Re: FT III: ECM

	Two questions relate to ECM and sensors. What can I see? What
can I hit?
	To be able to enguage a target you must be able to see (or know
roughly where it is). But how do you see something in space? The
simplest
senor to use is the eyeball Mk1. But this may not help. Afterall the
target
could be over a million kms (for you Yanks, miles) away an less than
100m
(yards) long, painted black or some non reflective finish so that unless
it
is doing a main engine burn or is between you and a planet or star you
won't
see a thing. Do some amatuer astronomy and see if you can spot a comet
(other than Hale-Bop) or an asteroid. It could take you months or years
if
at all. Second way to observe is by methods like Radar. However the good
old
U.S. of A. has shown the world, particularly Iraq that this can be
ineffective with the right stealthing. Stealthing also applys to heat
(infa-red) and no doubt can be done for UV as well. You might try
detecting
a targets mass through gravity waves but this will only work if the ship
is
massive, moving fast or well away from any major gravity well, like
planets.
As like naval battles here on Earth which, with one exception, have
virtually been all fought near land, space fleet bettles will take place
in
proximity of planets to either capture or defend them. Which ever way
you
look at it, it is possible to "hide".
	ECM as used here and in the real world isn't strictly correct.
Afterall the chaff and flare pods on modern warships act to protect them
from senors but aren't strictly Electronic Counter Measures. ECM in
games
terms is looking at systems that can decoy (presenting a false target)
confuse (present with multiple targets) hide (ie. smoke) jam and
otherwise
degrade the preformance of sensors and targeting systems. ECM does not,
repeat does not render a target completely invisible, but it does make
it
much harder to hit.
	I guess what I'm saying is that military technology moves
forward by
competition between the ability to defend yourself and the ability to
hurt
your opponent. If you find a way to do something someone will find a way
to
stop you.
 I for one think that EW is a much neglected thought important part of
FT. 
	I keep an eye out for replys.

	Tony
twilko@ozemail.com.au
"I don't fight to be fair
I fight to win."

At 01:56 PM 29-05-97 -0500, John wrote:
>One thing bothers me about ECM, ECCM, Stealth, Sensors, and the like is
the
>great variety of matter and energy in space.  I believe some of the
earlier
>concepts involving cloaking technology involved "bending light" around
an
>object so you can "see" it.  So you wait for the ship to move through a
>comet's tail and look for the wake the cloaked ship makes.
>
>Now we know about solar winds, radio pulses, radiation,
micro-meteorites,
>"dark matter", etc. etc.  A physical object moving through the aether
[not
>sure of the exact spelling at this moment but I'm refering to the fact
that
>"space" is not a "vacuum"] is going to bounce, absorb, reflect, leave a
trail,
>as it moves OR as the aether moves around it.
>
>I feel that, at best, systems that jam the guidance systems of
torpedoes,
>fly-by fighters and the like might be closest we could ever really come
to any
>sort of ECM system. 
>
>Even making a ship "invisible" to a torpedo will still leave some kind
of
>wake.	All the targeting system has to do is determine the edges of the
wake
>and target one of the edges/sides of the wake.
>
>Granted, this is Science Fiction and we can do just about anything. 
But, will
>adding this level of complexity actually add to the game flow and
enjoyment? 
>
>Your Thoughts?  Comments?
>
>Sincerely
>John M. Huber
>
>