Re: Missiles was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
>  
> OK. Provided that the costs for "ECM, Stealth etc." are balanced (not
> a trivial task, unfortunately) this balances the 4/2 and 3/3 launcher
> types against one another and at least reduces the difference between

> them and the 6/1 and 2/5 types; but it still doesn't give much reason

> for using the supposedly "standard" 6/1 launcher except possibly for 
> drawing the enemy PDS away from more important missile types or 
> fighters, nor for the 2/5 launcher unless the target is completely 
> undefended by point defence weapons.

But the /5 family would also include the 3/5 (same MASS as the 9/1) and
the 4/5 (same MASS as the 12/1) :)

In any case, these numbers were just a proposed starting point.  Maybe
the 3-MASS 2/ launcher should use /4 or /6 missiles rather than /5.  I
dunno.	You don't expect my first-attempt numbers to be perfect, do
you?

> >The problem lies in that the missiles have really dumb seeker
> >systems.  They attack the target nearest the target point.  They are

> >not capable of discriminating the "Big Kahuna" FCS suite used on 
> >enemy capital ships from the "Lil' Bopper" FCS suite used on PCGs.
> 
> Correct; the smaller ships are assumed to use their inherent ECM gear
> to emulate the bigger ships' signatures in order to lure the missiles
> away, much like today's wet-navy fleet escort vessels do. The larger 
> MT missiles have more mass to spare for ECCM gear, so are better able

> to discriminate between targets.

That is some really spectacular ECM gear, to be able to emulate half a
dozen different signatures simultainiously at no added cost in MASS or
points?  No wet navy ship can do that.	And that is exactly what they
have to do, because they would have no way of knowing which system you
are targeting - The "Big Kahuna", the Excellent Archer", or whatever.

So how can ships at much longer range tell the difference?

> 
> >It is almost as if the seekers are not active until the salvo
> >reaches the target point, at which time the sensors become active 
> >and look for a target.
> 
> There are several long-range ASM and SSM types today which work
> exactly like this (going on inertial/GPS navigation until they reach 
> the target area), so I don't have a problem with it.

and
--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote: 
> Actually, this is precisely the way some present-day long-range
> anti-ship missiles operate. They travel to a designated point, using 
> an inertial system for navigation, Once at that point, they activate 
> their seeker head (which presumably, is a bit more intelligent than 
> the FT missile ones).  There are several reasons for using such an 
> approach: the missile is harder to detect by the target, it is less 
> suceptible to be led astray by ECM, less risk of locking onto the 
> wrong target.

However, all of those are sea-skimming or nap-of-the-earth, as well as
over-the-horizon.  They go on IG/GPS because they *can. not. see. the.
target.* for most of their flight.  Same for ASROC and SUBROC.	The
weapon is set to go to where the target is *expected* to be, then
search and aquire.  Submarine launched torpedoes, like the Mk-48 do the
same thing, but are wire-guided for the ability to make corrections
when the launch platform detects changes in the target's course.

Additionally, inertial guidence without an external reference (such as
GPS or terrain following), as would be the case in space combat unless
you are defending your home system and have celectial navigation data
for the missiles, is only accurate for quite a short period of travel. 
    This is long enough for sea skimmers, the longest of which is about
6 minutes/60 miles, but not for land-attack cruise missiles.

A better analagy for FT SMs would be systems launched with a LOS to the
target, such as air- and surface-launched direct fire ATGMs, and the
best analagy would be air-to-air missiles: Line of sight, target
selected and downloaded by the launch platform, weapon sensor is
unmasked and seeker aquires target *before* launch, then uses passive
and/or active sensors to maintain lock on target emission signature or
reflected energy signature from an active system either on the weapon,
the launch platform, or a third party.	

Mr. Heinz, what makes you believe that modern sea-skimmers and NOE
missiles have seekers "which presumably, is a bit more intelligent than
the FT missile ones"?  Even if you allow half of the MASS of a SM salvo
to be magazine and transfer gear, that still leaves 16 metric tons in
the GZG setting per missile, and a lot more in settings with bigger
dwt:MASS ratios.  A few hundred kgs of sensors and processors isn't
that big a burden for the missile unless you are in the BFG setting.

J