Re: [GZG] [DSII] Precision Strike

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ryan Gill wrote:

> > Seriously revamp capacity costs for ADS.  I mean, you can put six
> > Surface Launcher AMRAAMs on a HMMWV.  You also need another vehicle
> > for the radar and another for the fire control center, but each radar
> > and FC center can handle a half-dozen launcher vehicles.
>
> How about the Missile Air Defense system I proposed a while back?

They look OK-ish as long as you only intend to fight battles set in 1991 or 
earlier, but they're far too tied to DS2's ADS rules - which themselves 
only really represent SPAAGs from the 1970s and earlier, ie. the kind of 
AAA available during the Vietnam war - to model even the later 1990s very well.

A few scattered comments:

> There are several systems in modern use that engage aircraft on a tactical 
> scale of the battle. Not to be confused with theatre air defense systems 
> that reach 20+ miles like Patriot, SM2 or SA-6, these systems are employed 
> closer to the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area). Think of a mobile Hawk 
> System, Rapier or SA-6 for the modern equivalent of a MAD.

Considering that even the original HAWK system had a range of 25 km, that 
the later HAWK models have a range of *40* km, and that you've listed 
"SA-6" both in the "MADS equivalent" *and* the 
"not-to-be-confused-with-MAD" categories, I suspect that you may have to 
polish your list of examples a little :-/

> MADS of course have a much longer range, 120" if you play on really big 
> tables and want a finite range, otherwise assume the table top. 
> Effectively they can engage any aircraft that enters the area of the table 
> that isn't down in the "weeds". VTOL's in low mode are not valid targets.

Today's "MADS equivalents" have a *maximum* altitude as well - typcially 
around 15,000'. In order to engage targets flying higher than that, you 
need the theater-level stuff.

> A MADS takes quite a bit of room. They require a search radar, 
> tracking/guidance radar emitters and the missiles themselves. They are 
> thus bulky and require multiple units to move around.

No, they don't (not if you're serious about the "120mu range" bit, anyway). 
There are several "MADS equivalent" systems today which have all systems 
collected on a single vehicle. They *can* be split up into multiple units, 
but they don't *have* to be.

> Only one Sensor element may be active for a given set of Launcher 
> elements. If it is destroyed by ARM fire, the MADS unit may switch over to 
> an alternate Sensor element if available.

This implies that if the sensor is destroyed by some *other* means than ARM 
fire, the MADS unit *can't* switch over to an alternate sensor element. 
Intentional?

> A MADS's search and tracking radars emit radiation just like an ADS. Thus 
> each elements' signatures are effectively 1 larger and Stealth/ECM systems 
> are ineffective.

This is one of the most 1970s bits of the entire DS2 rules set. While this 
was true during the 'Nam and Yom Kippur wars, it wasn't true for Serb AA 
units during the NATO bombings of Kosovo, it isn't true today, and I kinda 
doubt that it'll become much truer in the future. Modern radars can play 
quite a few interesting tricks on incoming ARMs, and all those tricks 
definitely fall in the "ECM" category.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l