Re: Active vs Passive

Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/13/00 12:01:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil writes:
> 
> <<
>  I do agree with your comment about range. Unless you or your
opponenet are
>  moving a significant amount, it would be difficult to determine range
using
>  passive sensors. This is why the closer you are to an object the
easier it
>  should be to deterine details.
>   >>
> 
> I think the best model available for sci-fi sensors (active and
passive) is
> modern day submarine warfare. No, the first detection by passive
sensors
> gives one a HUGE possible range reading, but the submarine can alter
course -
> triangulate the target's passive signature and work out a firing
solution
> over time. I think that is what would happen in space combat.

	I can agree with this, but with one caveat. Given only a slight
advance
over present-day technology, the detection range will be VASTLY greater
than the weapons range (even for a non-thrusting ship), therefore you'll
probably have an excellent position/velocity track LONG before you get
within weapons range (of course, weapons range with projectiles against
ballistic targets is essentially infinite, but if you start manuvering
to avoid being hit you've just announced your presence to anyone else
within about 50 AU).

-Brian Quirt