> So if we want to answer the question, how much uncertainty is there in where the missile will be in X seconds, the correct metric is actually lateral G force,

> So if we want to answer the question, how much uncertainty is there in where the missile will be in X seconds, the correct metric is actually lateral G force, not turning radius. I'm sure that if you draw the situation for yourself on a paper, it will be more readily apparent to you how the two are basically the same thing. > So if we want to answer the question, how much uncertainty is there in where the missile will be in X seconds, the correct metric is actually lateral G force, not turning radius. The interceptor missile cannot simply have a higher lateral G than the target and be assured it will hit it. Indeed, the Python 5 missile you mentioned wouldn't be able to hit the hypersonic missile. Why? It's too slow. The Python 5 will hit Mach 4 shortly after launch and impact around Mach 2 or so. Meanwhile the hypersonic missile will maintain Mach 7+ throughout. I don't see how what you wrote makes sense. You've limited yourself to the transverse plane. For point defense, that makes perfect sense. But it also makes the longitudinal Mach 7 meaningless, except for the dynamics of the encounter and impact, since that movement doesn't happen in the transverse plane. > So if the missile, 150km away, increases pitch by 4 degrees, the Python 5 might have to immediately pitch up almost 30 degrees, bleeding of a lot of energy. You wouldn't be hitting it in this phase of flight. I was speaking solely of terminal defense. Therein might lie your confusion.