letters
chosen at random would probably designate an agency or part of a
department that could be profitably abolished." Milton Freidman
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "deowll" <deowll.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
wrote on Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:34:57 -0600 in alt.books.david-weber :
>
>"Henning" <HRogge.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1170757843.977240.45620@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> There is one thing about antimissiles that I'm curious about...
>>
>> do they have normal EM sensors like lidar/radar and can they target
>> things without an impeller wedge (an incoming ballistic missile for
>> example) ?
>>
>
>Would seem to but maybe sort of stupid.

From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets than
those which have gone ballistic.

I'd be curious as to how "visible" a wedge is in visible light, as in
"can you see one, and not be killed in the process."

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"Given our monstrous, overgrown government structure, any three letters
chosen at random would probably designate an agency or part of a
department that could be profitably abolished." Milton Freidman
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

On 7 Feb., 22:56, pyotr filipivich <p....TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote:
> From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets than
> those which have gone ballistic.

Typically antimissiles kill their targets by Wedge-Wedge collisions.
Ballistic missiles don't have a wedge so you must
1.) ram them directly
2.) rotate to hit them with the wedge.

I'm not sure if antimissiles can do this.
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Henning wrote in message
<1171025529.558657.178750 RemoveThis @s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>...
>On 7 Feb., 22:56, pyotr filipivich <p... RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote:
>> From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets
than
>> those which have gone ballistic.
>
>Typically antimissiles kill their targets by Wedge-Wedge collisions.
>Ballistic missiles don't have a wedge so you must
>1.) ram them directly
>2.) rotate to hit them with the wedge.
>
>I'm not sure if antimissiles can do this.
>

Well, I'm not exactly sure if a wedge to missile will destroy a missile or
not. I'm sure that it would
really screw things up, if it didn't actually destroy it outright.
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

In article <eqibik$2or9$1@pyrite.mv.net>,
"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:

> Henning wrote in message
> <1171025529.558657.178750 DeleteThis @s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>...
> >On 7 Feb., 22:56, pyotr filipivich <p... DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets
> than
> >> those which have gone ballistic.
> >
> >Typically antimissiles kill their targets by Wedge-Wedge collisions.
> >Ballistic missiles don't have a wedge so you must
> >1.) ram them directly
> >2.) rotate to hit them with the wedge.
> >
> >I'm not sure if antimissiles can do this.
> >
>
> Well, I'm not exactly sure if a wedge to missile will destroy a missile or
> not. I'm sure that it would
> really screw things up, if it didn't actually destroy it outright.

Anything hitting a wedge is pretty much destroyed. You don't even have
to rotate your missile very much to ensure that either the top or the
bottom of its wedge is going to hit its target.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Fred Burton wrote:
> Henning wrote in message
> <1171025529.558657.178750.DeleteThis@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>...
>> On 7 Feb., 22:56, pyotr filipivich <p....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets
> than
>>> those which have gone ballistic.
>> Typically antimissiles kill their targets by Wedge-Wedge collisions.
>> Ballistic missiles don't have a wedge so you must
>> 1.) ram them directly
>> 2.) rotate to hit them with the wedge.
>>
>> I'm not sure if antimissiles can do this.
>>
>
> Well, I'm not exactly sure if a wedge to missile will destroy a missile or
> not. I'm sure that it would
> really screw things up, if it didn't actually destroy it outright.

We've seen that a wedge contact will slice a Havenite pinnace in half,
so I'm sure it would take out a missile if it hit.

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "Fred Burton"
<fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote on Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:39:41 -0500 in
alt.books.david-weber :
>
>Henning wrote in message
><1171025529.558657.178750.RemoveThis@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>...
>>On 7 Feb., 22:56, pyotr filipivich <p....RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets
>than
>>> those which have gone ballistic.
>>
>>Typically antimissiles kill their targets by Wedge-Wedge collisions.
>>Ballistic missiles don't have a wedge so you must
>>1.) ram them directly
>>2.) rotate to hit them with the wedge.
>>
>>I'm not sure if antimissiles can do this.
>>
>
>Well, I'm not exactly sure if a wedge to missile will destroy a missile or
>not. I'm sure that it would
>really screw things up, if it didn't actually destroy it outright.

I'm curious about the "make up of wedges". We know it is a "band of
stressed gravitation", and relatively impenetrable to light radiation
(visible, or invisible, you can't "see" through it without computer
support), so what "is" a wedge? I've been grappling with trying to get
some kind of idea of what is happening there. And why bringing the wedge
up in an boat bay is "a bad thing". It obviously is, and I'm sure that He
Who Writes has a concept of what is going on (obviously, the wedge of a
pinnace doesn't just "spring" into existence at what ever distance is the
usual "working distance".
But that said, I suspect that an Countermissle works in two ways, wedge
to wedge (blowing the propulsion nodes out of both vessels, with collateral
damage), and a "near miss" were the wedge makes contact with the missile
body itself, subjecting it to the umpteen mega-odd g acceleration involved
in that "stressed gravitational band". I mean if you suddenly subject on
part of a missile to a 1000 g acceleration, while another part is not, I
suspect a high possibility of structural failure, as some parts want to go
"this way" at 35,000 km/hr, while the other parts want to continue to go
"that way". I doubt even Unobtanium can prevent the shredding of
components into itsy bitsy slivers.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Don Sample <dsample.DeleteThis@synapse.net>
wrote on Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:14:22 -0500 in alt.books.david-weber :
>In article <eqibik$2or9$1@pyrite.mv.net>,
> "Fred Burton" <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
>> Henning wrote in message
>> <1171025529.558657.178750.DeleteThis@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>...
>> >On 7 Feb., 22:56, pyotr filipivich <p....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> From my reading, missiles with active drives are "bigger" targets
>> than
>> >> those which have gone ballistic.
>> >
>> >Typically antimissiles kill their targets by Wedge-Wedge collisions.
>> >Ballistic missiles don't have a wedge so you must
>> >1.) ram them directly
>> >2.) rotate to hit them with the wedge.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure if antimissiles can do this.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I'm not exactly sure if a wedge to missile will destroy a missile or
>> not. I'm sure that it would
>> really screw things up, if it didn't actually destroy it outright.
>
>Anything hitting a wedge is pretty much destroyed. You don't even have
>to rotate your missile very much to ensure that either the top or the
>bottom of its wedge is going to hit its target.

OOh, hadn't considered that, but a counter missile really is just a
device for delivering two bands of "stressed gravity" to a given area.
That as wedges have an open through and a more constricted Kilt, you have a
pair of planes forming an open V. So each missile "sweeps" a particular
volume of space as it passes, and the idea is to make sure that the wedge
either impacts the target's wedge (blowing both propulsion units apart), or
the actual target missile body.

But that open wedge, several kilo-meters wide, does solve the problem
of orbital debris. A ship with a wedge up sort of "Hoovers" the area it
passes, converting any space junk into constitute parts or molecules. Hmmm,
This Has Possibilities!

I'm not sure for what, but it does.

pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"Set phasers to deep fat fy, extra crispy, Cajun style."
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

pyotr filipivich wrote:

> My own technobabble is that when you lose containment to a fusion
> reactor which uses gravitic lenses, it is the gravitic lenses failure which
> cause the problem. My handwave is that, just as you can't cross into
> Hyperpace inside the hyper limit, so some of these marvelous devices
> require a set volume of space to function. The Gravitic lenses which make
> Fusion One Work require umpty odd cubic meters of space to form up, and
> much like a uranium centrifuge, must be monitored as they "spin up" to
> prevent dangerous harmonics from making everything go "bang!".
> OTOH, they could have just kept the old engine room space from when
> they converted from coal fired boilers.
>
>
> pyotr

This gives me the amusing mental image of a Superdreadnought running on
coal, with a pair of badly overworked crewmembers shoveling the black
rocks into the furnace to keep the wedge up. :*D
--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Jeffrey MacHott
<Raguleader.RemoveThis@netzero.net> wrote on Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:10:05 GMT in
alt.books.david-weber :
>pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> My own technobabble is that when you lose containment to a fusion
>> reactor which uses gravitic lenses, it is the gravitic lenses failure which
>> cause the problem. My handwave is that, just as you can't cross into
>> Hyperpace inside the hyper limit, so some of these marvelous devices
>> require a set volume of space to function. The Gravitic lenses which make
>> Fusion One Work require umpty odd cubic meters of space to form up, and
>> much like a uranium centrifuge, must be monitored as they "spin up" to
>> prevent dangerous harmonics from making everything go "bang!".
>> OTOH, they could have just kept the old engine room space from when
>> they converted from coal fired boilers.
>>
>>
>> pyotr
>
>This gives me the amusing mental image of a Superdreadnought running on
>coal, with a pair of badly overworked crewmembers shoveling the black
>rocks into the furnace to keep the wedge up. :*D

It is Ships of the Line in Space. I surprised they don't have sail
lockers, and the like. Now there's a weird thought, you would have to rig
mast and spars in order to se the Warshawski sails, and you'd have to have
man the lines when it came to maneuvering. (Dang, now I know I read a
series with that as part of the techno babble.)

OTTO, I saw an "out take" reel from Star Trek which had just such a
clip. Guy with a scoop shovel on the engine room set.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"Given our monstrous, overgrown government structure, any three letters
chosen at random would probably designate an agency or part of a
department that could be profitably abolished." Milton Freidman
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

pyotr filipivich wrote:

> It is Ships of the Line in Space. I surprised they don't have sail
> lockers, and the like. Now there's a weird thought, you would have to rig
> mast and spars in order to se the Warshawski sails, and you'd have to have
> man the lines when it came to maneuvering. (Dang, now I know I read a
> series with that as part of the techno babble.)

The O'Leary series. Also "Guns of two space", presently being snippeted.

Seems like there's been a couple more, long ago.
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ? 

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:10:05 GMT, Jeffrey MacHott
<Raguleader.DeleteThis@netzero.net> wrote:

>pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> My own technobabble is that when you lose containment to a fusion
>> reactor which uses gravitic lenses, it is the gravitic lenses failure which
>> cause the problem. My handwave is that, just as you can't cross into
>> Hyperpace inside the hyper limit, so some of these marvelous devices
>> require a set volume of space to function. The Gravitic lenses which make
>> Fusion One Work require umpty odd cubic meters of space to form up, and
>> much like a uranium centrifuge, must be monitored as they "spin up" to
>> prevent dangerous harmonics from making everything go "bang!".
>> OTOH, they could have just kept the old engine room space from when
>> they converted from coal fired boilers.
>>
>>
>> pyotr
>
>This gives me the amusing mental image of a Superdreadnought running on
>coal, with a pair of badly overworked crewmembers shoveling the black
>rocks into the furnace to keep the wedge up. :*D

Hokas anyone?
 >> Stay informed about: Antimissiles against ballistic targets ?