Brian Q, did I hear you say that lasers were hard to screen? Hmmm.
I read the brilliant lances design notes someone posted (great URL) and their
point about the only two ways to liberate a practical amount of energy onto a
given hull segment via lasers was well taken: bomb pumped (missile warhead) or
via a hit that tracks the target for some time.
If this is so, then missile laser defence is impracticable (in any kind of
active defence) but ship laser defence isn't. When you detect an incoming
beam, lay out a cannister of reflective dust (and BTW, the target has just
given you a lovely vector on himself too) to destroy the coherence of the
beam. I'm betting even a small keg sized charge could really mess up a lasers
coherence (think depth charge size or small beer
keg). Or emit CO2 or some other gas - in Knight Hawks, they used a
Masking Screen made of water. So you have Sandcasters and Masking Screens, and
Ablative Armour if you don't like screens. The Masking Screen is effective for
a time or until you thrust. The Ablative armour would work for a time, and if
you could keep rolling the ship, it'd be more effective. It could even be a
good retrofit for older ships to make them beam resistant. Not to heavy, fits
on the outside of the hull.
> From a "screens" PoV, if you followed the math in the brilliant lances
Just some thoughts. If you're going for "realism", they you might want to
avoid "High Science" like grav shields, but then masking screens, sandcasters,
and ablative armour make sense. If you have long ranged lasers (or we assume
particle beams since focusing them on a target can't be much easier), then we
have to presume gravitational control on a localized level. Grav shields
aren't that much of a stretch.
If we can fit anti-missile charges on our tanks, why not on our ships?
(Maybe that is subsumed into a PDS system). The anti-laser system would
include quadrant or arc based warners hooked to
sand/mist/chaff/screening plate launchers - very much like we have such
systems for planes nowadays (on the good planes) that automatically detect IR
locks and start tossing flares BEFORE the pilot can react most
times...
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> very much like we have such systems for planes nowadays (on the good
now, i'm no expert, but i thought IR guidance was passive - how exactly
do you detect someone looking at you?
tom a
In a message dated 4/24/00 1:38:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
> thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk writes:
<<
now, i'm no expert, but i thought IR guidance was passive - how exactly
do you detect someone looking at you?
> [quoted text omitted]
IR detection is indeed passive and there is no sensor to pick up a search that
is not there. BUT modern day aircraft have routines with their
counter-measures that you can pre-program to drop flares and chaff when
making attack runs to confuse missiles that MIGHT be fire at you. Of course
any incoming missile MIGHT be picked up on RWR and you'd get some warning.
Can be active or passive (as today.)
Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.) Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:36:00 +0100 (BST) Tom Anderson
> <thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk> writes:
In a message dated 4/24/00 6:25:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
> wargamergmw@juno.com writes:
<< Can be active or passive (as today.)
Gracias. >>
Active IR is an infra-red spectrum searchlight - not much use against
aircraft.
Let me clarify this. In the 1960's, IIRC, there were active IR searchlights
(for lack of the correct term) placed on AFV's to detect men and machines 'out
there' but these were replaced (more or less, over
time) when "they" (read Warsaw Pact/Soviets) were able to provide
equipment capable of detecting active IR sources. There still is a place for
active IR search equipment in situations where it is necessary to use
active systems and/or the enemy is believed to lack the means to detect
the user.
I assume most future IR would be passive but there is a possibility of a
user having and using active search equipment of any spectrum as s/he
feels there is an advantage (with increased risk) to using such equipment.
Hope that's clearer.
Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.) Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:23:34 EDT wargamergmw@juno.com writes:
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
Just a quick note (a more detailed reply is in preparation), but I seem
to recall something called "FLIR" (forward-looking infrared radar) which
(IIRC) was used by fighters for targetting purposes. If this is in fact the
case, infrared is being used in an active mode, and may thus be detected.
In a message dated 4/24/00 6:46:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
baqrt@mta.ca writes:
<<
Just a quick note (a more detailed reply is in preparation), but I seem
to recall something called "FLIR" (forward-looking infrared radar)
which (IIRC) was used by fighters for targetting purposes. If this is in fact
the case, infrared is being used in an active mode, and may thus be detected.
> [quoted text omitted]
No - that is a passive detector just like the seeker head in a
sidewinder.
In a message dated 4/24/00 6:57:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Popeyesays@AOL.COM writes:
<< <
Just a quick note (a more detailed reply is in preparation), but I seem
to recall something called "FLIR" (forward-looking infrared radar)
which (IIRC) was used by fighters for targetting purposes. If this is in fact
the case, infrared is being used in an active mode, and may thus be detected.
> >>
FLIR Forward-Looking Infra-Red no radar involved.
This goes back to the choice of what we are modeling. Armored warfare in
space, Naval warfare in space, air war in space, sub war in space,
etc. Just as searchlights were used in naval warfare at nigh (WWI and
on occasion WW2) I could see someone positing significantly improved active IR
"searchlights" in ground or space warfare in the far future. I don't
personally suggest it but it is a possibility.
Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.) Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:41:16 EDT Popeyesays@AOL.COM writes:
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
I don't see it as even a possibility, because using a searchlight (IR, RADAR
or Light) this is like telling your foe, "here I am, put a 1000lb bomb on
me!"
In a message dated 4/24/00 7:31:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz writes:
<<
I don't see it as even a possibility, because using a searchlight (IR, RADAR
or Light) this is like telling your foe, "here I am, put a 1000lb bomb on
me!"
> [quoted text omitted]
How far do you see in space with a searchlight? IR or Visible Spectrum?
Soviets apparently use it (IR) as standard ROE choice currently.
IR (crude use of AAM seeker head) was used by A-10 for night missions
(something they supposedly couldn't do...) and Iraqi targets were hit after
being detected this way.
Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.) Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:44:09 -0400 Brian Quirt <baqrt@mta.ca> writes:
In a message dated 4/24/00 7:42:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
> wargamergmw@juno.com writes:
<< Soviets apparently use it (IR) as standard ROE choice currently.
IR (crude use of AAM seeker head) was used by A-10 for night missions
(something they supposedly couldn't do...) and Iraqi targets were hit after
being detected this way. >>
Yes, they do - passive IR.
> How far do you see in space with a searchlight? IR or Visible
About a couple of lightyears with the naked eye... :-)
In a message dated 4/24/00 7:50:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz writes:
<< About a couple of lightyears with the naked eye... :-) >>
Providing a target happens to be illuminated in the beam ;-)
> Brian Quirt wrote:
which
> (IIRC) was used by fighters for targetting purposes. If this is in
FLIR is 'F orward L ooking I nfra- R ed', no 'radar'involved.
I.E. it is a passive system.
Bye for now,
In a message dated 4/24/00 10:40:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@pronetusa.net writes:
<<
FLIR is 'F orward L ooking I nfra- R ed', no 'radar'involved.
I.E. it is a passive system.
Bye for now, John L. >>
Which I said
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> Which I said
Yes, I noticed your communication, later in the message list. Sometimes, I
think that I am always the last one to post anything!
:-)
Bye for now,
In a message dated 4/26/00 7:40:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
nyrath@clark.net writes:
<< Heh. I remember in the old E.E."Doc" Smith LENSMAN novels (circa 1940) they
use magnesium "star shells" in their space battles, in order to illuminate the
combatants in the darkness of deep space.
> [quoted text omitted]
"Doc"'s PhD was in Agricultural Chemistry - not physics. I have a
numbered and autographed first edition of his second lensman book with a
tattered but intact dustcover if anyone is seriously interested.
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/00 6:30:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
nyrath@clark.net writes:
<< But he was on the right track. If putting a searchlight on your ship makes
the ship a big fat target, you put searchlights on expendable drones that can
move away from your ship then illuminate the battle area.
Not only that, something like a star shell would be harder for the enemy to
extinguish than a mechanical search light. (trouble is, it is unidirectional.
Therefore it could very well illuminate *you* as well)
> [quoted text omitted]
Combat ranges make other sensors more efficent.