Neil Baumgardner (nbaumgardner@phillips.com)
Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:23:57 -0400


Lim Jyue wrote:

> At 13:59 06/23/2000 -0400, Neil Baumgardner wrote:
>
> Sorry for the slow response; Had been in a slow mood lately..
>
> >Combine the two, and you've got the equivalent of a Tomahawk cruise missile.
>
> How practical is it in terms of aiming it at a cylinder? While you
> can use landmarks on Earth for terminal guidance, the possible reference in
> space would be stars and possibly, the Sun, Earth and Moon. How accurately
> can current sensors do this?

I would think it should be relatively simple. Its already apparrent that ships in
Gundam could navigate in such a way. All you need is the same sort of navigation
computer and system. Like I said, its basically just like autopilot.

> I think fairly well, actually, but is it well enough to hit a target
> that can be either 10 to 40 kilometer long, without external course corrections?

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that ships in Gundam navigate by a computer
system rather than by human course corrections via the stars or whatever.

> >IMO, this is one of the things that is a little missing from Gundam. AFAIK,
> >minovsky particles shouldnt affect terrain counter or GPS inertial navigation
> >systems, or optical based missile guidance systems.
>
> If the GPS system requires a fix on GPS satelite, it might not be
> possible to do that in minovsky-heavy enviroment.
>
> Besides, GPS is restricted to Earth only; you can try to implement
> such a system in space, but I think the enemy would immediately take such
> satelites down. =)

That's true, and such satellite dismantling is shown in MS Era. However, this should
prohibit terrain counter matching (TERCOM). TERCOM simply takes the known counters
of the Earth and uses it for navigation purposes. Older versions of Tomahawk solely
relied on this.

> >There should be more cruise missiles and even short-range Sidewinder type
> >air-to-air and anti-MS missiles. Then again, I guess you'd need a pretty big
> >warhead (compared to today's standards) for the latter ;)
>
> In 1979, many of these missiles are not around or newly introduced;
> understandable that the original series didn't have them. 0083, OTOH, showed
> us a good example of anti-MS missiles, in the form of GP03D's missile pods.
> Those do appear to be guided..

That's true.

> I don't think anti-MS missiles need to be that significantly larger
> than air-to-air missiles; we have seen Burning's GM explode due to quite
> minor initial damage, and small-bore (for MS) weapons of 90mm can bring down
> MSes. A Sidewinder probably won't do much besides a small hole and
> fragmentation damage, but in the right place it can bring down an MS.

AFAIK, a Sidewinder has a far smaller warhead than a 90mm round.

> The best type of anti-MS missiles is probably an anti-tank missiles,
> designed to burn through armour. Air-to-air, especially IR guided missiles,
> kill more by fragments/ flaking than direct hits, AFAIK, which means an MS
> with a shield might be able to take it on the shield and survive relatively
> intact.

True again. I was simply pointing out that such air-to-air missiles are IR-guided,
while anti-tank ones are usually wire-guided.

    Neil Baumgardner

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jun 26 2000 - 02:24:38 JST