Re: Missiles was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

Jared Hilal wrote:

 >>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 :-/
 >
 >But the FB SM rules give the PCG the same decoy abilities if,
 >for example, a salvo travels on bearing 10 20 MU to its
 >target point, a capital ship is 5 MU bearing 9 from the salvo
 >and the PCG is 4.75 MU bearing 3.  The "noise" is behind the
 >salvo, yet it is still decoyed.

Yes. Put it up as an attempt to keep the game mechanics simple if you
like, 
or make the PSB assumption that the seeker head has a 300+ degree field
of 
vision so the inverse-square law makes the closer ship to suck it in
anyway 
<shrug>

 >Additionally, there is no way for the PCG to know what the
 >salvo is homing on.

So it has to broadcast in all the likely range bands and emission types.

Big deal.

 >>>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.*,
 >
 >I am sorry, but you are incorrect.

I'm correct for the ones we build. Without going into classified stuff,
the 
low flight profile is only *part* of their attempts to delay detection -

but it is by no means *all* of it.

 >>and going active is a very good way of being detected quickly.
 >
 >Yes, but only if they are using an active *sensor*.  An
 >active *seeker* can use a passive *sensor*, and that will not
 >give away the missile's existence.

At work, what you refer to as "sensor" would be what we call the
reciever 
part of the seeker head; a "sensor" OTOH can be either active (ie. both 
emitting and recieving) or passive (recieving only). At least with
today's 
technology recievers for active - ie., emitting - sensors usually aren't

very good at operating in purely passive mode; most of them need
something 
to illuminate the target for them - either the emitter part of the same 
seeker, or an emitter on a separate unit entirely (aka "semi-active").

 >>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 :-/
 >
 >Again, you are incorrect.  I am talking about *all* AAMs.  All US and
 >NATO AAMs, in all range categories, have their *seekers* activated
 >before launch.  Including the BVR Phoenix.

You need to read up more on the Phoenix, then. There are other BVR
missiles 
too of course; but most of them are much newer and therefore harder to
find 
unclassified data on, and since I don't know how good your access to 
classified data is and the Phoenix is already a good example of what I'm

talking about let's stick to that one.

For long-range shots the AIM-54 Phoenix gets periodic course updates
from 
the F-14 that launched it until it is within about 18 km of its target. 
Until then it is the *F-14's* radar which tracks the target and relays
the 
information to the missile, not the missile's own seeker. About 18 km
from 
the target the missile's own on-board seeker activates in and guides it 
during the final approach (provided that it can find it, which isn't 
guaranteed even if the Tomcat kept its target lock). IOW the missile
goes 
to the general vicinity of the target, turns on its seeker, and attacks
the 
target if it can find it - which is exactly what I stated above.

This system with periodic course updates from the launch unit works fine
as 
long as 1) the com lag isn't significant, 2) the launch unit doesn't get

distracted and loses its target lock before the missile has reached the 
target area, and 3) the missile's ability to make course changes
mid-flight 
is large enough to allow it to act upon the data relayed to it from the 
launch platform. Since the AIM-54's max range is around 150 km for the 
latest variants, the USN hasn't had to fight many enemies with 
similarly-ranged weapons (I can't think of any at the moment) which
would 
be able to distract an F-14, and the Phoenix is able to use the
surrounding 
air as a "lever" for course changes instead of having to burn fuel all
the 
time, this approach works for the Phoenix. Well, at least it works 
reasonably often - its hit probability is by no means 100% :-/

With the much longer ranges and higher target velocities featured in
most 
Full Thrust settings however, light speed communication lags starts to 
cause problems (by the time the data reaches the missile the target is
no 
longer exactly where the data says it is); and the space missiles can't
use 
any surrounding air as a lever for making course changes so any course 
updates have to be done by burning fuel instead - of which the missiles
are 
likely to have a rather limited supply if it is to have enough volume
left 
for that big warhead it carries. (Long ranges and long missile flight
times 
could theoretically also increase the risk that the launching ship gets 
distracted while the missile is on its way, but in the current Fleet
Book 
turn sequence
all the potential threats are handled in the turn phases after the
missiles 
has already reached its own attack range.)

 >In fact, I do not know of any AAMs that use IG/GPS/TF to
 >travel to a target area as you describe.  Please name them so
 >that I may research them.

I did not claim that any AAMs use IG or GPS navigation; you added that
all 
by yourself and then became agitated about it... (TF AAMs wouldn't be 
particularly useful BTW, since most of their targets fly several
thousand 
meters above the ground.)

What I said, verbatim, was that

'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'.

I did not mention the specific method of navigation used by these BVR
AAMs 
anywhere that I can see. As described above the Phoenix does indeed use
the 
"go to the general target area, turn on seeker, attack target if you can

find it" mode for long-range shots, yet it uses neither IG nor GPS.
Other 
BVR AAMs use the same or similar operation modes.

 >Same for SAMs.

When did SAMs become part of AIR-TO-AIR combat?

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