Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]


Is this thread still alive and kicking?


I can see someones really reaching now - are you not aware we've already made the final payment, all done with now with interest thank you very much.

Also that war, and every subsequent one has led to the US being the superpower it is today, so they didn't do too bad out of it. It's even suggested very regularly that the US allowed themselves to be drawn into war with Japan, after all war means money in the long term.

Still, don't really see what that has got to do with your White elephant of an idea, it wont work, it is far too complicated to install, if it could work there is no real point for it. Just give it up mate, its gone on long enough




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
EVEN IF A MISSILE TUMBLED THE GYROSCOPE WOULD STABILIZE IT.

also you claim to be able to dodge missiles but you ignore tha fact a MISSILE WILL ALWAYS HAVE LESS MASS THEN THE AIRCRAFT.which means it will be always more agile.


That makes no difference if the force is less as well. The force on the missile will be less which reduces the acceleration since a = F/m.


It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.


With all due respect, perhaps you forget that Stalin was on the same side, and Britain was not invaded, in fact we probably would only have been invaded if the Germans had not been forced to withdraw at Stalingrad.




Also thrust vectored missiles exist too meaning it's even harder to dodge them as cpu's advance even more.

your claim that you can dodge bullets from anti-craft fire is the most absurd.


So why bother trying to fly a plane near AA at all? according to you, if it's shot at it's destroyed. So why bother at all, why not only build AA and ICBMs?




bullets hit you and then you realize you have been hit.you cannot know where or when they are going to hit.

also you have still not replied to point 2 repeated twice above as you know this is the killer point that defeats all your arguments.


really? why do you insist that you are correct when we show you you are not? Why don't you make coherent paragraphs?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Gyroscopes have got nothing to do with tumbling. If the Missile tries to turn faster than it could, the momentum would make the angle of attack so high that it would spin out of control.

The gyroscope would stabalise it, but not after it had lost all its airspeed, making it have inadequate momentum to reach its target.



also you claim to be able to dodge missiles but you ignore tha fact a MISSILE WILL ALWAYS HAVE LESS MASS THEN THE AIRCRAFT.which means it will be always more agile.

Lmfao.

Missile engines use solid fuel that means it uses all its fuel in the first 10-20 seconds of its flight. After that they slowly loose speed. Maneuvering further bleeds off speed. If the target aircraft maneuvers enough, the missile will have to change direction so much that it will bleed off all its speed and will become a flying brick. If it keeps trying to maneuver it will tumble, because at low speeds the little stuby wings have little lift.

Add that to the fact that missiles typically travel at Mach 3-4 and can only pull 22g's at that speed. A Missile that is say, travelling Mach 1.5 will have severely limited agility and a Jet could easily outmaneuver it.

Of course, it is hard to outmaneuver a missile, but it is possible and CAN be done. If I'm not mistaken a F-16 dodged 4 SAMs.


simply shoot the missiles in the general direction of the enemy.by using pointable missiles.

Anything I said before still stands.

Missiles can maneuver themselves to the target and you do NOT need to point the plane directly at them. You only need to point the nose in the general direction of them, which really, is essential to get inrange of the enemy plane. You do NOT need to dogfight in real life, and it will almost never happen in a real airwar.

Let me refresh your memory to what I said earlier.


The reason we still make aircraft maneuverable is I think, from the lessons learnt in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom was a flying brick and although it had fairly long range missiles, it could still be shot down by more maneuverable MIGS if they got close enough. Another reason we make planes maneuverable is so we can outmaneuver enemy missiles.



Also thrust vectored missiles exist too meaning it's even harder to dodge them as cpu's advance even more.

And the point of that would be? Missiles use all there fuel in 10-20 seconds.

Oh, and by the way, go research flares and chaff.


your claim that you can dodge bullets from anti-craft fire is the most absurd.

You can dodge enemy anti-air fire... only if the enemy is dumb enough to shoot when he's out of range, or if he aims at chaff.

This arguement has been well and truely 'debunked', so I'm out.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]


Looking at history?? Ok then i have to say that Brittain stil owns you as a colony because the other European powers supported YOU in your struggle to gain independance like giving weapons to you so that you could fight the Brittish empire....

Iff the European powers didnt do that then there wouldnt be a USA..........

So # off with trying to gain some respect because this is undoubtaly the ultimate counter....



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.
[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]


For you European members and visiting readers I would like to apologize for this statement - nothing embarasses me more here on ATS than attitudes such as this.

Please know that this is not the sentiment of all Americans, not even all politically conservative/Republican voting Americans.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I would like to apologize for this statement - nothing embarasses me more here on ATS than attitudes such as this.

Please know that this is not the sentiment of all Americans, not even all politically conservative/Republican voting Americans.
You have nothing to apologise for intelgurl. While we can all find fault with each others country, statements like our thread authors are not made or taken seriously by any informed rational person. Even by us southern colonialists and Euro's who still owe for all the lend lease gear we borrowed (and later sank in the Pacific, 50 miles off Sydney) and didn't pay for.

However if you really want to make good on your apology, perhaps you could take a crack at explaining to esecallum why steerable missile pylons and pop up missile turrets will not work in the real world. Because quite frankly we are all out of ideas here.

Politically conservative Republican voter? Allways thought you would be more right wing Democrat? and since when did you get the time to vote when working at Creech anyway?


LEE.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
There is still a piece of pie left so I'll have a final bite.

Originally posted by esecallum

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by C0bzz
Esecallum why would you need a turret that shoots missiles if YOUR PLANE IS ALREADY FACING THE ENEMY AIRCRAFT!?




I never said any such thing.

read the thread title.

i said you dont need to rotate the aircraft and do fancy dogfights and simply shoot the missiles in the general direction of the enemy.by using pointable missiles.
learn to read what i said.
We have esecallum and you said BOTH things, here is what you said.

instead of all this nonsense of dogfights and maneovering of the aircraft and getting behind the enemy aircraft to shoot it down or lock missiles on it...why not
just makes the air to air missiles steerable and pointable instead...?
just makes the missiles on the pylons pointable on rotatable pylons.
point and shoot the missile.THAT'S IT.
And then you said this...

THE MISSILES can be fired from a bulbous rotating turret in much the same way as www2 bombers had them...
or as in like revolver type turret...endless possibilities..
the missile would be shot out just like a bullet using compressed air out of the turret barrels pointing at the target
And you said it again here..

the missiles are simply put into a disc shaped turret.
to fire one the disc shaped turret pops out for 1 second shoots the missile at the target and pops into the airframe flush with the surface.
JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.
Now are you going to deny that you said that? It was you who brought up the idea of a turret in your second post waaayy back on Page 1 of this thread, no one else, just you, we have just replied to what you have said.

WHEN I REPLY,I REPLY TO EVERYONE.
THAT my friend IS the PROBLEM. You do not address people's replies individually, you put it all together in a disjointed fashion that is difficult to understand.

including the person who was wrong.
the other person who claims i wronged him did not read the preceding post and so wrongly accused me of addressing him.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about immediately above. WHO are you talking to? Do they have a name? who was the "other" person? Little wonder if they did wrongly accuse you. PLEASE USE OUR NAMES!!!!!

I am not going to touch the next few lines about people "lying" to you about tumbling missiles and gyroscopes, that has just been covered ("AGAIN") by others.

you also accused me of being a foriegner.
I am American.
i live in Helena,Montana.
i am white.
I AM proud to be American.
Ahhh... that was probably me when I stated that English was possibly not your first language. I didn't accuse you of being a foreigner, and if you were so what? I am a foreigner because I am not an American. The fact that your sentences, grammar, syntax and spelling are not what most people would expect from someone who is a fluent native speaker of English, is the reason I said this. The fact that you have just spelt "foreigner" as "foriegner" is an example. The fact that you hold US citizenship, live in Montana and are caucasian doesn't mean you are born there or learnt English first. Not that this matters, I am just trying to illustrate the point. If you dont believe me look at your own posts and then look at those of people like myself, Darkpr0 or waynos for example. See any major difference? I have asked you before to PLEASE put your posts into sentence and paragraph form for a good reason. So we can understand what you mean, and to whom you are talking.

I will not touch the "Marshall plan" reference, you have allready embarrased enough of your fellow countrymen with this innacurate comment. Nor the bit about TVC in missiles that has just been explained to you. And we have been over the bit about dodging bullets many, many times. But just to make the point, you can dodge a stream of bullets if you can see the tracer and it is fired from far enough away. At long ranges, say more than a kilometre, it can take several seconds to reach its target. A bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s will take more than 1 second to reach you at 1 kilometre(it actually slows down from its 1000m/s muzzle velocity quite quickly, hence it takes more than 1 second to travel 1000m). If fired from the ground at an aircraft at 20,000ft it is going to take quite a few seconds to reach an aircraft, more than enough time for a pilot who spots the tracer to move. Why else do you think so few aircraft get shot down by AA or aircraft cannon? Bullets and cannon shells work best at close range and/or from behind.


also you have still not replied to point 2 repeated twice above as you know this is the killer point that defeats all your arguments.
Again, WHO is "YOU"? Who are you talking to? What is their name? And what is, "point 2 repeated twice above"? In which of your many posts is it? If its the bit about the man falling out of the airplane it WAS covered by someone.

"Sigh".... Why do I bother???

LEE.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Same as Lee said intelgurl, I found the statement more laughable than appalling. You have nothing to apologise for, but the sentiment is much appreciated.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Sorry to jump in real late, but I figured I may as well throw my own two cents in.

Concerning the whole idea of X,Y,Z vector stuff, perhaps a rather simplified example is needed. When driving in a car let's say you're driving north, and then you make a left turn so that you're going west. During that turn you aren't actually going in two directions at once, instead you're going in the direction known as northwest, which is in between the direction you were in, and the direction you're turning in.

On to missiles tumbling or being blown to pieces. Let's again use the car as a way of simplifying this for those of us who don't know a ton about aerodynamics. Let's say you're driving along at 55 mph going north(in a 55 mph zone of course), and you shoot a nerf gun out the window to the east (passenger side of course, don't want to hit any other cars, at least here in the States where we drive on the right side). According to the pro-turret theory, the Nerf gun should fire in a straight path going east, and the fins on the Nerf dart should stabilize it. However because the Nerf gun was traveling at 55mph north, the Nerf dart will still have some of that momentum. Thus the dart will go northeast, but not really in a nice path. Remember that the momentum will essentially cause it to suffer from a 55 mph broadside from the wind on it's left side, which is more than a Nerf dart can handle. Therefore the dart will tumble, and probably won't hit the intended target.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've got the right idea here.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Sorry to jump in real late, but I figured I may as well throw my own two cents in.

Concerning the whole idea of X,Y,Z vector stuff, perhaps a rather simplified example is needed. When driving in a car let's say you're driving north, and then you make a left turn so that you're going west. During that turn you aren't actually going in two directions at once, instead you're going in the direction known as northwest, which is in between the direction you were in, and the direction you're turning in.

On to missiles tumbling or being blown to pieces. Let's again use the car as a way of simplifying this for those of us who don't know a ton about aerodynamics. Let's say you're driving along at 55 mph going north(in a 55 mph zone of course), and you shoot a nerf gun out the window to the east (passenger side of course, don't want to hit any other cars, at least here in the States where we drive on the right side). According to the pro-turret theory, the Nerf gun should fire in a straight path going east, and the fins on the Nerf dart should stabilize it. However because the Nerf gun was traveling at 55mph north, the Nerf dart will still have some of that momentum. Thus the dart will go northeast, but not really in a nice path. Remember that the momentum will essentially cause it to suffer from a 55 mph broadside from the wind on it's left side, which is more than a Nerf dart can handle. Therefore the dart will tumble, and probably won't hit the intended target.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've got the right idea here.


Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.

To Lee.

Yes you have ignored the man falling out of the plane as YOU KNOW this would defeat all your arguements.

The missile attached to the plane already EXPERINENCES these forces you claim that suddenly appear out of nowhere when the plane manoevres in dosgfights etc...rotating the missile you or someone else said would tear the misile off.

The man falling out of the plane travels in a RESULTANT DIRECTION but if you analyse the individual x, y components of the resultant velocity you will get separate values in the x and y directions and HENCE SEPARATE X AND Y FORCES TOO.



[edit on 19-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
you are totally ignoring inertia and momentum in your arguement. They play a huge role but your ignoring them



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum[/i
To Lee.
Yes you have ignored the man falling out of the plane as YOU KNOW this would defeat all your arguements.
Ummm... I NEVER was even involved in the discussion about the "man falling out of an aeroplane" , so I don't see how this can defeat any of my FACTS(arguments).


The missile attached to the plane already EXPERINENCES these forces you claim that suddenly appear out of nowhere when the plane manoevres in dosgfights etc...rotating the missile you or someone else said would tear the misile off.
esecallum next time you are a passenger in a car on a freeway and going fast, I want you to do the following: wind down the widow and slowly put your hand out until you feel the wind. Now turn your hand so that your palm faces forward. Now tell me what happens. Does your hand start to get blown backwards and you have to force it to stay in the same position? The answer is YES. Now multiply that affect about ten fold and it is these forces that are going to affect your missile. Even the simple act of turning your hand from edge on to palm on, affects how much air resistance will be felt. THAT is what is the problem with firing a missile sideways, the slipstream.


The man falling out of the plane travels in a RESULTANT DIRECTION but if you analyse the individual x, y components of the resultant velocity you will get separate values in the x and y directions and HENCE SEPARATE X AND Y FORCES TOO.
Now this is plainly a stupid thing to say. Since when does a missile "analyse" two different vectors individually as it travels? The answer is never, that defeats the known laws of physics and rational commonsense.

As for ignoring things, I see that you have once again ignored all the arguments put to you, as well as almost all the criticisms and rebuttals of what you claim. So the question is, why are YOU ignoring all the realities that defeat your theories?

LEE.





[edit on 19-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
Now this is plainly a stupid thing to say. Since when does a missile "analyse" two different vectors individually as it travels? The answer is never, that defeats the known laws of physics and rational commonsense.



You're right, it doesn't. It analyzes three. It's guidance and navigation system is going to break things down to the three unit vectors for velocity, and calculate position in the x,y and z and most likely using the Euler Angles or quaternions do a RSS error calculation on where it is relatively to where it should be and then make a course correction (in all three directions) based on those error calculations....repeatedly.

[edit on 8-19-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by thebozeian
Now this is plainly a stupid thing to say. Since when does a missile "analyse" two different vectors individually as it travels? The answer is never, that defeats the known laws of physics and rational commonsense.



You're right, it doesn't. It analyzes three. It's guidance and navigation system is going to break things down to the three unit vectors for velocity, and calculate position in the x,y and z and most likely using the Euler Angles or quaternions do a RSS error calculation on where it is relatively to where it should be and then make a course correction (in all three directions) based on those error calculations....repeatedly.


Much as I hate to turn this into a debate about different forms of math to get a solution, wouldn't you maybe use Polar geometry in this instance for guidance? that way you can get the relative velocity between the missile and the target just from distance to the target and rate of change of angle between directly ahead and to the target. I may be wrong, but this method seems a bit easier in terms of this. It doesn't give the missiles own speed of course, but once it's designed and it's limits are known, that can't be too much of a problem. Can just stick a pitot tube on the missile though if you want to.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by apex]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Well, actually they aren't going to know the distance between the missile and the target and then back out relative velocity. They're going to do it just the opposite. All guidance and navigation calculations are done on historical data. So you have position 1 data and position 2 data and you back out velocity to get from 1 to 2 and then you compare where that puts you relative to where you want to be going. The historical method for this is Euler angles and quaternions when dealing in spacecraft and I would assume it is used in missiles as well. Maybe missile guidance designs different - but I don't think so. Switching to the Polar coordinate system doesn't really do much for you and also has a discontinuity that can cause nasty business in the calculations.

Not sure, but I'm just sharing what I know about how they do GNC in spacecraft and since the guided missile is operating under the same principles, most likely it's done the same. Doesn't matter what coordinate system is chosen - they still have to track movement/position in all 3 directions.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
xyz vectors prove that u can move in 2 directions or 3 at the same time.

i will give you an example.

suppose someone jumps from a plane at say 10000 metres travelling at say 500 mph going west.

the person will have 2 velocity vectors ON LEAVING THE PLANE.

downward at v=gt and westword at 500 mpg.


My posts will be sparse at this point; I'm on a fishing vacation trying to RELAX. You see what you people do to me?

Nothing. I do this to myself.


Okay. Esecallum, you're raising a lot of ruckus about the person jumping from a plane. So let's see what we can do about this.

When the person jumps, they will START with no velocity up or down, just in one direction. For your example, I believe it is 500 mph west. His velocity thus is 500 mph West. Well done. Now after he jumps he will accelerate downwards while maintaining West speed as well. So now he is moving Westwards AND Downwards. Both, see? That is the direction in which he is moving. And he moves in both at the same time. You cannot split them up and say that he is moving in more than one direction, it doesn't work like that. You CAN split it up into those components, but you also have to realize that they still make ONLY ONE DIRECTION. ONE. Okay?

Now I think that what we're doing here is mixing up force due to wind resistance and force due to acceleration. So I'll see if I can differentiate for you.

A missile will experience force due to acceleration when it (Revolutionary discovery here) accelerates. This is measured in G's. A missile can structurally stand acceleration. It wont break up due to G force. But if it accelerates too fast when changing direction it WILL TUMBLE AND LOSE CONTROL. There won't be anything wrong with the missile in and of itself, but it will not regain control of itself if it tumbles too badly.

Wind resistance is the big important one for this discussion though. From the front of the missile (which, when in control of itself the missile will always point against the wind) will encounter very little resistance thanks to the aerodynamic shape. However, from the side it will encounter HUGE amounts of wind resistance. And remember, at supersonic speeds drag increases as air tends to pile up rather than move out of the way. In fact, even at low speeds a missile on a pylon that is tilted out of whack will feel some structural stress. So pointing it direction sideways at interception speeds is a REALLY bad idea. Bad translates roughly as the missile and possibly wing falling apart with the shrapnel and the flames and the glavin.

This is the end of my overall explanatory post. If I feel the need to start replying to things otherwise I do believe I'll post again.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Yes you have ignored the man falling out of the plane as YOU KNOW this would defeat all your arguements.


Back in the hot seat.

Consider my last post a rebuttal to that.



The missile attached to the plane already EXPERINENCES these forces you claim that suddenly appear out of nowhere when the plane manoevres in dosgfights etc...rotating the missile you or someone else said would tear the misile off.


The forces capable of ripping the missile actually off would be when the missile is pointed directly to the right, which never, EVER happens in a dogfight. Even the Sukhoi fighters doing their maneuvers at airshows do so without combat loads.

Also, by the time that fighters are actually dogfighting, chances are pretty good that they're doing it because they're out of BVR options, so they're loaded pretty light as well. Da?


You continue to have a one-on-one conversation with Darkpr0 completely ignoring everyone else who is putting forth information. Why is that? Is it because YOU know that YOU are wrong and will so ignore others around you whilst only conversing with one member in the hopes that people will see you as addressing other's arguments?


This is partly my fault, Shattered, but I love a challenge. Unfortunately, it's getting to feel a bit like the legend of Hercules here. Except rather than 12 labours there's only 1.


It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.


Erm... You didn't save anybody from the Communists. There was actually nothing even wrong with the Communists. Also, you entered WW1 ultimately late, and at a point where joining either side would make them win. And World War 2 was a world effort, hence the world part.

No offense to patriots about, I'm just being a jerk. I'm on vacation. I can be a cynic later.


Esecallum, ultimately you're just not right. It doesn't mean you've come up with a bad idea, just one that doesn't work. Rather than tell us why it will work regardless of what we think, why not try and change your idea such that it does work?

[edit on 8/20/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This thread kind of reminds me of the entropy thread a while back. The author of that thread was doing exactly the same thing as esecallum.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.


Actually the fact that it's traveling with the car at the same speed is what accounts for the bit where it gets broadsided by the wind at 55mph. Because the nerf dart in this case was traveling at 55mph when it exits the vehicle it will still be traveling that fast until the wind resistance causes it to loose all that speed since there will no longer be anything propelling it that fast going north in this case.

The thing is, the nerf dart is not designed to travel sideways, and simply cannot remain stable when it's being blasted at 55mph on it's side. Now I think a nerf dart could handle 55mph head on, it won't take it sideways.

Now translate this into a missile on an airplane. Same concept. The missile is a little tougher and a bit more stable than the nerf dart, but it's also traveling at a couple times the speed of sound.

The way to look at this is take the aircrafts speed, and then ask if the missile could still fly properly with that speed being wind, and that wind hitting the side of the missile.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78

Originally posted by esecallum
Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.


Actually the fact that it's traveling with the car at the same speed is what accounts for the bit where it gets broadsided by the wind at 55mph. Because the nerf dart in this case was traveling at 55mph when it exits the vehicle it will still be traveling that fast until the wind resistance causes it to loose all that speed since there will no longer be anything propelling it that fast going north in this case.

The thing is, the nerf dart is not designed to travel sideways, and simply cannot remain stable when it's being blasted at 55mph on it's side. Now I think a nerf dart could handle 55mph head on, it won't take it sideways.

Now translate this into a missile on an airplane. Same concept. The missile is a little tougher and a bit more stable than the nerf dart, but it's also traveling at a couple times the speed of sound.

The way to look at this is take the aircrafts speed, and then ask if the missile could still fly properly with that speed being wind, and that wind hitting the side of the missile.


Bu missiles dont travel at 55 mpg.
They travel at mach 1 or upwards which 331 m/s.

also missiles are in the air no more a maximum of 20 seconds.

they dont have time to tumble.

they are travelling like bullets

Also the pylons can take take the weight of a missiler trvelling sideways as the missiles weighs around 20 to 80 kg travelling at mach 1 easily.





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join