Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare

At 02:19 PM 11/3/98 -0600, jeff lyon wrote:
>At 11:08 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Phil wrote:
>>At 11:37 AM 11/3/1998 -0600, Jeff Lyon wrote:
>>>Basic Stealth/ECM Firecon Jammer:
>>>
>>>Roll 1D6 for each firecon attempting to lock-on.  Negates lock on a
roll
of:
>>>6  vs. Superior Targeting sensors
>>>5+ vs. Enhanced Targeting sensors
>>>4+ vs. Military Targeting sensors
>>>3+ vs. Civilian Targeting sensors
>>
>>	NO! NO! No...
>
>Jeez, dude!  Take a valium...

    Emphasis was needed.  Hey, at least I got your attention ;) 
Besides,
it is what I do for a living...
>
>>	Fire Control directors are not used to track targets, only to
direct
>>fire control systems.  They are a pencil width beam, you don't use
them to
>>track targets, only to direct weapon systems...
>
>Okay, then...so if I understand your point, then a radar beam from a
fire
>control director is (very roughly) analogous to painting a target with
a
>laser.  
    Correct.
>
>I assume that this is what "locking on" means.  Once the targeting beam
in
>on, it tracks the target as it moves. 
   When the sensor gets a good track on you, then the FC system has you
locked in and it is almost impossible to break it off.
>
>It can only be used once you know where to point it, hence the need for
>both scanners and ECM or stealth.  Once you do know where to point it,
the
>firecon is strong enough to burn through ECM/Sleath.  
    Exaclty.
>
>This would be where you roll for success.  If I'm understanding you
>correctly, then it wouldn't be necessary to roll every turn to lock on;
>just the once.  If this is correct, then the roll for success should be
>done by the firing ship.
    Not firing ship, scanning ship.  A ship with one FC may only fire at
one ship at a time but may have mutliple tracks simultaneously.
>
>So ECM/Slealth alone won't shrug it off once it's locked on.  What
would?
>An interposing asteroid?  Flying through nebulae/dust clouds/smog?  A
decoy
>deployed between the target and firing ship?  Having a target maneuver
into
>your aft quarter?  Bridge hit?  Switching targets?  Boneheaded Alien
PSB
tech?
>Cloaking?
     These are all potential event to do that.	Most ECM today is not to
break a ship's tracking methods but to spoof a self seeking missile to
either track the wrong target (before lock on has occured) or make it
think
that the new bloom is the original target.

>>	Fire Control Directors and scanners are two very different
creatures.
>>In some advanced systems such as AEgis they are combined together, but
even
>>then the combined system does the two roles as a [separate?] function,
not as
>>a combined function.
>
>Let's assume for the sake of argument that what you describe as an
advanced
>system today is the standard in 200+ years.  Would it be appropriate to
>treat a FT ship with three firecons as having three independent systems
>which have both capabilities and thus three times as many opportunities
to
>successfully perform the scan function and then the targeting function
>follows automatically?

    I would leave the two applications seperate.  Space has a much
larger
volume than what we deal with today and the requirement to purchase the
two
different systems represents the costs and mass involved to make the
trade
off between time to detection and the number of targets I can fire at in
one turn.

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!