>>16990582>Now that I think, how the fuck would missiles be anywhere close to atmospheric performance?
They wouldn't. They'd be much different and probably shift more towards RKMs or timed bombs in concept, which is arguably harder to avoid because of lack of inertia inhibition in space. Of course, a KM won't be going nearly the speeds of its bigger brother, but it'll be designed to comfortably out-accellerate what its trying to kill within the effective firing range. Fused bombs can have absurd explosive potential as well, due to loosened restrictions on payload and a higher percentage of volume avaliable for a warhead.
A fighter or mech or whatever that could juke these things reactively within their optimum ranges would kill their pilot from g-forces. Your best bet would be to outrange them and interception. And I haven't even gotten to lasers yet.
Space combat is depressing.>>16992577>>16992595
Not him, but probably. I mean we already have aircraft that fall out of the air without ECS, so I don't think its absurd for that to happen, with the caveat that its legs are going to be really short (unless the slanted anchor legs bend to absorb recoil instead of remaining static).