Re: Missiles was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

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) :)

Which have pretty much the same balance problems relative to the 6/2,
8/2 
and 6/3 variants as the 6/1 and 2/5 have against the 4/2 and 3/3...

>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?

My apologies. Your previous post looked as if you had actually used
these 
systems in games, so I assumed that they were what you had arrived at 
through testing rather than a first attempt.

> >>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?

You don't need to emulate the other signatures very closely when you can

drown them out instead. Trying to identify the car *behind* the one that

just turned its headlights on to full strength in your face and blinded
you 
gives you an idea of how this type of jamming works - crude, certainly,
but 
annoyingly effective :-/

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

I don't know for certain, but it just might have something to do with
the 
fact that a single Fire Control System is approx. three times the size
of 
an entire Salvo Missile without having to waste any Mass on engines and 
warheads...

> >>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.
>
>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.

Not exactly, no. The real-world anti-ship missiles go on IG/GPS mainly 
because they *want. to. delay. being. detected. by. the. defences. for.
as. 
long. as. possible.*, and going active is a very good way of being
detected 
quickly. This is just as applicable to space missiles as it is to
surface ones.

>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,

You're talking about short-range air-to-air missiles here. If you extend

the analogy to include BVR air-to-air missiles, you'll find the "go to
the 
general target area, turn on seeker, attack target if you can find it"
mode 
of operations used in air-to-air combat as well :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry