 | | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
In lugnet.space, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <Big snip> (...) Warhead dynamics, for one. You'd need different shapes for different types of projectile, depending on the desired type of impact. Just as an example, HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) missiles (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
(...) That turned out interesting. No more easy <snips> now... -JHK (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
(...) I've always used [snip] - but in FTX that bolds it. *shrug*. Ooh, just looked up at your post and you can comment out with ` -- cool! -Tim (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
(...) But isn't that cone inverted within the shell body? (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
Yeah, but I'm hoping he doesn't know that :) I like cone-tipped missiles. Take care, Soren (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
(...) Okay, so try this on for size: impact detonation trigger. You want it to be in the center of the missile, and you want it to be able to contact at oblique angles. The easiest way to do that is to have it mounted to the end of a long cone. (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
|
(...) Which is why later model T-80's employed re-active armor to explode on contact and redirect the shaped charge prior to detonation. I believe the Challenger and Leopard tanks use this mechanism as well... (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
