Prev: [FT] Eldar minis Next: Re:SML's, PDAFs and Banzai Jammers/Escorts

Re: SML Absorbers

From: "Voivode Shrike (a.k.a. Ryan)" <voivode@v...>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:45:13 -0400
Subject: Re: SML Absorbers

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Barclay <>
> I don't like the SML absorber technique for small ships. In the
> GZGverse, who the hell would ever want to crew an escort? I'd mutiny
> first. I don't mind a chance of getting killed doing my job, but not a
> gaurantee of same. Small ships don't pack the point defence to handle
> this decoy task, and their is little in the way of ECM or
> countermeasures to aide them.

    This makes sense, but reality makes it untrue.  This is exactly what
escorts are for in the U.S. Navy.  Specifically, Fast Frigates are
to emulate an aircraft carrier to enemy electronics and take hits for
even though a single hit is likely to destroy (mission kill at least)
They have a very short life expectancy (30-60 seconds or something crazy
like that) and (comparatively) crappy electronics.  At best they are
supposed to fire a couple of missiles at the enemy then die taking a hit
the carrier.  This from my buddy who was stationed on one of these

    Protect the Carrier IS the modern Naval surface mission from what I
understand (I am ex-U.S. Navy, but I am nuclear waste (didn't finish
field training, a GOOD thing)) and an ex-twidget (Electronics
so I can't speak with true authority (never set foot on a ship until
was medically discharged). I can only relay what I have been told, read
and/or understand.

Voivode Shrike (Ryan Fisk)
"It's not denial.  I'm just very
 selective about the reality I accept."
(Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Watterson)

Prev: [FT] Eldar minis Next: Re:SML's, PDAFs and Banzai Jammers/Escorts