Re:[AD] Dirtside Rules Question

Andrew Martin wrote:

> Adrian pointed out:
> > My point is that if we can have a system like this NOW, is it not
> reasonable to think that a GMS system 150 years from now will be able
> to take on both tanks and aircraft?  Why not simply state that your
GMS

I suspect there are some pretty logical operational and financial 
reasons why
they're not going with the ADATs. I think that if both Tanks and A/C
have more or
less the same thick skin and are as difficult to hit, then it makes
sense. But if
tanks still go slower and are thicker requiring special greater
penetrating
warheads than aerospace vehicles, then I'd have to look at the costing
analysis
before OKing such a thing (speaking as if I'm a procurement director at
DOD.)

Right now a TOW round costs between $6-8K. Stinger rounds are3 or 4
times as much.
(Not to mention the launcher)  If I can kill tanks cheaper with
specialty rounds,
then I'd stick with those. But then again the decision should be purely
an
economic one since technically it is has already  possible for some time
to build
a missile round that will kill both vehicles. Heck the SWEDEs have
employed the
RB70 optical guided missile system for some time. (But one requires much
less
penetration and much more guidance). In fact TOW rounds can be fired at
slow
moving targets and have on occasionally been used to kill helicopters.

So anyway I guess my point is, it's not really a matter of can it be
done, but
more can it be done in a cost effective manner and if not why bother? Of
course
those question are pretty much beyond the scope of your average dirtside
game so
there's nothing wrong in going for it.

HOWEVER! Now that I'm thinking about Area defense. If I was playing it,
I would
degrade the use of a dual purpose weapon unless it was a dedicated asset
as part
of a seamless area defense system. (It's about early warning and
tragetting more
than can this individual weapon feasible hit an airborne target.) That
means I
have eight vehicles all Avengers (making up a name) with this dual
ground/air
capable system. I'll dedicate one of the vehicles to Area defense while
using the
others for whatever fire task I'm performing on the ground. Vehicle
eight is tied
into the area defense network. Sure if a  ground threat pops up that
isn't handled
by somebody else, the TC can override the network and engage, (at a 
lower
efficiency?) but at that point he's out of the net and can't help with
air
defense. Likewise vehicles with this dual system can engage air targets
that pop
up but at less efficiency also. Now when you are talking missile armed
vehicles
which generally have more severe ammo portage porblems than slug
throwers, you
have to maximize the quality of your shots.

Based on where current AD doctrine is and is continuing to go, your area
defense
network (The GZG term for AD) relies on complete and seamless
integration to
maintain it's top efficiency.

SO over your WAN (datalinked either by satcom, FM, whatever), all parts
of the
area defense network are automatically linked and share the same data at
once.
This includes data from EW radars in the sky or orbital surveillance.
When the
threat is detected the network always decides what is the best asset to
use in
order to eliminate the threat. It's almost like an automated phalanx
system (using
missiles or guns) on a large level.

The system requires a very robust, redundant, and rock solid network to
work
right. Of course individual assets can always override the net to engage
targets
that have somehow slipped through or popped up unexpectedly. Now in a
dual system
this is doubly important since the ground commander wants to concentrate
his
resources on the ground battle (Obviously it's integrated with the air
battle too)
and as a TC I'd hate to be in the middle of a ground engagement and all
the sudden
lose control of my dual launcher to engage and airborne threat.

Keep in mind that even if a dual capacble system is more expensive (and
doesn't do
each subtask as well as a dedicated system) it still might be teh way to
go on
smaller ops where portage is a porbelm. Again going back to the dual
purpose
gunship/slick "aliens" scenario we talked about last week. I.e UN
marines, they
don't work in larger units such as other power's troops so they're
weapons are mre
expensive but dual purpose?

Anyway I'm just sort of thinking out loud.

Los