Re[2]: coupla Full Thrust questions inspire some tactics

On [Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:37:05 +0100] Adam Delafield
<A.Delafield@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
  
>    >Detecting a target by active (radar) means that you have the range
by
>    >default. You measure how long it takes for each radar pulse to
return,
>    >radar propagates at the speed of light so the math is simple.
Passive
>    >systems are less certain, but fire control will probably have to
use
>    >active sensors for energy weapons. See the Traveller games (Fire,
>    >Fusion and Steel; Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider) for more on
this.
>    But if you are using Radar, you are lit up like a Christmas tree
for all
>    around to see. I'd say passive sensors are more likely as you
wouldn't
>    have to give away your own position. Think of it like Subs.
Contrary to
>    Hollywood, they don't go about 'pinging' all the time. They run
silent,
>    using passive listening devices. I would imagine our ships would do
the
>    same.
Did we discuss active weapon sensors here, or was it somewhere else?
Hmm..
anyway, the point is radar/laser active sensors just don't work in space
combat. Why? Follow this through..

Say you are in one ship, and you have a radar tansceiver, and you have
it pointed at the other ship. Say the other ship is doing reasonable
deep space speed oooh, 10KM/S (which, to use a quote, is just peanuts
to space). Say it's .01 light seconds away. You bounce an emitted pulse
off it and it takes .01 of a second to get back to you. In that .01 of a
second, the vehicle you were locked on to has moved 100 meters. In
actual
terms, you would be lucky to get that close and you would be lucky if in
combat conditions a vehicle was moving that slowly, but say you take
that reading and fire your xhundred gigawatt laser at it. In the time it
takes the beam to reach it's target, it's moved (aproximately) ANOTHER
100 meters too - so now if you aimed at the middle of it it would have
to be at least 400M wide or you've missed it. 
This is a of course a simple case - if it's moving directly away or
towards you it isn't a problem. Nevertheless a ship with significant G
maneuvering capability will be bloody hard to hit using active sensor
locks. Much better to track it over time and try to predict it's
location
when your beam arrives - 'lead fire' as it were. And you can do that
just as easily with passive sensors as active.. Then of course you have
problems with beam smearing at space level velocities, but that's
another
point. There is an article in an old Challenge (GDW) magazine, written
about the time they were developing Brilliant Lances, about the
unfeasibility
of beam weapons in space combat - basically you need a super accurate
estimate of the targets velocity, coupled with a superaccurate ability
to track your laser with the targets movement before you can even THINK
of putting enough joules in one place to burn through anything..

The main thing about it is that it makes space combat a lot like
submarine
combat - if the enemy can see you and you can't see him you are in deep
deep trouble, because he can plot a firing solution without you being
able to 'spoil' it.

Doesn't stop it being huge fun to give someone a multiple A battery
broadside at 3" of course..

			TTFN
				JOn
----------------------------------------------
'And I love what we are but I hate what I am
 And I wanna be like you but I hate when you're like them'
		   Maria McKee 'What Else you Wanna Know'
BWFC Fans List Home Page - 
	    http://www.sar.bolton.ac.uk/bwfclist/home.html