Re: NI stealth project

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> 
XXX 
     I am putting this in as a first impression of the message that 
follows (in part).   I have a feeling that the stealth (in you view)
is a mixture of 'stealth' and 'ECM (Wild Weasel)' and while the 
'stealth' (a completely passive system) and 'ECM (WW)' (an active
Electronic system) can be used together and they do similar (sort
of) things in very different ways.   I feel this mixture may be a
large part of the communication difficulties as I see these as 
completely different systems.  JTL
XXX 
> John Leary wrote:
> 
> [snipped my vision of how battery fire works - I repeat it below
anyway]
...Snip...JTL
> This means that even a "miss" can include a low number of hits and
> inflict minor damage on the target, scratch the paint etc - but too
> little for the granular FT damage system to record it.
> 
XXX
     Not a problem, the rapid pulse concept is perfectly valid.  JTL
XXX
> In order to achieve saturation of the right area of space, you need
two
> things:
> 
> * Good focussing equipment (or the equivalent for plasma blobs or what
> have you) to put the shots exactly where you planned, and
> 
> * A good notion of where the target is, and will be in the near
future.
XXX
     Weapons equipment isn't really important because it is all the
same, it's the apparent degredation of the weapons that bothers me.
     With the target at 22 inches in the prior example, and the 
stealth ship on the sensors, and the 'A/3' battery able to fire
normally, I just cannot justify the inability of the 'B/2' to 
fire/hit.   The stealth aspect of the target ship is gone! 
     (Now you might be able to make a case for ECM (WW) degrading 
the sensors at that range, but not stealth.)   JTL
XXX
> If you only have a vague notion of where the target is, you have to
> disperse your fire pattern more to get at least some hits on it - but
> this reduces the probability that you'll hit it enough times to reach
1
> damage point.
...Snip a portion that sounds like ECM effect...JTL

> So, to return to your example: The Class-2 isn't unable to *see* the
> target. It, and your entire ship, is just unable to locate the target
> with enough precision to narrow the volume where it might pass through
> enough to allow the Class-2 put enough shots through that space to
> inflict enough damage to make FT notice it.
> 
> The Class-3 is degraded in the same way - all *range bands* are
reduced,
> not just the *maximum* range. Against a Stealth-2 target the Class-3
> throws 3 dice out to range 8, 2 dice from range 8 to range 16, and 1
die
> from range 16 to range 24. Thus, at range 22 it would normally throw 2
> dice. Since the target in your example is stealthed, it has to spread
its
> fire so much to allow any hit at all that it only rolls 1 die; had it
> been at range 25 (assuming a Stealth-2 target) not even the Class-3
would
> be able to put enough shots into the probable location of the target -
> because the probable location in question can be anywhere in too large
a
> volume of space.
XXX
     This all sounds more in the area of ECM (WW) than stealth.  JTL
XXX
> > Do you see a problem here, I do.
> 
> No, I don't. I've described the reason why I don't see it as a problem
> twice; I hope you see my point this time - even if you don't agree
with
> it, or its premises.
> Regards,
> 
> Oerjan Ohlson
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
> 
     I hope the additional comments clarify my understanding of
what 'stealth' and ECM (WW) are and the fact that they are not really
the same.  (Even if they accomplish similar things in different ways.)
Stealth is a passive system and has no value once defeated.
ECM (WW) is an active system designed to fool/mislead the enemy 
sensors. (and thereby degrade the performance of the enemy weapons.)

If all the discussions are completed, can we call for a vote?

Bye for now.
John L.