Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (33303)	6/28/2002 6:20:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It doesn't seem like rocket science to me. (1) Don't fire until you see an aircraft. (2) Point the missile at the aircraft. (3) Make sure the missile acquires lock before you fire it. Well, it IS rocket science Bilow... Ask this guy just how hard it is to guide a rocket to a target. ibiblio.org I've been flying enough to know that there are damn few birds at high altitude. You know darn well I'm not implying that. What I did state was that FROM THE GROUND (where the rocket will be fired from), a low flying bird has a larger "visual signature" than does a high flying commercial airliner. The same applies to sensing heat. A guy standing next to the rocket shooter smoking a cigarette will create more relative heat (from the sensor's perspective) than a commercial airliner HIGH FLYING airliner. It's all just a matter of perpective. A small object, but closer to the rocket's sensor, can result in false target acquisition. Why else would jet fighters carry high-temperature flares designed to spoof heat-seeking missiles. The total amount of heat coming from their jet engines is far more than that flare, but the flare's proximity to the sensor causes the missile to lock on it instead of the plane. I really have no more comment on the matter though.. Let us agree to disagree. Hawk