GZG List archives -- June 2006

Number 139 of 214 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update



I have to agree here. While OA, as usual, is insightful and incredibly up on technology, I have to disagree with this being *that* close to anti-ship Earthside.

The "over the horizon" piece doesn't map. There is no horizon in space. And further, for the most part, there is nothing to hide behind (think horizon, not asteroids or planets!). Thus, the missiles in FT would never be at a target that the firer hasn't "seen". Granted that "seen" is "detected by sensor". The missiles are not fired "blind" into an area, but should be able to be directed towards a ship or task force. If they are fired blind (beyond sensor range), then the "drop them into an area and hope something comes into their firing envelope" method makes more sense.

<shrug>

J

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Oerjan said:
In space there's (usually) no horizon to block your line of sight, so if your missiles carry enough on-board fuel you'll be able to guide them to the *general* area of the target. ('Course, that "if" might not be entirely trivial...) However, instead of the horizon you start to get significant time lags in the communication between the launching ship and the missile, so the missile still needs good enough target seekers - and enough autonomy - to find the target on its own.
Trouble is, as soon as the missile has *any autonomy at all* wrt target selection it also runs a risk of attacking some other target than its parent ship intended...

I rarely hear anyone suggesting that a mu is more than 1000km (although there are many who feel it should be less), so assuming you're on a 100mu table, you have less than a second of speed-of-light delay. And you don't generally don't have a horizon. I don't mind a banzai jammer having a chance to seduce a missile away from its main target; what I object to is launching a missile and finding out that the target zigged and the missile stupidly kept running to where the target *used to be*. I f the target sees the missile coming, jinks away, and the missile runs out of fuel trying to catch it, that's okay--although I'd allow the missile to re-target if there was something in range, or perhaps to cut thrust and drift a while, ready to reactivate if its parent ship calls it again. _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


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




  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update
  • Next by Date: Re: [GZG] (OT?) X-Treme Hobby...

  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update
  • Next by thread: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Sat Jul 01 01:07:32 GMT 2006