On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Knapp <magick.crow@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:57 PM, <tmr0195@comcast.net> wrote:
Hello Ethan,

Thank you for the link to the AtomicRockets site, which I had forgotten about.

My apologies for using "speed" instead of velocity. My thinking when I was typing the reply was that maneuvering by changing course (Is vector a more accurate term?), accelerating (speeding up) and/or decelerating (slowing down) or a combination of them the ship under attach can either avoid the hit or minimize the damage.

Tom Rux

I will believe this when I see that a current f16 can change speed to avoid a hit. I could see a course change with decoys though or other ECM. As has been pointed out here before speed of light is the key both in tracking and in hitting.

--
Douglas E Knapp

I wish you'd clarified that a little ...

Did you read the material? What don't you believe? What weapon are you assuming is being used against the F-16? You do realize that F-4s actually forced SA-2s to miss in Vietnam with terminal-stage maneuvers, don't you? You do realize that if the F-4 had been able to accelerate and/or decelerate at 8G, it could have forced the SA-2s to miss with speed changes alone?

Are you taking range into consideration? Suppose that I'm firing 85mm AAA at the F-16 from 6km. If I'm firing at the F-16's exact predicted location, it can easily escape being hit through steady acceleration. If the 85mm is proximity fused, or has a spectacularly accurate time fuse with spectacularly accurate setting, the F-16 can't escape--but the frag radius of that shell is immense compared to the (non-existent) spread of Traveller lasers.

I'll sum this up--specify what you mean and prove why it's wrong.