Asteroids!! :eek:

Re what a space-capable interceptor would intercept:
Nothing. But it'd be hard to fight; and that altitude would lend those AA-12s remarkable additional range.

It's the fusing with a frontal closing speed of M4+ to allow an expanding rod or fragmentation head to detonate and reach the target before it went past. Probably need a new hittile - or a forward looking fusing system.

Personally I'd recommend the 'forward looking systems' of the lovely Gabrielle Drake as Lt. Ellis in that UFO clip....:ok:

Somehow I don't see those uniforms getting past the misery-guts censors of today's TV....:(

Additional range, yes, but with no control. The AA-12/R-77 uses aerodynamic control surfaces. No atmosphere, no control. In other words, it'll fly a pointless ballistic trajectory, assuming it's even stable with no control surfaces, which seems unlikely. More likely it will be a greater threat to the launching aircraft than to any target.

Ken, whilst your post is technically correct, perhaps you overlook that the technology which enables the ‘fighter’ to get into a position to fire a missile, should also be available for terminal guidance of the weapon system.
Also if the target was ground based then a strike weapon system might be tolerant to late stage aerodynamic guidance.

The alternative of space-space intercept system would pose more problems, but some of the issues of an air-space operation appear to have been solved.
An exception might be the need to preposition the launch aircraft with respect to the target to be defended - range; thence the discussion of the advantage of increased range. (how to defend a target - sub fleet, without pre positioning a defence so it does not disclose the target's location).

True, but the, admittedly 'troubled', Novator K-100 "AWACS Killer" uses thrust vectoring - as might any as yet unseen Russian, or Chinese for that matter, AAM. Launched from 100km altitude it would have a significant range enhancement over the design spec >200km.

We ignore these potential threats from the East at our peril.

MILFs in space.

Short-term memory problem? It's been posted further up the page.

Anything that has Gabriella Drake in it is worth watching again.

Indeed, k3k3 - but her name is Gabrielle.

She was only 25 when UFO was made, incidentally. Nice to hear English spoken in a proper 'English Gel' accent rather than in the sloppy Estuary oik-talk of today.

I was addressing the post that claimed additional range specifically for the AA-12 if it is launched exoatmospheric. My point being that the AA-12 cannot function exoatmospheric. However, a missile with thrust vectoring would likely work in such an environment. Likely, but no guarantee. There are other factors at play in such an environment. In any event, the K-100 / KS-172 currently is aerodynamically controlled, with a thrust vector system in development. Russia has lost interest in it and only India remains interested enough to provide development funding. It is far from operational with no projected in service date.

I'm not remotely suggesting we "ignore these threats." But one must question the nature of that "threat." A fighter that can zoom climb into space us one thing. A fighter that has operable sensors and weapons in space is entirely another. Consider that once in space, it will have to either rely on battery power, or on a hydrazine (or similar) fueled APU. That'll have to be a very massive battery or a powerful APU with good size fuel tankage that can power the radar and weapons systems (not to mention life support) for a reasonably useful time period. And while reaction thrusters can give it attitude control to keep the nose pointed in the right direction and the wings level, it won't be able to maneuver. It will fly an essentially ballistic trajectory. How militarily useful is that? And all that stuff required for space operations will be dead weight during atmospheric operation while simultaneously consuming precious airframe volume. If the intent of flying exoatmospheric is to give the missile greater range, it would be far far simpler to just give the missile a more powerful rocket motor and more fuel. And it could stay below 100,000 feet where it's aerodynamic controls would remain useable.

About that ballistic trajectory. Have you considered what that means when launching a missile? It means the missile will fly the same trajectory as the launch aircraft after release until its rocket motor ignites. But with no aerodynamics, will the missile be stable after release and before engine ignition? Which way will it be pointing when the rocket ignites? The bottom line: exoatmospheric missile launch will be a very sporty affair.

You've basically repeated my post in a somewhat less succinct way.

The dismissive nature of your post, concentrating solely on the AA-12, certainly gave your post the tone of ignoring the potential threat. It's an all to common attitude, the dismissive one, here sometimes - not necessarily from you that is; shades of Chinese carriers etc.

"Dismissive nature of my post?" "Concentrating solely on the AA-12?" What part of I was replying to a post that made specific claims about the AA-12 is hard to understand? The simple fact is, the AA-12 cannot operate exoatmospherically. There's nothing "dismissive" about stating a simple relevant fact.

As for the "potential threat" and the "tone" of one's post, the tone of your post clearly indicates that you have not thought through the nature of "the potential threat" posed by a fighter than can zoom climb into space. Even assuming someone goes to the huge expense of developing and producing a fighter with such capability (which seems highly unlikely), such an ability has very limited, if any, military utility.

As for the Chinese carrier, I made no mention of that. Me personally, I hope they manage to build a few and it would not surprise me at all if the USN even helped them a bit in the process.

Absolutely agree. Lots of research were done from late 70's through early 90's in USA and SU/Russia on that subject based on real experience gained from the Shuttle and Buran programs, respectively, and their derivatives (smaller spaceplanes). Was involved in that "business" at that time. The conclusions were exactly as you put it.