Prev: Re: [ST] Some more thoughts on System Thrust Next: Re: [FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems - review

Re: [FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems - review

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:25:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems - review
``````
In message <628148a24a.Charles@cableol.co.uk>
Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
<6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D7335D@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
>	    "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Level of Stealth	Effective Range Multiplier	Fighter/Missile
> > Lock-On
> > > 1 		x1.33				4.5 mu
> > > 2 		x1.5				4 mu
> > > 3 		x2				3 mu
> >
> > THis makes thestep between stealth 2 and 3 larger than the step
between 1
> > and 2. A range multiplier of x2 should be the equivalent of stealth
"5".
> > (step 1-2 = 13% improvement , step 2-3 = 33% improvement).
> >
> > Noam
> >

Well, with the current range multipliers; the steps are as follows:

Stealth Level	Range Multiplier	Difference
None		x1
1		x1.33			x1.33
2		x1.5			x1.125
3		x2			x1.33

So the step between 2 and 3 is the same as the step between none and 1.

Changing the range multipliers thus:

Stealth Level	Range Multiplier	Difference
1		x1.25			x1.25
2		x1.5			x1.2
3		x2			x1.33

With a MASS of 5% of hull mass per level gives a cost of 10 times the
MASS of the stealth system.

Missile/Fighter 'Lock-On' ranges are as follows:

Stealth Level	Cinematic	Vector
none		6		3
1		5		2.5
2		4		2
3		3		1.5

OTOH, I'm increasingly in favour of extending the Holofield concept to
embrace stealth.

Charles
``````

 Prev: Re: [ST] Some more thoughts on System Thrust Next: Re: [FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems - review