Re: other GMS types

At 2:19 PM -0400 5/11/02, Thomas Barclay wrote:
>Ryan said:
>Active Radiating units would be CBR and
>ADS that are active.
>Everything else is too difficult. Command
>posts would have
>multiple emitters that are placed remote
>from the CP as
>would most other basic comms type units.
>
>[Tomb] I don't believe this matches the
>way CF EW units trained. They trained to
>be highly mobile because the minute they
>went active, they started the clock on
>being located and destroyed. I believe
>emission homing weapons were not
>unlikely to destroy EW vehicles using mast-
>jammers. Someone on the list who may
>have worked on an EW jammer vehicle may
>care to comment on my perception. I would
>think GSR units might also be destroyable
>this way.

Yes. But the Cannon already assumes that comms are not DF/Jamable. 
Otherwise every unit that called for artillery or what have you would 
be targetable specifically.

There are a number of unique means of making Comms hard to DF/Jamm. 
One is LOS lasers. Presumably you can bounce signals off of or direct 
them too a LEO SAT right? Or you can lay fiber lines to a remote 
transmitter (multiple units) by means of small drones that are 
expendable. A drone that would run off to beyond the next hill and 
act as a laser repeater to another drone would be easy. In this day 
and age we've gotten pretty good at figruing out where something in 
the sky or ground is. In that day and age, I expect getting a laser 
transmitter slaved to a very precise point will be trivial. Even on a 
moving platform.

>
>GMS that resolves like Artiller for the
>designated stuff.
>Missile Launches, red force activates a unit,
>blue force
>designates and resolves attack. Given the
>general type, this
>would always be a GMS/H.
>
>[Tomb] Today yes. It is quite possible to
>envision a HARM GMS/P by 2183.

>stopped with ADS/PDS would be hard. It's
>still going to hit and it will be landing on
>the top armor.
>
>[Tomb] Another modern day assumption.
>DS2 construction rules make top armour far
>more effective than modern equivalents
>(DS3 may allow you choice). Is there any
>particular reason the 2183 missile may
>target top as opposed to side or rear? Not
>that I know of.

I don't care if it's better top armor or not. The point is that such 
a large missile doesn't rely somely on warhead effects. Inertia and 
mass count for quite a bit. A top attack weapon that was fired from 
over 8 klicks away and has a nice ballistic arc with terminal 
guidance effects will do just fine. Especially if it has a terminal 
boost phase with a ram jet that kicks it over mach 3 onto your head.

Just how much energy do you think a 155mm round that is landing at 
mach 3 on your top armor imparts? Can you say MDC 6?

-- 
--
Ryan Gill			  rmgill@mindspring.com
	|	 |
	| O--=-  |	       |	   |
	|_/|o|_\_|	       | _________ |
	/ 00DA61 \	       |/---------\| 
     _w/^=_[__]_= \w_	       // [_]  o[]\\ 
    |: O(4) ==	  O :|	      _Oo\=======/_O_
    |---\________/---|	      [__O_______W__]  
     |~|\	 /|~|	      |~|/BSV 575\|~|
     |~|=\______/=|~|	      |~|=|_____|=|~|
     |~|	  |~|	      |~|	  |~|