Re: NI/NAC AAR & Stealth

Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
> 
> Just a quick note now. Stealth is a hull modification. It takes away
> structural strength (weak hull) and in return makes lock-on more
difficult
> for the enemy. (1/4 range band reduction for stealth 1, 1/3 for
stealth 2.
> Cost/mass is the same as for partial/full streamlining). PSB is a hull
> design that defeats sensor detection.
XXX
     Here is the problem:   Ship sensors suffer the reduction, not the 
weapons.   A weapons range could be reduced if its range was greater
than the 
modified sensor range.	 Once a ship crosses the modified line of
detection,
it has been detected, and is a viable target at that range.   JTL
XXX
> Fighters are abtracted differently. The stealth hull gives them
smaller
> sensor signature, adn are harder to hit, giving them the equivalent of
> screen protection vs. PDS. Stealth 1 fighters are identical to heavy
> fighters in effect, just differnet PSB. Stealth 2, as Indy knows well,
are
> screen 2 equivalent.
XXX
     This again infers that the ships sensors are no longer functioning
and
the PDS is operating under a 'local/visual' fire control system.
     While I can agree with the 'smaller sensor signature' portion of
the 
statement the 'harder to hit' is only wishful thinking.   Once the
fighter
is on the sensor screen it is no different than any other fighter.   JTL
XXX
> As for lopsided firing arcs, this is certainly a plausible design if
you
> take the FB roll-ship maneuver into account. If you know a force is
trying
> to blind side you, you can flip and blastem.
> 
XXX
     And exactly how would you use this concept to defend a planet or
space
station?   The ships are designed to fight while withdrawing from the
combat.
JTL
XXX
> I'l be happy to share designs and thoughts.
> 
> Noam

Bye for now,
John L.