posted
Exactly. What we saw was firing from the side and if Lilly was any kind of experienced aviator (one of them had to have significant flight experience and Cochrane was apparently phobic) then she would certainly recognise that fact.
posted
Transversely-firing weapons have their distinct advantages in situations where maneuvering alone isn't the answer ("Schr�ge Musik", anyone?). Aircraft-to-aircraft battles used to be very different when the vehicles had off-boresight weapons such as machine gun turrets or rocket cassettes, and moved more slowly.
The high-speed equivalent, the off-boresight missile, has not yet reached maturity or seen combat use, but when it does, it *should* look much like "firing from the side". The missile would necessarily separate from the vehicle pointing forward, but would veer off *very* rapidly.
And target-overflying bombers always "fire transversely", even though the initial release appears tangentical. While one may wonder why anybody would use target-overflying bombers in 2063, what we saw is just as representative of dropping retarded free-fall bombs as of "firing from the side". Except that these bombs glowed green, which is a funny thing for a bomb to do but by no means forbidden.
posted
Aircraft flying at transonic and supersonic speeds have little to no use for broadside shooting. The reaction time would have to be inhuman for anyone to hit anything.
A bomber does essentially fire out of its flightpath as a rule.
Off-boresite weapons exist in the form of laser and satellite guided missiles. Once they separate from the aircraft, they target independantly based on a laser reflected off of the target from the aircraft that fired it or a forward observer on the ground; or a set of GPS coordinates fed to the weapon via satellite. They are currently only useful in hitting stationary or slow-moving targets on the ground or at sea (laser-guided) or stationary ground targets (GPS). Against a high-speed target these weapons would be completely useless, however.
This doesn't mean that the weapon we saw in First Contact couldn't be such a weapon. But I imagine they thought it was a high-yield particle weapon from an orbiting satellite.
-------------------- I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit.
Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not getting into an argument over it, but:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: And Liam, at no point did I decree my opinion to be unquestionable, I merely expressed that opinion.
Saying "This is exactly what is was" isn't expressing an opinion. It's saying that you are correct. Saying "This is what I think we saw" would be expressing an opinion.
I really should watch FC again. But that would involve buying it. Argh.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, I see. Well what I meant was that it really was an orbiting satellite (ok borg sphere, but for all intents and purposes) firing at the surface. I didn't mean that Lilly MUST have thought it was a satellite, which is really crux of the argument. "What did Lilly think it was?"
My argument is simply that because it really was an object in orbit that Lilly should have recognised that fact, assuming of course she knew anything about air/space craft. Given what her role was supposed to be in the launch I'd say it's very probable that she did.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
