Re: GMS Fire control

>
>> Problem - if the EW tech of the enemy is greater than your ability to
>> resist it, maybe they'll be able to screw up these missiles even
before
>> they're fired.  SO, you might incorporate a "low tech" manual
guidance
>> system into the launcher (much miniaturized over today's, of course),
so if
>> the soldiers know the enemy is spoofing their "smart" systems, they
can
>> turn it on "dumb" mode and guide the missiles themselves.  Of course,
the
>> accuracy will suffer and likelyhood of return fire hurting the gunner
will
>> increase, but at least systems would keep operating...
> 
>> Game Effect:  You get enhanced or superior guidance for your
missiles, but
>> EW equipped enemy can attempt to jam missile systems (their EW vs.
your
>> guidance) - if they do, you only get basic fire control...
>
>But how do you JAM in the middle of someone else's turn? (I forget, 
>are you just allowed to spend your EW chits, .... I guess you must to 
>jam someone else's comms). 
> 

How 'bout this:

Maybe what happens is that the EW user jams the EMR frequencies used by
the
known enemy weapon systems, or more likely tries to directly spoof the
enemy electronics (mechanism for this - I'm not quite sure how).  Game
result - the EW unit can expend some amount of it's capability to
actively
jam all the enemy missile systems in a limited area (the battlefield for
our purposes).	This should be difficult to do, and draw on much of the
EW
unit's resources, because you are engaging in a "broad spectrum" jamming
effort against a specific set of enemy systems.  Game effect:  the EW
unit
can spend chits, maybe 2 or 3, to jam enemy missile systems before they
are
fired.	The jamming lasts for a set period of time (one game turn???).
Whenever the enemy wants to fire a missile, they make a guidance system
roll vs. the EW system.  If they win, they get to attack with their full
guidance system.  If they fail, they only get a basic guidance system
(the
"manual backup").  However, it takes the full attention of the EW unit
to
provide this "blanket coverage", so they CAN'T do anything else during
that
turn - 'cause jamming different missile systems is an active effort. 
So,
the EW unit must spend several chits to do it, and can't do anything
else
while they're doing it.  The guy with the missiles has to roll against
the
EW each time he wants to fire a missile.  Of course, if the target has
electronic defenses, the missile has to beat those too... (but does so
at
its full ability if it beats the EW).

I figure the EW should affect the missile before it is fired, 'cause the
EW
guy would have a difficult time reacting to a missile once it has been
fired.

<snip>

>> I really like the idea of a single launcher being able to fire
different
>> types of targets.  The warheads/seeker system could be interchangable
(with
>> common rocket motor, guidance fins, etc.), and you just attach an
anti-tank
>> warhead or anti-aircraft warhead prior to launching.  
>
>Well, probably not that - AT weapons need less speed and less range. 
>But interchangeable missiles are good (the AT version is larger and 
>warhead, the AA version has more fuel). 

Yes, typically AT weapons need less speed and less range.  But the real
complex challenge isn't motors, it's warheads.	An anti-air warhead is
very
different from an anti-armour warhead.	If you assume a
higher-than-present-day tech level of rocket motors - you build a
motor/guidance fin package that is capable of anti-air.  The fact that
it
is fast and goes far is just BETTER for the AT role (heck, they used to
say
that the 2.75" unguided training rockets that the Canadian Air Force
uses
have a secondary anti-armour role simply because they travelled so fast
and
were very accurate - kinetic energy kills vs. light armoured and
unarmoured
targets.... supposedly, the Israelis started taking the warheads off
their
Maverick anti-tank missiles because they discovered that a hit from the
missile alone was enough to kill all the tanks they were up against - so
they took the warheads off to save money).  If the motor becomes a
standard
useful for both anti-air and anti-armour, then the interchangeable
component would be the guidance system/warhead.  Your AT rocket may not
have the hugest warhead, but you compensate for that with increased
kinetic
energy, and with the increases that will happen in warhead technology.
Besides, it's simpler to carry around small warheads with one size
missile
body than different types of missiles.

<snip>

>NOT man portable, and not very good at air and ground engagements. 
>Definitely Multi Role GMS.
>

The person we know in the air defense regiment who has the ADATS seemed
to
think that it was an excellent system, but I'm getting this second/third
hand.  Certainly, I don't think the system has ever been used in a real
operational situation (other than tests and exercises) - so there's no
data
to say how it performed in combat.  The people who use it seem to think
it
is very effective.

>  I believe it has a scanning radar for
>> initial target aquisition (in anti-air mode) but uses a laser for
actual
>> targeting when the missiles fire, even in the anti-air role.  My
friend's
>> cousin is a Warrent Officer in the Regiment that operates these
things, and
>> we heard that in a recent deployment with the US Marines, the ADATS
system
>> was able to shoot down things like cruise missiles, etc.
>
>Cruise are slow and big for a missile. Rifles have shot down cruise 
>missiles I believe. AA guns surely have. 
>

Not at 5 miles.  I believe the reason why this seemed like a good thing
to
the Marines was that it had the capability to effectively shoot down
targets well beyond the range of their close air defence (like shoulder
fired Stingers, or the HMMWV-Avenger system, again with Stingers), but
didn't require the infrastructure of a Patriot-type system.  You could
put
ADATS on a LAV25 chassis and it could go in with the assault troops, as
it
were.  The fact that it has an anti-armour role is just icing on the
cake -
one system to do what a TOW does now, but better, and they don't have
anything to do the anti-air at these ranges.  This is a big gap in the
US
air defense structure.	To the best of my knowledge, they have no
effective
anti-air defense between theatre wide stuff (Like Patriot, which is used
for theatre defense but is really a point target defense) and close
defense
systems like PIVAD, Stinger, etc.  They need something that gives
anti-air
out to say, 10 miles, but can ride on an armoured vehicle and thereby
support the mobile formations.

<snip>

Adrian.