Prev: Re: Underwater Rules Next: Re: Hi can somebody give me an e-mail for Geohex, their site seems to be down

EW Question

From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@c...>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:53:58 -0400
Subject: EW Question

Someone suggested you can get a firing solution on a target with passive
sensors (although it is difficult). Good to know (I kind of suspected
so). 

Someone (Mr. Beast I believe) suggested that active sensors almost
always
outrange passive sensors. I have to question this. On Earth, passive
sensors
tend to have somewhat limited range partly due to the effects of being
inside a noisy atmospheric envelope. And radars can bang signal out to a
few
hundred miles without too much problem (just lots of juice). 

However, I question this comment as it pertains to space for several
reasons: our most sensitive instruments (such as those on Hubble or
other
similar sats) are probably passive, and can see far farther and far more
minor changes than any active system I'm aware of. I'd suspect (no
gaurantees :) that in 2183, this translates to passive systems that can
detect very discreet phenomena at long distances. 

Active systems would be limited by the fact that the density of energy
(which is a contributor to reflected signal strength) will drop off as
the
square of distance... so I think it'd be pretty imaginative to say these
systems will be able to detect things 100,000 or more km away.... I
would
think active systems would be limited to a far more restricted distance.
They'd offer you faster and more precise data than a passive system, but
have a much more limited range. 

Now, this assumes every stardrive doesn't emit a field everyone and
their
cousin can pick up with a passive sensor from across a star system.
(which
they do in Star Trek for example). 

I would think passive systems offer two advantages over active systems:
1) They don't reveal the firer by producing emissions
2) They allow one to gain information about a foe at greater distances
(albeit limited information)

Active systems would offer two advantages:
1) A better resolution of data (higher level of information)
2) Data available relativly quickly - necessary for a fire control
solution
against a manoeuvring foe

Further, is Fire Control something only turned on when you know where
your
opposition is and you don't mind if they know they're a target? That is
to
say, you don't use it for searching... its use is to turn that bogey or
soft
lock you have into a hard lock ("Ping them so hard you could map their
hull...") which will allow pinpoint fire. 

Comments? Disagreements? Noam or Mark might have something to say to the
ranges of passive instrumentation in space. <Of course, their
application is
non-military and not oriented around trying to get a firing solution...>

<I'll note that my comments reflect I'm A) one of the 'space is like sub
warfare' crowd and B) I enjoy electronic warfare options in games ... so
I'm
considering the "whole nine yards" version of things before I worry
about
how it could be simplified - lots of good advice on how that might work
so
far from Dean, Beast, and others...>

-----------------------------------------------------
alea iacta et pessimo	|  Thomas Barclay
resulto factura est	|  Software Specialist 
------------------------|  Defence Systems
ave, Caesar!		|  xwave solutions
te morituiri salutimas	|  www.xwavesolutions.com
			|  v: (613) 831 2018 x 3008
-----------------------------------------------------


Prev: Re: Underwater Rules Next: Re: Hi can somebody give me an e-mail for Geohex, their site seems to be down