Re: Some FT rules ideas(Longish)

<snip some stuff about loitering missles>
>The idea for allowing the missile to loiter came from the British ALARM
>missile.  The ALARM can do this by shooting up to 20,000 ft the
>deploying a parachute and then searching for a radiation source.
>
>However, an anti radiation missile sitting in space waiting for a
target
>would be easy prey for *DAF, C batteries and fighters.(or if you wanted
>to be really sure, you could fire a nova cannon at it:) ).

It seems to me that with even current technology that it would be
possible
to triangulate the location of a ground based radar when the missle is
launched. Thus it is irrelevant if the radar is switched off - the
missle
simply tracks to the last known position and explodes. If the radar
stays on,
so much the better (or worse, depending on you position)...

Even the difference in heading between a pilot and his wingman would
likely
be enough to get within 10m, depending on the distance to target. If,
not,
you could probably substitute the warhead with a cluster of bomblets to
increase the effected radius. It seems to me that radar and the radar
vehicle
would be quite fragile (comared to say - an M1A1 MBT), so a direct hit
would
not be necessary. An AWACS type craft would only serve to increase the
initial
position accuracy.

>>>	-Yes, missiles can switch targets. However, there are two
situations
>>> envolved in this; one is the missile is fired blind, and the firer
prays
>>> that the missile hits what it was aimed at yet knowing that the
missile
>>> might stray off for a more powerful radiation source. On the other
hand to
>>> ensure that the missile does strike its target it should be
programed with
>>> say 4 targets should it lose tracking on its first objective.

This would likely not be the desired effect. You would like to think
that a
pilot would choose his targets carefully (ie those that pose the biggest
threat). Once the target has been designated and the missle fired, you
would
not want the missle to go after something else, especially when you know
that
the radar will go back online once the missle has passed. This is one
reason
that in flightsims I usually prefer Maverics to HARMs for anti-radar
work -
they stay on target better through optical guidance. Unfortunately, in
real
life I believe Mavs are substancially more expensive.

>>>		    Paladin
>>
>>This missle I read about was either in PopSci or PopMech mags, and I
don't
>>know whether it was merely a paper concept or what...just paper, I
>>suspect, as I've heard nothing since...
>>
>The US HARM missile can be fired to do something like this, although I
>can't find my Harpoon data annex to find out for sure.

So what does all this mean for anti-radar missle simulation in wargames?
That
it would be reasonable to have a system that has effectiveness based on
the
distance to target when the radar is swtiched off, assuming missle fire
is not
instantaneous. If the fire is instantaneous, then the missle should just
hit
the target as normal, since the radar couldn't be turned off in time.

--
>Thomas Heaney