RE: David's vehicle design

At 9:58 AM -0400 7/9/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
>Yes I do. But this is just my opinion.
>
>I would imagine in the error of HELLs, DFFGs, and MDCs, something as
slow as
>a missile would decline in value. Built in PDS should be able to handle
most
>missiles unless the missiles have a lot of stealth/ECM in them. Adding
such

Missiles are just about to the point that they aren't going to rely 
on warheads as much as velocity. There's been a design study going on 
for a while looking at an ATGM that has a hard penetrator for a body 
and is accellerated to super sonic speed by a ramjet.

>should take up space that would have been used for payload. Also
increases
>in armor technology should lessen the effect of the payload (either
>decreasing damage or increasing the missile size). But all of this is
just
>my view, your vision may be closer to today's vision.

What of the increase in explosives technology? Look at the technology 
100 years ago vs now.

>But when talking about balancing factors, they should be equalized.
>Balancing factors in DS2 design are capacity points and cost. Cost
>differences would have to be greatly exagerated to provide the correct
>balance.
>
>Lets take a closer look.
>
>Advantages of GMS
>Dosen't need a turret
>Base capacity (non-turret) is much lower than direct fire weapon with
the
>same damage potential.
>Attacks Top armor (I could be wrong on this)
>Uneffected by Stealth
>Uneffected by target size
>
>Disadvantages
>ECM can spoof
>PDS can spoof
>Reactive armor

As ECM gets more sophisticated so do the Penaids and stealth levels 
added to the missile warheads.	As they get faster, defense 
engagement times get shorter. Look at the current trend in Anti-ship 
missile defense. The Close in range has gotten further out with the 
super sonic missiles.

>To me a GMS has quite a number more advantages than disadvantages (both
in
>effect and quanity).
>
>Not needing a turret and having a reduced capacity cost combine to make
it
>VERY far off.
>System 	Capacity Fixed	  Capacity Turret
>GMS/L		      - 		  2
>Direct Fire/3	      6 		  9
>GMS/H		      - 		  3
>Direct Fire/5	     10 		 15
>
>So now you have to ask if having to defeat PDS/ECM is enough of a
>disadvantage to provide only having to pay 0.2 capacity and ignore
Stealth
>and Target size?
>
>To me defeating either ECM or PDS is equivilent to the effect of
stealth or
>small vehicle size. So the GMS still has an 5x advanage in
damage-to-capacity points.

I prefer a mix frankly. A platoon of tanks with MDC 4s and a platoon 
of MICVs with GMS/Hs is a great mix. It makes the bad guy work hard 
to defend against fire. The tanks tend to stay back with the MICVs.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -	

----------------------------------------------------------------