Re: Fire Control lock-on musings

Samuel Penn and then John L wrote:
>
>>  The way I see it, is that FCS represent sensors. If
>>  you have more
>>  FCS, then you have bigger and better sensors.
>
>I just must ask:
>
>If FCS is sensors, what are the sensors?

FCS represents target acquisition and tracking capability,
in a very general sense. Since the sensors and the ships
themselves are imaginary, FCS can represent whatever we
like. It's a game, not a simulation.

I do like the idea of special "Area Fire Control Systems"
analogous to ADFCs that allow one ship to supply target
information for another.

>
>If you have 2 1945 radar sets, do they equal
>a 1960s radar set in ability?

I've read that in the 1991 Gulf War British warships
with older radar sets could indeed track F-117 stealth
bombers, because the RAM coating had been designed for
shorter wavelengths. "old" = "worse" is a dangerous
line of thinking.

And how do we compare optical, radar, gravimetric, and
for all I know telepathic Sa'Vasku sensors? Let's not
get bogged down in details. Ships have appropriate fire
control systems for the genre/setting and it just
works against the enemy, ditto stealth, ECM, etc.

	cheers,
	Hugh