I've often thought (except when I am the one
operating the fighters ;-) that any weapon, or
at least any beam should be able to fire at fighters and missiles (or other
ordinance) registering a kill on a 6. But is this plausible, and is it
unbalancing?
On the positive side, it introduces some interesting tactical dilemmas. Do you
fire all your weapons at the fighters in hopes of getting one or two more, or
do you save it for the big ships bearing down on you? One could expect 1 kill
per 6 weapons allocated on average. That's probably just effective enough to
make you think about doing it.
On the negative side, any given ship, when attacked by fighters has a better
chance of destroying more fighters, so it makes fighters a little less
powerful. With one of my CAs which has 2 type 3's and 2 pulse torpedoes,
allocating all weapons to say a fighter
squadron is only likely to net 2/3 of a fighter on
average.
Plausibility -- Would a ship do this? Well in SFB
this was possible. In real life I've hear stories
of even 16-18" naval guns being fired in the path
of torpedo fighters in the hopes of knocking them down. Sure it's harder to
hit a fighter with a 16" gun, but this is already reflected in the type 1
against fighter/ordinance rules.
This is mostly a speculation for the next generation of Full Thrust than a
idea for inclusion in the games going on right now. This would seem to make
ships more flexible and would have the side effect of making book fleet ships
a little more survivable against a single 6 squadron carrier. What do you
think? Maybe this is a terrible idea, but if so, I expect you'll all set me
straight.
> David Griffin wrote:
> I've often thought (except when I am the one
> Plausibility -- Would a ship do this? Well in SFB
In a word, no. The japanese 18" inch gun did have an anti-aircraft
shell that was the mother of all cannister shot (may have been a beehive
precursor), but it was especially difficult to use. If it was not in the gun
when the torpedo bombers showed up, unless the hoists were empty of all other
shells, it would not show up in the breach until it was too late. The japanese
idea would have worked a lot better if they realized what radar was good for,
so they could have the guns loaded with cannister AND pointing at the torpedo
bomber when they showed up. Nobody ever tried to actually shoot at an aircraft
with anything larger 5" (the Dover 8" coastal batteries being the only
exception [from book of forgotten title, written by Ian V. Hogg]).
The simple reason is that the power required to slew a gun mount increases
with the square of the mass. For directed energy weapons, the method of aiming
the beam may vary, but the power to slew the beam will probably still be
proportional to the square of the output energy (physics is funny that way).
As noone has the required power to spare
On Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:09 AM, Richard and Emily Bell
> [SMTP:rlbell@sympatico.ca] wrote:
The
> larger beams are useless for point defense, but they can reach out and
When I did my HH conversion, I had to include rules for this. I had all
weapons rolling 1 die using "C-1 as PDS" rules within their normal arc,
as I deleted the missile lock roll for SMLs (so they needed the extra
defence).
Hmm... time to revisit those rules I think.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
Just remember, missiles should significantly outperform ships. As you had it
last time, the missile range envelope wasn't much bigger than the beam
envelope. A few more refinements and you've got it nailed.
And I'm quite prepared to command another squadron in pbem. I'm hoping for a
more decisive victory next time.
> ------------ Original Message -----------
The
> > larger beams are useless for point defense, but they can reach out
***
Nobody ever tried to actually shoot at an aircraft with anything larger 5"
(the Dover 8" coastal batteries being the only exception [from book of
forgotten title, written by Ian V. Hogg]).
***
I'll do some diggin', but I'm certain large bore, though perhaps not
18",
were used in a later battle, perhaps at Leyte, and were less than effective,
except exactly as feared, which was to foul or scour the barrels to almost
useless.
Everything else you say makes sense, of course, but it appears the Japanese
actually did get some shots fired in roughly the right direction.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> [quoted text omitted]
...
> The simple reason is that the power required to slew
Doesn't that depend on what kind of mount you're talking about? If you're
dealing with something that looks like it belongs on the Yamato, then yes. But
lasers and electronics aren't necessarily heavy, so the weight might be
negligible, or at least pretty light. Also, some designs (like the collimeter
phaser on the dish of the 1701D) don't require any motion of any kind and thus
could easily target anything in it's arc instantly.
Now I don't know what kind of mounts are being used in full thrust, but I
don't remember big obvious gun mounts on the full thrust miniatures (not many
anyway). So, without some information about the weight and mechanism we don't
really know how fast these guns are to traverse. Since the rules specify type
1 beams only, that is a piece of evidence that favors your interpretation.
Perhaps it would require some higher tech level to have the kinds of beam
mounts star fleet ships have (and maybe that would explain why they might be
able to fire any of their beams at small objects instead of just the small
ones).
> At 5:48 AM -0700 6/13/01, David Griffin wrote:
David, how many mass is adding an arc to a class 3? 1 additional mass. Sounds
like the gear for shifting point of aim is quite heavy.
Or it could be another beam emitter connected to the beam source. The initial
4 mass is 3 mass for the beam source and 1 for the beam emitter (but only
shows as 1 icon as the whole system goes down if any part of it is damaged).
For Class-2 Beams, the source is 1 mass and each emitter is .33 mass.
For Class-1 Beams, the source is .4 mass and each emitter is .10 mass.
Phalon Pulsars are similar. They have a 1.5 mass source and each emitter is.5
mass.
!Notice: The above is pure PSB!
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> On the plus side, the amount of slew required is inversely
The
> larger beams are useless for point defense, but they can reach out and
Assuming the fighter is maneuvering, how hard is it to hit at long range? The
targeting information (eg radar reflection) has to get from the fighter to
you; you have to process it; you have to point the gun; then your outgoing
beam has to get back to the fighter.
Using the usual 1mu=1000km:
36" = 36,000 km each way
C =~300,000km/sec
so transit time in and back is about.24 second (counting zero processing and
slew time)
How far does the fighter move? If a fighter evades at an easy 1 gee
d = 1/2at^2 = 1/2 * 10m/sec^2 * .24^2 = about .28 meters
That distance varies directly as a result of the fighter thrust.
Assuming that you're aiming at the center of the target and your processing
and slew time are fast enough, you should still generate a hit. If on the
other hand the fighter is continuously evading at 10g, you might have a
problem--depends on the size and configuration of the fighter.
> On 13-Jun-01 at 12:51, Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:
Or they have to run waveguides down extra sections of the ship, or the main
mass is the capacitor and extra arcs just take directors on extra areas of the
ship or...
It's your PSB, the game was designed around Jon's PSB, don't assume your
regression of why the rules are the way they are actually matches reality.
***
David, how many mass is adding an arc to a class 3? 1 additional mass. Sounds
like the gear for shifting point of aim is quite heavy.
***
Not that it's supporting David's view, but I'd like to point out that it's
more abstract than that, I think.
I seem to recall it could even factor in having to build the hull differently
to allow extra fields of fire.
***
Should all Beams fire at fighters/ordinance?
***
Discussion seems to be repeating, so my own answers are:
If you wish to play that way, and you can get someone else to, yes.
Should it be a printed optional rule in FBIII? Could be, but I can think of
things I'd prefer to take up the space.
Should it be a part of the main rule system? Definitely not. I'd rather see
the PDS capability of class 1's dropped, first. It was a kludge, though an
acceptable one, to begin with.
Likewise defend-against-all screens, though it might be more interesting
to me on the optional list, if cleaned up greatly, stated that all ships
should have 'em, and suites of weapons to mimic the background you've
mentioned, without mentioning it IN the book.
> On 13-Jun-01 at 13:40, devans@uneb.edu (devans@uneb.edu) wrote:
It lets small ships defend themselves from fighters. I see it as a necessity.
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
Some Star Trek ships do this too. It doesn't alter the amount of mass used by
the ship (heck, who knows how much that collimeter phaser ring on the dish of
the Enterprise D weighs, my guess is a lot), only the speed at which it could
track targets. I certainly wouldn't advocate cheaper multi arc beam weapons. I
only mentioned it to show that a different mechanism behind a multi arc weapon
would have an effect on the likelihood that it could track a small maneuvering
target. Not every big beam would have to slew a huge metal turret.
> --- Chris DeBoe <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
...
> Assuming that you're aiming at the center of the
Any fighter which is attacking probably isn't evading at all, much less at 10g
and the game doesn't even LET us shoot at fighters which are not attacking.
(Us being defined as not Kra'vak)
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
Exactly, you can't really tell just from the mass of the extra arcs what
mechanism is being used. Since Jon's mechanism (whatever it is) seems to only
allow beam 1's to fire, perhaps his does involve moving a collossal amount of
metal around. Only Jon knows.
From: "David Griffin" <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
> --- Chris DeBoe <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
Yours may not be. Mine have Auto-Evade, doesn't occupy the pilot's
> --- Chris DeBoe <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET> wrote:
...
> > Any fighter which is attacking probably isn't
Auto evade (say that means jinking about the sky/
space) would tend to make manual firing somewhat problematic. You *could* have
automated targetting systems which compensated, but then really you're just
one step away from programming the whole attack and just carrying the pilot
along for the ride.
Besides, 10G is pretty severe. Even if you have some kind of advanced
acceleration compensators (a la Star Trek) to keep the pilot from being too
busy being crushed to do much, the ship is still undergoing considerable
stress. This probably isn't the best moment to fire a laser, railgun, or
missile for optimum effect. I would think even if you *could* hit your target
under these conditions, you'd be able to hit it a lot better if you didn't do
this kind of superjinking, at least at the moment of release. You might well
find you had to develop all kinds of things to release weapons under that kind
of load. Even the internal parts of the weapon might not work under those
conditions unless they're specifically designed to do so (and it would make
the bird a lot more expensive).
So what I'm saying is you can imagine anything you like for your fighters and
no one can tell you it's not true as long as it doesn't provoke a rule change
(I do that for other parts of my background). However, I just have a somewhat
hard time believing that fighters are doing this kind of hard maneuvering AT
weapon release time.
Any actual fighter pilots out there who can comment on what gets done with
modern aircraft?
> On 13-Jun-01 at 14:52, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> So what I'm saying is you can imagine anything
So your auto-jink cuts off for 1/100th of a second
as the weapon is released. No big deal.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
And that's when the defenses fire. As soon as you stabilize for firing, BOOM
all the pds's open up.
1/100th is not very much time for Joe Human to press
the trigger, but for a computer 150 years in the future to trigger a weapons
salvo? Why not? Maybe that's why humans aren't allowed to fire on fighters
unless they're actually attacking. The kra'vak on the other hand believe in
the shotgun approach, so the jinking isn't such an impediment.
But if a PDS can hit the fighter, even if it has to do it at that instant (and
a type 1 beam) then the targetting problem isn't unsolveable. Any number of
PDSs can target the object according to the rules along with all the type 1
beams. So the only thing that would stop a type 4 beam from shooting would be
something to do with the actual type 4 beam weapon (size, traverse speed,
etc.). It seems pretty artificial to assume that humans of 2150 can't figure
out a better way of building a multi arc weapon than building a big piece of
metal with guns sticking out that slews around using massive motors. I don't
know how FT is *supposed* to work, but that's all I can think of.
You might not WANT to waste a type 4 beam to shoot at a fighter most of the
time, but it might be worth it in emergencies.
> On 13-Jun-01 at 16:12, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> But if a PDS can hit the fighter, even if it has
Just as a counter example, if all weapons were of the same type they used as a
planet buster in SW there is a delay between telling it to fire and having the
beam appear.
I guess what I am really saying is the current system isn't broken, it doesn't
need to be fixed.
Point defenses work on large ships.
To allow small ships _some_ defense, even if it is
usually not very affective, allowing 1s to fire as substandard PDSs is an
elegant solution.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> I guess what I am really saying is the current
I never said it was broken. I think it would open up some options tactically
if other beams COULD fire because you could use ordinance to cover your
approach (since the enemy would have to divide fire between you and the
missiles) or cover your retreat. As it stands, since a completely different
set of
weapons is used for anti-ordinance fire, this is a
useless tactic. There's no requirement to fix this, I was just wondering if it
might work even better in FBIII if this were allowed.
> Point defenses work on large ships.
Again there's nothing broken about the current system, we're just exploring
possible improvements. In that spirit, consider the targetting problem of
intercepting a MT missile you've known about for 2 turns and which is coming
straight for you with a class 4 beam or a pulse torpedo. Is this really an
intractable problem? Would it be that much harder for the humans of 2160 than
it is today for us to intercept missiles with missiles?
I can live with the rules just as they stand, but by raising the issue now,
maybe FBIII's design can consider the idea of allowing other weapons to
intercept incoming fire (at least of ordinance). I can envision interceptor
missiles, intercepting missiles with pulse torpedoes and doing the same thing
with beams. This *might* lead to missiles feeling like a more integrated
member of the battlefield.
I know FBIII might do nothing of the kind. That's ok, I'm just trying to get
the subject discussed so that it gets considered on it's merits (whatever Jon
thinks those merits are).
> On 13-Jun-01 at 16:50, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Again there's nothing broken about the current
But we don't intercept missiles with the same missiles we use to shoot at
ships. As a matter of fact the
closest model I could see for the anti-missile
missile system is a PDS. I guess you could attempt to shoot down a nuclear
missile with a nuclear missile but nothing is really designed for that because
it is extremely inefficient. I guess what it comes down to is do we expect
extensions of what is current. Currently we have offensive systems and
defensive systems and the two just don't seem to meet.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
Well, I'm not saying our intercept missiles have to be MT missiles. They could
be special intercept missiles. Though a nuclear missile would have advantages
because the margin for error could be
bigger ;-)
> As a matter of fact the
I always thought the PDS looked like it was modelled after the CIWS system on
American ships or the similar system on Soviet ships (even has it's own fire
control radar just like the PDS). The anti missile role on modern ships would
be stuff like the sea sparrow and the standard, right?
> I guess you could attempt
Maybe when you buy an MT missile you specify that it's an intercept missile
just like you specify heavy fighters or interceptors in carriers? Just a
thought. As far as missiles that are offensive and defensive, the Phoenix AA
missile can be targetted at enemy aircraft or incoming missiles.
Maybe an actual real MT missile is too slow to maneuver to be an interceptor
itself, but the shotgun effect of a salvo missile *might* be a candidate, and
a smaller missile bought at the same price as an MT missile could be the
missile killer. We could call them patriots?
In a dark star setting, the interceptor could be programmed to engage the
incoming MT missile in a philosophical dialog as to the nature of being and
whether the incoming missile could really
trust the evidence of it's sensors ;-)
> On 13-Jun-01 at 17:12, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
> I always thought the PDS looked like it was modelled
Yes, but sea sparrows are extremely close range, for all practical purposes
you could treat sea sparrows and the CIWS as the same in a game scaled like
FT.
> Maybe when you buy an MT missile you specify that
Just like a CIWS. As far as I can tell (and it's not my area of speciality)
anything that can target a missile can target a fighter. Still a PDS.
Remember though, I am more concerned about play balance than I am about
reality.
> Roger Books wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01 at 14:52, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
It does mean that at 1000 km per mu, fighters effectively stop dodging
long enough to get fried at 3mu or less. Auto-jink causes problem for
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
I would think the game machanics would be different. And missiles are one time
use not continuous like a gatling.
... As far as I can tell (and it's
> not my area of speciality) anything that can target
Well, missiles aren't as good a maneuverer as a fighter can be, but it was not
my intention to imply that an interceptor missile couldn't target a fighter.
> Remember though, I am more concerned about play
As well you should be.
I'm a fan of diversity. Sure you can use beams for lots of science fiction
weapons, but in reality there is a lot of differences between disruptors and
hellbores and phasers and I think it would be nice if there was enough
diversity in the available FTIII systems to more closely model SF concepts
than there is now. Likewise, pulse torpedoes are great weapons, but modelling
photon torpedoes and romulan plasmas, it would be nice to have more diversity
there too.
I'm not saying I want a complicated game, but I would prefer several potential
defenses with their various advantages and disadvantages to calling everything
a PDS and shoehorning it to fit.
On 13-Jun-01 at 23:47, Richard and Emily Bell (rlbell@sympatico.ca)
wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
wrote:
> >
Then it will be fried without auto-jink. Think about it, you can
auto-jink 99.99% of the time or never.
Actually, "my" fighters auto-jink _all_ of the time. If I'm using
missiles they are held on with heavy duty magnetic grapples once I start
jinking. When I turn off the grapples they fly away. My beam weapons know what
the jink is so they compensate. As far as whisker communications, all that
info stays in the data stream and the jink sequence uses chaotic formulas so
you have to not only know the formula you have to know initial settings and
exactly where in the progression you are right now. Since all my fighters know
they can keep that whisker beam tight on target.
> On 14-Jun-01 at 07:53, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
What is your definition of a point defense system? If you define it as a
gatling (or even beam gatling) then a Sea Sparrow never will be point defense.
If you define it as a system that defends a point target by shooting down
enemy missiles then a Sea Sparrow is a PDS.
I use the second definition. "My" point defenses are high thrust missiles that
explode into millions of pellets that impact the target. Not much good against
starships (although on a 6 they do a point) but great against thin skinned
things like fighters and missiles.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> Actually, "my" fighters auto-jink _all_ of the time.
Assuming you could get this to work and maintain communications and actually
release weapons on target, that much radical maneuvering would still be hard
on the equipment. Surely, the parts of high energy lasers are delicate enough
so that continual jinking would at minimum shorten the design life of the
parts.
Of course this is all *under the skin* as it were and as long as they operate
like normal fighters you're entitled to envision them any way you want. If you
start asking for die roll penalties to hit I might object. Of course you could
always just buy them as heavy fighters and say their jinking makes them harder
to hit rather than armor or shielding.
I envision my corvettes as manned by very few people, maybe only 1 and this
too isn't well supported by FT lore. However, since it doesn't affect the
operation of the corvette, it's kind of my choice. If we ever started playing
the boarding party rules, I'd have to voluntarily limit myself in crew
effectiveness. Since they only have 1 crew unit anyway, it doesn't affect the
action otherwise. The point is don't worry if other people think your idea is
plausible or not, as long as you enjoy playing it.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> What is your definition of a point defense system?
A modern carrier group has multiple layers of
defense -- Fighters --> missiles --> gatlings.
FT dispenses entirely with the middle layer of defense and gives us
essentially the inner and outer. Gatlings seem like PDS to me. Fighters are
fighters, though no FT fighter has the capability our F14's of today have with
their Phoenix missiles, mores the pity.
The role of the sea sparrow or standard or any other medium range SAM is not
represented in FT at all. They would be the "interceptor missiles" which would
possibly intercept salvo missiles or more likely MT missiles. Since Mt's are
supposed to be pretty big, it probably wouldn't take all that agile a missile
to take one down, especially if it could just get close and then set off a
nuke, cloud of metal, or other area effect.
> I use the second definition. "My" point defenses
If you want to envision your PDS as missile batteries that's fine. However, I
would point out that all other missiles in the game are limited by magazine
space where a PDS is not. The implication is that the PDS is kind of a laser
gatling. Of course this is by no means certain.
> On 14-Jun-01 at 08:58, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
Nope, all solid state, including beam focusing by generating gravity lenses in
a very small area. You have to swap the generator out every 10K shots, but
it's an FRU.
> Of course this is all *under the skin* as it were
I just assume this is why you don't destroy them all with 1 PDS every time.
This is below the level of granularity in FT.
> The point is don't worry
I don't worry, until their ideas cause them to want to change to rule to fit
the way they think it should be. For example wanting all beam weapons to be
able to fire at fighters or no beam weapons to be able to fire at fighters
because it doesn't fit their reality. It balances nicely now, that section
doesn't need tweaking.
> On 14-Jun-01 at 09:04, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
I don't know the "technicals" on a Sea Sparrow, but I do know that when we
tested them from the carrier I was on it was always within visual range. I
would consider that a point defense. With 6 inches being 60K kilometers (?) in
FT that would definately make
anti-missile missiles a point defense.
> If you want to envision your PDS as missile
Yep, and a CIWS is limited by magazine space also, ever see it modelled in a
game that was playable? For game purposes more than 10 shots might as well be
infinite and not a concern.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> I don't worry, until their ideas cause them to
I was with you up to that last part. And it will be up to GZG whether this
sort of thing is possible in FBIII (if and when it's published). I'm sure it
will be balanced either way.
I was under the impression that offering suggestions for FBIII is one of the
charters of this group. It is a resource, is it not, for GZG to use as part of
their continuing evolution of the FT game.
> On 14-Jun-01 at 09:26, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
I feel what is there currently is balanced. It is my opinion that changing
this will swing the balance and mess up the game. Therefore I am going to
argue against this change.
A "point of view" might be helpful here. We play
campaigns. We don't play many one-offs. Our ships
are all designed to handle the high number of fighters and SMs seen. PDSs and
ADFCs work fine for this. I don't want to see fighters go away in our
campaign, and that is what weakenning fighters and missiles will do.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> Yep, and a CIWS is limited by magazine space also,
Which is why the PDS looks like a "laser" gatling which doesn't have ammo.
Yes, as I said, you could say the physical ammunition is small enough to have
enough for the engagement without accouting for rounds fired which is why I
said you could envision them as missiles if you were inclined to do so. I just
pointed out that all the stuff in the game that's called "missile" DOES have
ammunition descriptions.
I haven't participated in enough modern naval warfare games to know how
gatling guns are modelled. They probably model the numbers of missiles fired
from modern navy ships though.
Lastly, regardless of the fact that the term medium range means something very
different in space games and naval games, that doesn't alter the fact that
there is nothing in FT that has the "role" that the medium range SAM has in
modern naval warfare. Fighters are long range, and PDS is last minute defense
as the attack is happening. In FT, fighters can defend as long as they last
all the way from long range to short range, but there is no weapon which
provides a medium line of defense.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's GZG's choice. I might suggest that
interceptor missiles, with magazine descriptions would be something that I'd
like to see in FBIII, but if it doesn't happen,
I'll just keep doing what I'm doing now -- using
fighters and PDS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> A modern carrier group has multiple layers of
Yes, I noticed this as well. However, PDS + ADFC seems to reflect some
of those capabilities. Given that 6" is a significant range, apparantly PDS
is not _necessarily_ short ranged, it's juist the FC that makes it so.
With ADFC, PDS fulfills part of the role of the middle layer of air defence
that a sea sparrow fills.
> Gatlings seem like PDS to me. Fighters
Ah... But since even the big ones lack the longer range SMM's
(ship-missilie missile's), it makes sense that the fighters don't have
it either;)
> The role of the sea sparrow or standard or any
True,
> If you want to envision your PDS as missile
I was going to point out in reply to an earlier post that _projectile_
gatlings are AT LEAST as limited as missile launchers. But yes, energy beam
gatlings are not. Let's just clal it a rapid fire energy weapon, then?
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Roger Books wrote:
> On 14-Jun-01 at 09:04, David Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com) wrote:
Sea Sparrow is DEFINATELY beyond visual range capable. AFAIK the reason a
lot of those exarcises/tests are carried out WITHIN visual range is
mainly safety; visual confirmation required before firing at exercise target.
> > If you want to envision your PDS as missile
Unless your CIWS is an energy weapon.
More than 10 shots is optimistic, though, if you're talking modern systems.
Goalkeeper is not designed to handle 10 missile engagements. And as for
Phalanx; I'd rather have even a single burst goalkeeper;)
Cheers,
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
...
> I feel what is there currently is balanced. It is
That's ok with me.
> A "point of view" might be helpful here. We play
My group has talked about campaigns, but hasn't ever played one. I'm not
convinced it would weaken fighters if it was done right. After all, the points
you put into any new anti-missile system or beams
which could fire on small objects are the same points you'd put into PDS's or
fighters. It could be made to balance out and just provide a little variety.
It might just allow one group to be a little different, but no more powerful.
I DO have a prejudice against fighters that probably stems from my Star Trek
genre origins, but I don't think that fighters would be all that
disadvantaged, especially if an extra cost system were used to allow other
beams to fire on them. The point cost of this system could balance against the
cost of extra pds's. It's use wouldn't be to make for a more powerful ship,
but only to make the ship feel a little different.
But by all means, if I want to comment on possible new systems, it's your
right (and maybe duty) to pipe up if you don't think it's a good idea.
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
...
> Yes, I noticed this as well. However, PDS + ADFC
There's some justification to this, but I don't quite buy it. You still fire
just once, not as the enemy enters each "range band" so it still feels like
just 1 system to me.
...
> Ah... But since even the big ones lack the longer
Ship missile missile? Do you mean Air to Air missiles or Air to Surface
missile? A phoenix like system in FT would, I think, target enemy fighters at
long range, or enemy missiles.
There certainly are aircraft like the Super Entendard which fire long range
standoff ASM's at ships with good effect.
...
> I was going to point out in reply to an earlier post
That's what I always thought, but it's all kept deliberately vague by GZG.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
I didn't mean to say it wasn't; I agree with you here.
> > Ah... But since even the big ones lack the longer
Sorry, that was a bit of a play on words gone bad. I meant a long range
missile, fired from a ship, targetting enemy missiles (or fighters). And yes,
that's how I;d see a phoenix missile.
What I meant to say is that, since the ships can't do it, I sure don't see a
fighter doing it.
> There certainly are aircraft like the Super
Yes. Harpoons and Exocet's can be fired from airplanes.
> > I was going to point out in reply to an earlier post
Which isn't necessarily bad... You can use it for whatever kind of close in
weapon system you want, now.
Cheers,
> David Griffin wrote:
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
FT fighters are arguably more capable than F-14's by any yardstick that
you can imagine. The problem is that everythings else has improved to
the point that F-14 like capabilities are hardly special.
> The role of the sea sparrow or standard or any
From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>
> Sea Sparrow is DEFINATELY beyond visual range capable.
Sorry, I *do* know the effective range of the NSSMS. And can't comment except
in generalities.
The Nato Sea Sparrow Missile System was originally called
the BPMDS - Basic Point Defence Missile System, and was
steered via an optical tracker. Hint Hint. And a missile that can travel 20
Miles when launched from an aircraft in the thin atmosphere at 40,000 ft going
at Mach 0.9 has a much greater range than the same missile launched in the
souplike atmosphere at sea level that has to crawl its way up to altitude from
an essentially stationary launcher. Hint Hint. Of course later versions of the
Sparrow had an increased range, but not by that much.
> > Yep, and a CIWS is limited by magazine space also,
So would I. GK's good for about 5 engagements if memory serves.
But I'd rather still have an Oerlikon-Contraves Zurich "Sea Zenith"
quadruple 25mm mount that fires APFSDS. And has ammo for 14 engagements. And
can be reloaded while firing, so essentially is only limited by the magazine
capacity (usually 30 engagements per mount). BUT unlike GK and VP requires a
separate FC radar.
GK is vastly better than Vulcan-Phalanx. There have been tests where GK
shot
down 9/10 incoming missiles, vs the Phalanx's 0/10. But a Phalanx can be
bolted on to a deck, it just needs power supplied. GK mounts weigh the
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
> From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>
- From Janes:
"The AIM-7 Sparrow missile is an all-weather all-aspect air-to-air
missile which has also been adapted for use with shipboard air defence
systems.
... The semi-active radar-guided Sparrow 3 development programme started
in 1955, the first missiles entered service with the US Navy and Air Force
in 1958 as AIM-7C Sparrow. Successive developments have created a large
family of missiles, moving through AIM-7D,, -&E, ..."
"A ship-launched surface-to-air missile, RIM-7H, is a variant of AIM-7E
and it's called Sea Sparrow."
Also, the STIR and APAR radar systems we build over here incorporate
continuous wave target illumination for both Sea Sparrow and Evolved Sea
Sparrow (ESSM). I can't imagine a good many navies ordering illumination
capability for a missile that's optically guided;) Are you SURE that was Sea
Sparrow you were talking about?
According to Janes the maximum range is 15 to 20,000m, depending on
illuminator radar range. And I can't comment on the range of our illuminator
radar's, but I wouldn't worry about them. The range isn't as
much as I thought it was; been working with the numbers of SM-2 and ESSM
too much, lately, I guess;)
The ESSM should have both higher range and speed than Sea Sparrow.
> > > Yep, and a CIWS is limited by magazine space also,
Mmm. Can't comment.
> But I'd rather still have an Oerlikon-Contraves Zurich "Sea Zenith"
Nice. Oh, GK also has an optional rapid reload drum that reloads the entire
ammo supply in very short time.
> BUT unlike GK and VP requires
Which is a bitch if your command and control or your radar system fails. I'm
not entirely sure, but I thought Phalanx still required search radar from the
ship? Goalkeeper is entirely self contained (but CAN take search info from the
ship as well)
> GK is vastly better than Vulcan-Phalanx. There have been tests where
Yes. Makes for impressive video, as well;)
> bolted on to a deck, it just needs power supplied. GK mounts weigh the
Actually, look up HMS Zuiderkruis - A dutch auxiliary ship sent to the
gulf, with a containerized GK system on board.
> So call a Vulcan a single PDS, and a GK 5x KraVak Scatterguns in a
THANK YOU! I was getting worried as well;)
Cheers,
From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>
> "A ship-launched surface-to-air missile, RIM-7H, is a variant of
Yes. The AIM/RIM-7 series is a semi-active homing weapon. That is,
it requires illumination of the target via a Continuous-wave emitter.
One way of doing this is to "floodlight" an area - but this is good only
to a very short range. A better way is to have a searchlight-type beam,
that must be pointed at the target at all times. The original BPMDS had an
optical tracker that steered the CW beam onto the target, then the missile
would follow the glint.
Oh yes, NSSMS these days is not the old RIM-7H but the RIM-7M which
uses a monopulse receiver in the head.
> According to Janes the maximum range is 15 to 20,000m, depending on
Janes is usually in the right ballpark.
> And I can't comment on the range of our
STIR's not a bad tracker. I did the Anti-Missile system for the Turkish
Navy's
Yavuz-2 class, which has 2 TMK (Ka-Band) trackers, a TMX (X-band) and a
STIR, both the latter equipped with CWI for NSSMS missile guidance.
> The ESSM should have both higher range and speed than Sea Sparrow.
Yes.
> > So would I. GK's good for about 5 engagements if memory serves.
It's in an HSA sales brochure :-)
> Nice. Oh, GK also has an optional rapid reload drum that reloads the
That's something new to me. Considering the sheer weight of those 30mm shells,
how many tonnes does it weigh?
> > BUT unlike GK and VP requires
Oh yes. <humour mode on> So of course you should buy something decent in the
way of C2 systems, that won''t fail even if badly damaged, like COSYS. Rather
than some piece of Frenchified Dutch stuff from HSA... <humour mode off>
But seriously... it was scandalous what happened with the Yavuz class. The HSA
combat system they were fitted with couldn't handle Naval Gunfire
Support, so they stuck in a single-console STN-Atlas system , the
"Surface Engagement Console" or SEC to do that, and the surface warfare
stuff as well. Then they added Harpoon missiles - which the SEC, after a
bit of work, could also handle ( I did the design of some of the software, it
was already set up internally to do this). Then they wanted automated
anti-air
defence - which again was added to the SEC. So now a single console from
STN-Atlas has taken over all of the roles the HSA multi-console system
was
bought to do, but was unable to do, at about 1/10 of the cost.
Of course by buying the HSA system, the Turks got given a whole heap of
ex-Royal Dutch Air Force F-5 fighters. Sometimes being the best
technical solution, and the cheapest, isn't enough to get the contract.
> I'm not entirely sure, but I thought Phalanx still required search
Same with Phalanx. And both GK and VP suffer from only being able to have 1
mount able to fire on a single bearing, as they all use similar frequencies.
Or at least, this was the case up to 1996, when I last had cause to look at
them. So if you have 2 GKs on board a ship, one will fire forward, the other
aft.
And if you have 4 VPs, then they each have a mutually-exclusive 90
degree sector of responsibility. "Remember it's a Goalkeeper, not the whole
team" as was pointed out to me.
> > bolted on to a deck, it just needs power supplied. GK mounts weigh
Weighing what, 25 tonnes (including self-contained power supply)? Unless
the ship was designed to take such, or was big enough with enough deck space
to handle the additional topweight, you still have a problem.
I can remember seeing a parade of GK mounts being tested, while based in the
Radar Tor at Hengelo. I spent 10 months in the Netherlands, some really
nice people there - some of my friends houses were damaged when the
fireworks factory at Enschede blew up. I used to park my car next to it when
going to Enschede markets...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
> From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>
Ah, alright. I'm only familiar with illuminators built into radar trackers...
> Oh yes, NSSMS these days is not the old RIM-7H but the RIM-7M which
Yup.
> > According to Janes the maximum range is 15 to 20,000m, depending on
Interesting. I've been involved with training crews for their recent patrol
boats, as well as their latest frigates.
> > > So would I. GK's good for about 5 engagements if memory serves.
Ah, the official figures :-)
> > Nice. Oh, GK also has an optional rapid reload drum that reloads the
I'd have to look it up. It's basically a copy of the ammo storage helix.
> > > BUT unlike GK and VP requires
It's not frenchified;) And it doesn't fail all that often;) And plenty of
redundancy in the system.
> But seriously... it was scandalous what happened with the Yavuz class.
Yes. But don't shift all the blame to HSA. I didn't work for HSA back then.
But I know with the recent frigates (Can't recall the class name, barbaros II
or something like that) there's a big hodgepodge of a C&C system. Don't ask me
why, as we do have a fully integrated solution. Part is due to the Turks
insisting on two parallel FC systems, part is Blohmer Voss.
> > I'm not entirely sure, but I thought Phalanx still required search
*laugh* Well, this is true. It's your last ditch after all the rest of the
team has failed to stop the attacking missile.
> > > bolted on to a deck, it just needs power supplied. GK mounts weigh
Unless
> the ship was designed to take such, or was big enough with enough deck
Of course. The again, look at the Omani and Qatari FPB's with a GK on the rear
deck. Not bolted on, but through the deck. But they're not really big ships
either.
> I can remember seeing a parade of GK mounts being tested, while based
Well, let me know if you make it to Hengelo again and we'll have a drink?
Cheers,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:25:21 +0200 (CEST) Derk Groeneveld
> <derk@cistron.nl> writes:
<snip>
> GK is vastly better than Vulcan-Phalanx. There have been tests where
And if that one hit is a "kill" then the other nine are irrelevant (We are
talking FT here not the real world we all belong to)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:25:21 +0200 (CEST) Derk Groeneveld
Mmm. Only if there were 9 fired at you, as opposed to 9 missiles using
different attack patterns, and different missile types.
Cheers,