Detection sources

Alan, 

When you wrote about how a ship could be detected using passive systems,
you
had weapons fire, hull heat, drive emissions. Nowhere did I see leakage
from
comms - either by using an omni-directional transmission or by having a
poorly targetted or poorly focused point-to-point link. I assume you
meant
that to be in the list. Poor EMCON (esp from comms) would have to be one
of
the easier to detect mistakes (because comm signals tend to look
man-made
and be fairly distinguishable from local radiations ... in most cases
anyway....). 

This whole debate was nicely summed up by the comments made that for
every
sensor, their is a jammer or countermeasure and therefore the only
question
is which you believe has advanced further. And what kind of game you
want to
play. 

Some of us like aircraft carrier WW2 style battles with large numbers of
fighters and attack-boats, others prefer Jutland style WWI gun battles
between battle lines, and others prefer the sub-hunt metaphor for space
combat. The truth is, space combat may be any of these (or more likely,
all
of these in some degree) and only by freezing a snapshot can we tell
which
it is - for as time passes, undoubtedly progress will change the flavor.
There may be periods where sensors are so good and fighters so bad that
it
looks like WWI cruiser/DN duels, there would be a time where fighters
have
improved to the point where it resembles Carrier Combat, and there could
come a time where masking technologies render it once again like sub
warfare. It's just up to each of us to decide which flavor he or she
likes
and to run with it. 

>From what I can see, the official "mainstream" version is likely to
remain
cinematic movement, limited dependence on electronics as a key aspect of
combat, and simplified rules to make fleet engagements quick and fun.
That
just makes business sense. But each of the camps mentioned above (and
others
not thought of yet) can make their own suggestions and we all benefit
from
the discourse. 

PS - I think I have to question Oerjan on his comments on the radioation
of
heat/IR. Though I agree with the physics he is suggesting (that energy
is a
wave-particle duality and one can emit without having air to conduct the
heat), I can only conclude this emission is very inefficient because the
Space Shuttle engineers had to put quite a bit of thought into how to
dispose of waste heat. They actually eject material (essentially
jetisoning
the heat with the mass of coolant). So obviously the radiation of
IR/heat
energy isn't sufficient without such additional methods - at least as it
pertains to keeping the shuttle a nice, habitable vehicle. Now, whether
this
means the radiation is insufficient for detection (since something IS
radiated despite the vacuum outside) remains a topic for debate. 

Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist 
Defence Systems
xwave solutions
www.xwavesolutions.com
v: (613) 831 2018 x 3008

Alea iacta et pessimo resulto factura est.
 
Ave, Caesar! Te morituiri salutimas!