3 ms·
At the ranges you're talking, that's simply too many missiles. To take a SWAG at it: For an aircraft at Mach 1, to hit every potential spot it could occupy in
by na85 6y ago
At the ranges you're talking, that's simply too many missiles. To take a SWAG at it: For an aircraft at Mach 1, to hit every potential spot it could occupy in one second from now, you're talking about saturating a 340-metre radius sphere with missiles.
For context, the volume of that sphere is about 164 million cubic metres.
Even if you assume it can't maneuver with complete authority anywhere in that sphere (valid assumption), you could reduce that volume by 75% and still be looking at 40 million cubic metres.
- EGreg 6y agoOK, so maybe find out what maneuvers would be the least costly for it, and fire missiles there, and so on down the line, until you run out of missiles. At the very least, it would have to expend tremendous resources to avoid all your missiles. I mean, you're not trying to blanket the entire space, just put things in its way. EDIT: Or the missiles themselves can just guide themselves based on tracking how their target moves. Then you won't even need many missiles.
- na85 6y ago>Or the missiles themselves can just guide themselves based on tracking how their target moves. Then you won't even need many missiles. That's what many types do nowadays.