Re: FTIII: ECM

I won't pretend to be a physicist, but the conceptualizations of ECM and
what
not mentioned in this thread gives me pause.  One of the things that
bugs me
about the "cloaking" systems seen on many TV and movie portrayal shows
the
cloaked ship being invisible.  All well and good, but the purported
ranges
mentioned in most SF games/books/TV shows/Movies are way beyond visual
range.
 Why spend all the energy (and money) to make yourself invisiable to an
oponent that won't see you anyway?  Heck, most naval weaponry today
targets
thing you can't see, due to range, night time conditions, etc.	How the
heck
am I going to be able to see that NSL frigate at (enter huge
astronomical
distance here) when I have a hard time seeing the rest of my own convoy?
 
I think that "cloaking" technology will be something closer to modern
"stealth" technology.  By using Radar Absorbant Materials (RAM),
specially
shaped fuselages/hulls, and thrust/emmissions dampening and obscuration,
modern "stealth" aircraft (B-2, F-117) are able to fool most modern
tracking
systems (primarily radar and heat-seeking).  They can still be seen and
heard
(barely), but their use at night precludes the use of ol' Private Joe
Snuffy's eyes to fire ADA.  So, by using the same basic techniques and
fundamental concepts, the ships and fighters of the future should be
able to
do the same, that is, baffle the enemy's sensors and tracking systems
until a
new generation of tracking system comes out to beat the old stealth
tech.
 The next generation of stealth tech will fool the old sensor tech and
so on,
ad infinatum.  
Now for chaff, flares, jamming pods, etc., I would say anything goes. 
The
active sensors on a missile/torp should be easy to jam, maybe the use of
small nukes for the EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) to fool/scramble the
sensors.  The active jamming of the enemy's ship-borne target
acquisition
sensors would give out huge ammounts of (highly) detectable radiation.	
Just a few thoughts.  Like I said, I don't know thing one about physics
(to
be really honest, I think Newtonian movement would make FT dull as
watching
paint dry), but I know a thing or two about weapons and detection
theory.  My
military service has given me just a bit of (simulated) application in
those
fields also.  I learned early on the benefits of obfuscation and
obscuration
(can't shoot what you can't see).  And remember, it's just a game.
>From Sniper's Alley,
Jay