Vorlonagent wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy"  wrote in message 
> news:1169324707.510541.274350{at}a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> Vorlonagent wrote:
>>> It would also be good economics.  The intercepting projectile is best 
>>> when
>>> it costs less than the missile it is intercepting.  Short of lasers, a
>>> railgun projectile with guts no more sophisticated than a wad
of shot and
>>> small explosive and a timer good to a hundreth of a second.
>> According to the article, the current seven-pound projectile hits with
>> the force of "a Ford Taurus at 380 mph".
>>
>> Who needs explosives?
> 
> The explosive is just there to disperse the buckshot.  The first generation 
> can't count on a direct hit woth a solid projectile.

The aiming device only needs to be a high speed version of the guidance
system they are attaching to bombs.  Miniaturisation has brought it down
to a couple of chips, battery, an electric motor and control surface.

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32