[DSII] Point defence...

Found this today:

www.trw.com/seg/sats/THEL.html

(...if I got the URL wrong, go to www.trw.com and follow the THEL link).

Comments, folks?

Suddenly those intelligent arty and mortar rounds don't look so
all-powerful any more :-) (Or :-(, since we were involved in the STRIX
development...)

Later,

> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Found this today:

This is the right URL...

> Comments, folks?

Holy s**t! Suddenly Dirtside looks alot like the 2020s instead of the
2180s...ADS vehicles are here. (maybe...)

TRW claims this system is ready to ship as soon as you pay for it...anyone
actually heard more of the system in actual use?

> Suddenly those intelligent arty and mortar rounds don't look so

Artillery could be brought back to firing massive volleys of shells, with the
fancy seeker shell mixed in with 'dumb' shells, in the hopes that some of the
smart shells get through when the system is smoking dumb shells...

Target ID & tracking are the problem, I think - hard to smoke a shell or
missle if you can't acquire the target.

$3K US per shot is pretty damn cheap - what's a Patriot round cost? Lots
lots more than that, I'm sure.

The future seems to be now...

Brian Burger

> > Found this today:

> > Comments, folks?

My first thought too...

> Suddenly Dirtside looks alot like the 2020s instead of the

This week's Jane's Defence Weekly has an advert for it, and I skimmed
through a notice that Israel wants to deploy it early this summer - or
something like that. I didn't have time to read it thoroughly, though
:-(

> Artillery could be brought back to firing massive volleys of shells,
shells...

Yeah. With "only" 60 shots before a re-load (how long does that take?),
it might be possible to saturate it; multiple-warheads rounds where some
sub-munitions are tiny dummies with the radar signature of the real ones
might fool it, etc.

But even so - if the THEL lives up to its claims, it is *more* powerful
than the DSII ADS, being able to stop SLAM and long-range rocket
artillery...

> Target ID & tracking are the problem, I think - hard to smoke a shell

Yup.

> $3K US per shot is pretty damn cheap - what's a Patriot round cost?
Lots
> lots more than that, I'm sure.

Not sure if the THEL could stop a SCUD, though if it can take down an attack
heli, well... It seems to be intended more for tactical defence of troops,
though.

> The future seems to be now...

Yes indeed!

Later,

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

<snip>

> But even so - if the THEL lives up to its claims, it is *more*

right, that's it. i'm moving ds2 into the 'historical' section...

Tom

> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

Do you read this: "P(k) near 1 at 5 kms" Probability of kill "near 1 at 5 Km"?
PDS ranges of 5KM? Ack! Nearly automatic kill? Aargh!

> Suddenly those intelligent arty and mortar rounds don't look so
I think if you fired enough strix or copperhead, mixed with conventional,
perhaps, you would flood it's defences.

We could model THEL (Turreted High Energy Laser?) in DSII by using twin HEL
for ZAD/ADS using the rules on my site. That would give HEL range to the
ZAD/ADS. Adjust the size of the HEL to suit the desired degree of
damage. The conventional rules in DSII of one attack per GMS, aerospace or
VTOL vehicle would probably stay in effect.

> > > www.trw.com/seg/sats/THEL.html

> > TRW claims this system is ready to ship as soon as you pay for

> But even so - if the THEL lives up to its claims, it is *more*

I suppose now would be a good time to point out that Defense Contractors[1]
rate just between Used Car Salesmen and Lawyers in overall honesty. Sure, pay
me $16 Billion, and I'll promise the Sun, Moon, and Stars too. By the time you
find out it doesn't work, I'll have cashed the check.

I'd also point out that reliability on a nice, clean range under controlled
conditions, being operated by technicians, is one thing.

Reliability after it's been abused in the field under combat conditions
by an 18-year old private is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

In a message dated 99-01-09 17:53:45 EST, you write:

<<
I suppose now would be a good time to point out that Defense Contractors[1]
rate just between Used Car Salesmen and Lawyers in overall honesty. Sure, pay
me $16 Billion, and I'll promise the Sun, Moon, and Stars too. By the time you
find out it doesn't work, I'll have cashed the check.
> [quoted text omitted]
I disagree with your statement about most Defense contractors. Your reputation
at home and abroad is only as good as the last sale you made. Most people in
the industry go overboard to the point of cutting into margin (profit) to make
sure that a customer (particulary the technically less sophisticated ones) can
(1) operate the equipment and (2) have some sort of logistics infrastructure
in place with people trained or hired to support it. Let me give you an
example: Everyone up through 1990-91 wanted to sell to the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Lots of cash, not much native talent for operations and
maintenance. They were very wary though of procuring systems that didn't meet
specs. and were difficult to maintain. Most of the logistics work and some
operational work (especialy air defense, C3I and aircraft) was done by
Jordainians and Pakistanis. The trick to selling to the UAE was selling to
Jordan and Pakistan first. If you really did a good job and had satisfied
customers in either of those countries, especially Jordan, you had established
a very firm basis for selling to the UAE. Screwing over customers by over
promising on performance or making logistics support a nightmare (not enough
spares recomended, not enough test equipment, poor training, etc.) will kill
sales down the road. Another example:
in the the early and mid-1980's one major U.S. contractor did just that
in Egypt and Korea. They walked away from both jobs and some very angry
customers in the MoD's in both countries. Egypt and Korea both had a large
number of people in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's at the time, were spending
billions in defense and general national infrastructure. One of the pet
projects up for grabs at the time was PEACE SHIELD, a program which over a
period of 10 years was supposed to tie together and integrate all air defense,
communications, air traffic control (civil and military) and establish
training and support infrastuctures for just about every piece of electronic
hardware the Saudi's were supposed to buy during that period. By the time the
Koreans and the Egyptians were finished bad mouthing this one particular
player, guess who wasn't even given the chance to bid?

Perry

> I suppose now would be a good time to point out that Defense
to make

Welll, yes and no. I sell to the government myself, so I know somewhat of
which I speak. a) Our margins sure aren't low, unless we know we have to cut
them to get the job. Usually we don't have to, and 40% is common. b) On the
other hand, we are always willing to give advice on how they can
make it cheaper and better--if they'll listen to us and not what an
engineer spec'd in sometime in 1954. We are scrupulously honest about
performance characteristics, and we generally ship early or on time.

Now, does my experience go for everyone? No, obviously not. I do think that
the average company selling to the government tends to regard it as an
opportunity to do a decent job, and get well paid for doing it.

(In case anyone is interested, I sell industrial plastics. John, when they
finally get that Hummer-mounted mine detector, they'll buy the
fiberglass from me).

> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Andrew & Alex wrote:

> >www.trw.com/seg/sats/THEL.html

Thought that's what that meant - wow. 'Course, it _is_ a speed-of-light
weapon.

<<snip>>
> I think if you fired enough strix or copperhead, mixed with

That would probably take one heck of a lot of shells/targets. Still,
there
are other ways - 'jamming shells' that split into several pieces,
each having roughly the same basic signature as a regular shell?

> We could model THEL (Turreted High Energy Laser?)

Tactical High Energy Laser

> in DSII by using twin HEL

Sounds interesting - say, HEL/2, in ADS mount. Perhaps give a die shift
up
for THEL-ADS (SUP d12, EHN d10, BAS d8) and fairly expensive. Used as a
normal ADS for anti-GMS work, impacting as a standard HEL for
anti-VTOL, and using the above quality die as usual for actual
anti-aerospace ADS fire?

Ground fire by THEL would be as usual for HEL/2 - the ADS mode would
have to be switched off, of course.

What about anti-SLAM fire? Perhaps a SLAM target inside the envelope of
THEL has all impact die dropped one?

And anti-artillery THEL? Harder...try all fire drops one level of chit
color? Ummmm (my DS2 rules aren't right here...) if you'd normally draw R & Y,
now only R. If normal is only R, only Y instead...forget it, that won't work
the way I'd intended it to. Anyone else?

> in DSII by using twin HEL
No need for dice shifts. The system design is already worked out in my site.
See it for details here:
        http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/CA.HTM

Or quoted: Other Weapons for Area Defense Systems
To use another direct fire weapon system (other than RFAC/2, HVC/3 and
HVC/4
equivalents), mount your chosen twin weapons in a turret, and work out the
cost for the twin weapons. Multiply the cost by ten and that is the price of
the system in points. The range of the system is equal to long range of the
individual weapon systems. To make this system consistent with the current
ADS, the
DSII basic ADS/ZAD should only have range of 24" (RFAC/2 max. range),
and
the DSII enhanced ADS/ZAD should only have a range of 32" (HVC/3 max.
range). The ADS quality die is based on the size of the weapon: size 1 to size
5 is D4 to D12 respectively. Draw damage chits equal to size class of weapon.
Even though two weapon systems are fitted, only one set of damage chits are
drawn. Damage validities as per existing ADS damage validities, i.e. all chits
count. If you want, you can use a single weapon instead. Just install it in a
turret, and multiply the points cost by 10. But, only RED chits are valid. If
you want ALL chits valid, multiply the points cost by 20 instead of 10. Or you
can install quad weapons. Just install them in a turret, and multiply the
points cost by 5. ALL chits will be valid. You could install three weapons in
turret, multiply by 5, but you will only get RED and YELLOW chits valid.
=====

> What about anti-SLAM fire? Perhaps a SLAM target inside the envelope of
Perhaps drop SLaM fire by size of THEL? Simpler rule!

> And anti-artillery THEL? Harder...try all fire drops one level of chit
Perhaps negate one gun's worth of artillery fire per THEL? Simpler rule!

> Andrew & Alex wrote:

Uh-huh.  Sure.  If the tank is stationary with the THEL pointed in the
right direction, and one single round with no counter-measures or
stealthing (both of which will become as common as dirt if this thing
starts impacting the battlefield in a real way) under firing-range
conditions.

Like I said, I'll believe a shyster or a used car salesman before I believe a
defense contractor's advertisements for a probability of kill.

> John M. Atkinson wrote:
Actually the intended target isn't tanks. It's missiles, smart rounds, cruise
missiles and such like, which typically don't have counter measures and have
only limited stealth and certainly don't have visual stealth.

> Like I said, I'll believe a shyster or a used car salesman before I
I think that the american military are a little bit smarter than that now.
Particularly after the Vietnam era debacle over the introduction of the M16,
probably one of the worst design changes the american military ever made. Now
they are smart consumers who specify their requirements and expect their
suppliers to provide proof. So I think that high probability of kill, though
not specified exactly, is probably high. "P(k) near 1 at 5 kms" means to me,
at least 0.76 to.95
at most probability of a kill of a non-evading missile, smart artillery
shell, cruise missile and recon drones. So in the worse case, 3 out of 4
missiles, drones and shells will be shot down with one shot.

> Andrew Martin wrote:

> >Uh-huh. Sure. If the tank is stationary with the THEL pointed in

> Actually the intended target isn't tanks.

I think John meant that the tank carrying the THEL is stationary, not that its
target would be...

> It's missiles, smart rounds,

Not today, no. ("No boom *today*. Boom *tomorrow*. There's *always* boom
tomorrow.")

If it becomes obvious that smart rounds, missiles etc are going to need
stealth and/or counter measures in order to do their job against
advanced protection, you can bet any amount you like that they're going to get
it
pretty damn fast. I don't expect the counter-measures and stealth to
work all the time, but they'd certainly reduce the efficiency of the THEL..

 Which in DSII terms means that we'll get a "opposed die-roll" situation
for all incoming artillery rounds and similar against point/area
defence,
just as we already have for GSM :-)

BTW, the IDF hopes to deploy their "area defence" systems late this year.
I mis-read the JDW article by half a year :-) So if they manage their
schedule, we'll know in a year or two how successful they are against
Katyusha-style rocket artillery...

Later,

> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> I think John meant that the tank carrying the THEL is stationary, not
    Oops! :-) Sorry!

> If it becomes obvious that smart rounds, missiles etc are going to need
situation
> for all incoming artillery rounds and similar against point/area
So, we'll have Basic, Enhanced and Superior fire control artillery...
:-)
I haven't worked out a system for this yet! :-)

> BTW, the IDF hopes to deploy their "area defence" systems late this
    Katyusha probably has "Dumb" fire control. :-)