EW

1) Tony pointed out that we don't want a holy grail scenario for EW. I
want
to point out that it isn't going to be that way if we keep 2 things in
mind:
basic designs should include some ECM/EW capabilities intrisincally
(thanks
Mr. Beast!) and everything costs points. If point costs are right, then
an
EW ship will be no more "grail like" than a SM ship. And all the fleets
out
of FB may have additional EW ships - Jon (Saint of Needham) only ever
shows
us a fraction of his universe's wonders...

2) Regarding passive being slower than active: Yes, Roger(?), you were
right, active has an outbound and inbound distance to travel BUT I
figured
that an active system will ping out a bunch of pulses, get them back,
and
have good data. Whereas a passive system will need to collect, sort
through,
and interpret from weaker information (not as good of a signal as the
one
series of nasty pulses from the active array) hence are effectively
slower.
It isn't that any given pulse of an active system is faster (it isn't,
as
you point out, for distance reasons) but that the quality of the return
on
an active system is greater (that's why you go active!) and so you can
make
meaningful findings from this info quicker - you need less sample data
to
make conclusions and acquire targeting fixes. Or so went my thinking. 

-----------------------------------------------------
alea iacta et pessimo	|  Thomas Barclay
resulto factura est	|  Software Specialist 
------------------------|  Defence Systems
ave, Caesar!		|  xwave solutions
te morituiri salutimas	|  www.xwavesolutions.com
			|  v: (613) 831 2018 x 3008
-----------------------------------------------------