Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
The NX-01's Forgotten Weapon
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lurker Emeritus: [QB] Regarding the position and protection of magazines, I found an interesting thread with a couple of relevant comments, such as this and the following post: http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=5253.topic&index=4 In my earlier post I forgot to mention another problem that occurs to me regarding aft tubes, which is that any projectile, whether self propelled or not, which is fired backwards must pass through zero velocity. In the last few years the USAF has trialed a defence system for transport aircraft which involved air to air missiles (I think they were ASRAAMs) mounted on rear facing wing pylons. The problem of passing through zero velocity is what killed it and they have continued with the traditional forward facing mounts. Re: VLS: I don't believe that tall superstructures adversely effect the coverage provided by VLS launched missiles, given that the missiles are initially boosted to at least one or two hundred feet before dropping the booster stage and performing the turn over manoeuvre in the direction of the target. With particular reference to the lastest European designs which have electronically scanned arrays mounted on extremely tall masts, the detection ranges are so great that there is ample opportunity (in theory) to launch the missile and execute turn over before the sea skimmer is that close. Add to that the reaction time of a VLS missile of two or three seconds compared to the seven to ten that it takes a rail launched missile to get airborne, and only after the rail launcher is warmed up and loaded, which can take upwards of thirty seconds initially! The problem you refer to would, in my view, be a CIWS one. If your initial salvo from the VLS misses and you have insufficient coverage with your inner layer defences, [i]then[/i] big superstructures that mask your CIWS on certain approaches become a problem. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3