Re: PDS/ADFC systems

----- Original Message -----
From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: PDS/ADFC systems

> BIF wrote:
>
> >I was thinking about the PSB for the PDS systems, and the fact that
these
> >systems would be under computer control with minimal human
supervision.
>
> Why? Sophisticated computer/electronic aid may merely augment the
human
> fire/no fire decision. Or the system itself is shotgun like - you
don't
need
> so much accuracy only a computer could fire it. Or its something even
more
> bizarre - you patch gremembers into a grav sensor grid directly and
they
> "feel" where to shoot.
>

Even with the above, you still would have sensors and computers that
could
be fooled/jammed to prevent them aquiring lock on other
missiles/fighters
that could be using the jammer as cover. The only question is how far in
the
decision making loop of the defensive batteries is the human decision
making
process involved. It could be the human sets a defensive fire plan up in
the
computers and leaves them to handle it, only interfering when nessasery,
or
the human could assign the PDS systems each turn.

> >My thinking is due to the shear speeds involved in space ship terms,
any
> >human  would be hoplesly outclassed and too slow to be used to
intercept
> >incoming  missiles or fighters, especially as these SMALL vesells
will
> > be dodging to avoid the PDS at the same time.
>
> Remember the "standard" turn lasts anywhere from 5-20 minutes. How
fast
does
> reaction time have to be if the turn really condenses the aggregate of
many
> feints and attacks?
>

Doesn`t matter, because the closing speeds will be beyond human reaction
times and visual abilities whatever it is. The planix batteries used for
intercepting missiles mounted on a CVN today use computers and radar to
shoot down a missile, with the human just assigning the batteries the
targets, and that is with slower atmospheric missiles.

> > Also, how do you think the ADFCons work? My
> > thinking is the ADFC works as a high rate computer comunications
system
> >that links the ships together, using the targetted (or the non-ADFC
> >ships) sensors to provide a single sensor image to work from.
>
> Could also simply be a focusing aid for small targets attacking other
ships.
> Perhaps ships w/o ADFC can't point weak PDS up to 6" away vs. things
not
> attacking their own ship.
>

Yes, but the ADFC is a set item, not dependent on the number of PDS the
ship
mounts.

> >...This could be a reasonable  explination due to the fact that a
ship
> >cannot attack any missile or fighter
> >within 6 MU, only one that is actually attacking your ship. This
would
> >also explain why I see ADFC tying the ship with the ADFC into the
>sensors
> of the targetted ship.
>
> It _could_ be reasonable. But there are other ways of thinking about
it
that
> require humans-in-the-loop, or other concepts that make a solely
PSB-based
> or -justified rule difficult or impossible to apply.
>
> I think of PDS attacks this way. Missiles and fighters may engage a
target
> that's 6" waya, but all the actual firing etc takes place within 1"
(more
> like within 0.1"). To me its implausible at best to expect fighters to
be
> effective at ranges of over 1000 km (one of the most standard
definitions
> for an MU. So a ship using PDS vs. things attacking it are going for
the
> bona-fide shrotest range possible.
> ADFC enables you to focus your arages against targets much farther
away,
> possibly in conjunction with the target ships' own PDS net. While the
> target's fire goes vs. the terminal or attack runs, the ADFC support
goes
as
> they set up or regroup slightly furhter out.
>
> But again, that's only one way of thinking about it, which has its own
> strengths and flaws. The PSB is what gives the game a distinct flavor,
but
> in a game like FT, it shouldn't define the rules. IMO.
>
> Noam
>

I`m not after defining the rule, it`s just if you have a idea how the
system
works, you can think up interesting systems based on that technology.
The
bit about ADFC raised a idea for a "flag bridge" ship in a task force,
that
instead of every ship requiring a ADFC, the flag bridge could link the
PDS
nets of all the ships in it`s squadren togetter as long as it`s
operational.

Just some ideas from my crazy mind.

BIF

"Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"

PS-If you don`t like these ideas, ignore them, after all, you bought the