Re: EW/Sensors (simple rules)

From: <devans@uneb.edu>

> I hate to be the nay-sayer, but I really don't like the idea of
forcing
> more FCS onto the ship.  FCS are for firing weapons, not detecting

> I'm a bit of two minds here. However, it seems to me that you're
talking
> about two different things: ID'ing, which I'd say was based on long
> distance sensors, and spacial pin-pointing, which is what FCS do.
> 
> I'd probably introduce levels/quality of rather than numbers of FCS,
for
> something like this, even though that's even MORE conplexxxity.
> 
> If you know it's there, you know it's something and can shoot at it.
If
> you've got good sensors, you can know what it is, and if you've got
good
> FCS, you've got a chance of hitting at it.

There is one big disadvantage of NOT using FCs for detection: you either
have an "inherent" set of sensors, with all attendent problems: or you
must make up a new system, and then you have the problem of what
about all existing designs in FB1 and FB2 that don't have them.

For "inherent" systems, how do you knock them out? Maybe this
could be amalgamated with the existing inherent systems, ie
Bridge, Life Support, and Reactor. So you could have the standard
sensor suite being part of the Bridge. *shrug*

IMHO the best and easiest way to deal with this is to define the FC
systems as having 2 actual parts: a long-range sensor, capable of
detecting things but not accurately enough to provide a firing solution,
and a pin-point high-data-rate system that's much shorter range and
only capable of tracking 1 target at a time.

FWIW there are a number of sensor systems in operation today that
have exactly these characteristics, including most AA system, with
a FC suite consisting of a long range search radar and a short range
single-target tracking radar. e.g. Gepard, ZSU-23/4, etc etc

This way, the only new systems needed would be very expensive and rare
systems for providing better data at long range, or alternately,
bollixing
up the enemy's intel.