> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
I always thought that the Phalon PBL was a version of the E-Mine.
> >For example: SMLs are rated with 2 numbers. The first represents
> >(same MASS).
> the standard 6/1 SML against lightly defended targets (inflicting on
I did not intend for them to use other die sizes. As I say in 2),
below, we would rather see each missile make a to-hit roll, modified by
ECM, relative positions of missile vis-a-vis target, Stealth, etc.
Thus the probabilities of hits could be disconnected from the the number of
missiles the launcher put out.
> >2) Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
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. They cannot tell the drive signatures of
these vessels apart. They cannot be set to home in on the "Excellent Archer"
ADFC emissions of the enemy fleet escort.
We see the placed marker as traveling from the launch point to the placement
point at the same time that the ships are moving. The placed marker system
allows the salvo to overshoot the biggest possible target and end up attacking
a tin can on the far side. It can even overshoot the entire fleet. Given that
the seekers attackthe closest target, shouldn't they attack one that they pass
on their way to the target point?
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.
This is like artillery in a ground game. It works if you PSB that the missiles
use some sort of jump or hyperspace movement and "appear" at the target point,
but otherwise it is quite poor.
> >or direct fire mechanic.
Throwing a handful of dice into a box top and counting the number of successes
is no obstacle for us. <shrug> Especially if it enhances our enjoyment by
helping the suspension if disbelief with good PSB.
We have been playing some games with the variant SML rules I asked about some
time ago. I will write up a report on how it worked.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
[Re: AMT]
> I always thought that the Phalon PBL was a version of the E-Mine.
So do I. Jon doesn't, however.
> >>For example: SMLs are rated with 2 numbers. The first represents
> probabilities of hits could be disconnected from the the number of
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.
> >>2) Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
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.
> It is almost as if the seekers are not active until the salvo reaches
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. 'Course, I'm probably biased in
this respect since the company I work for build some of those real-world
missile types <shrug>
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> 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
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) :)
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?
> >The problem lies in that the missiles have really dumb seeker
> >not capable of discriminating the "Big Kahuna" FCS suite used on
> 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? No
wet navy ship can do that. And that is exactly what they have to do, because
they would have no way of knowing which system you
are targeting - The "Big Kahuna", the Excellent Archer", or whatever.
So how can ships at much longer range tell the difference?
> >It is almost as if the seekers are not active until the salvo
and
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
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. Same for ASROC and SUBROC. The weapon is
set to go to where the target is *expected* to be, then
search and aquire. Submarine launched torpedoes, like the Mk-48 do the
same thing, but are wire-guided for the ability to make corrections
when the launch platform detects changes in the target's course.
Additionally, inertial guidence without an external reference (such as GPS or
terrain following), as would be the case in space combat unless you are
defending your home system and have celectial navigation data for the
missiles, is only accurate for quite a short period of travel. This is long
enough for sea skimmers, the longest of which is about
6 minutes/60 miles, but not for land-attack cruise missiles.
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, target
selected and downloaded by the launch platform, weapon sensor is unmasked and
seeker aquires target *before* launch, then uses passive
and/or active sensors to maintain lock on target emission signature or
reflected energy signature from an active system either on the weapon, the
launch platform, or a third party.
Mr. Heinz, what makes you believe that modern sea-skimmers and NOE
missiles have seekers "which presumably, is a bit more intelligent than the FT
missile ones"? Even if you allow half of the MASS of a SM salvo to be magazine
and transfer gear, that still leaves 16 metric tons in the GZG setting per
missile, and a lot more in settings with bigger dwt:MASS ratios. A few hundred
kgs of sensors and processors isn't that big a burden for the missile unless
you are in the BFG setting.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >OK. Provided that the costs for "ECM, Stealth etc." are balanced (not
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
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
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
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
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 Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
We have discussed the group of systems we would like to end up with,
but we are working on getting the to-hit and missile movement system
first.
All we have so far is the concept that we would like to have a range of
launchers of the same MASS, differing in the number of missiles and size of
warhead, so that the standard 3 MASS launcher could represent a variety of
different launchers, then have a range of launcher sizes (number of missiles
per salvo) for each warhead size.
J
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> > >>on enemy capital ships from the "Lil' Bopper" FCS suite used on
> > >The larger MT missiles have more mass to spare for ECCM gear, so
> 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. Additionally, there is no way for
the PCG to know what the salvo is homing on. If the PCG is broadcasting noise
in the EM spectrum (for example), and the SMs are homing on IR signatures, or
grav drive signature, there is no way the the PCGs noise will have any effect.
Many modern missiles home on multiple signatures specifically to reduce decoy
tactics.
> > >>It is almost as if the seekers are not active until the salvo
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. They travel *very low* to delay
detection. They use IG/GPS/TF to enable their horizon-masked approach
to the expected target area. If their active sensor systems were operational,
they still could not see the target.
> 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.
> This is just as applicable to space missiles as it is to surface
Since there is no horizon to hide behind except in the form of "terrain", no
it is not applicable.
> >A better analogy for FT SMs would be systems launched with a LOS to
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. Some use passive sensors and some active, but we
are talking about seekers, not sensors.
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.
Same for SAMs. As far as I know, all use active seeking throughout their
flight, though not all use active sensors. Please tell me of any
that use IG/GPS/TF so that I may research them as well.
J
> Jared wrote:
> I am sorry, but you are incorrect.
You're saying Oerjan is wrong? About missile technology? You do know he
designs missile systems for a living, don't you?
> --- agoodall@att.net wrote:
I understand that he is involved with ATGMs. However, I know engineers
who worked on the Sidewinder, Sparrow, Mk-50 torpedo, ASROC, SUBROC,
IHADS, inertial guidance ring laser gyros, STAFF, SADARM, CLGM, CEM,
AT-4, AT-8, and the US 120mm , 155mm, 25mm, and 30mm lines.
I am pretty confident in my understanding of how these systems work, and from
what Mr.Ohlson wrote, I know he does not have experience with AAMs or SAMs, at
least not NATO ones.
J
From: "Jared Hilal" <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
> I am pretty confident in my understanding of how these systems work,
I do, and am saying nothing.
> --- Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, after some further research, the new AMRRAAM "Slammer" uses
semi-inertial guidance for the longest half of its 30+ km range.
However, it gets continuous updates from its launch platform and the
Phoenix does NOT use IG at any part of its 185+ km range.
> Same for SAMs. As far as I know, all use active seeking throughout
The short-range PAC-3 Patriot uses IG to direct its hit-to-kill
missiles towards the target (~15km range) and active radar terminal homing,
but this is a supplement to, not replacement for, the 160km
PAC-2. The PAC-3 is designed to kill ballistic (non-maneuvering)
targets, while the PAC-2, with its command guidance, is designed to
kill maneuvering targets.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> You're saying Oerjan is wrong? About missile technology? You do know
You actually know engineers who worked on the then-Soviet AT-4 Spigot
and
AT-8 Songster ATGMs? Or did you mean our AT4 (known as M136 in the US
Army)
which was also license-built for the US market by ATK, and the AT8
bunker-buster that ATK developed from our AT4 design?
Anyway. I see your US weapon systems and raise with RBS 15 (exists both in ASM
and SSM versions), Taurus KEDP (ASM); AT4, AT4CS, Carl Gustaf and NLAW
and all their variants (all of which fall in the LAW/MAW category); all
generations of BILL (ATGM); RBS 70/90/Bolide and RBS 23 (SAM types);
Meteor
and IRIS-T (BVRAAM and SRAAM respectively); Torpedo 2000 (pretty
obvious, I think <g>); STRIX and BONUS (120mm and 155mm PGMs; BONUS is very
similar to
the US-developed SADARM); and the 3P 40mm and 57mm radar-fused AA gun
ammunition. Plus a bunch of systems and projects which are either classified
or no longer in production. All in all they cover a bit more
than just ATGMs :-/
Of course I haven't personally worked with all of these products and projects,
but for those I haven't worked with myself I have close collegues who either
are working with them now or who worked with them during development. (The gun
and mortar ammo types no longer belong to our company
- they were sold to United Defence back in 2000 AD along with the entire
gun division (nowadays known as "Bofors Defence") - but people from my
division were involved in the development of those products too.) My
understanding of how these various weapon systems work ranges from fairly good
to intimate; unfortunately I'm not allowed to talk freely about them.
Oh, and for the record Sweden is officially *not* a member of NATO <g>
Regards,
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> You don't need to emulate the other signatures very closely
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
Ok, it's been some days, but still worth an answer.
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 3/19/04 1:05:15 PM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<<Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:51:57 +0100
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Subject: Re: Missiles was Re: UNSC beta and FB3
> Same for SAMs.
When did SAMs become part of AIR-TO-AIR combat? >>
When the US started putting Stingers on Helicopters, AH-64. To allow
them to deal with other aircraft..
But that just a guess on my part
Have a Good One,
> DOC Agren wrote:
> >Same for SAMs.
Point. Though IIRC the fire control modifications needed to turn the
Stingers into AAMs weren't entirely trivial :-/
> When did SAMs become part of AIR-TO-AIR combat?
The same time they put SAM's in the air? (Chopper mounted SAM's? (And
can't some slow moving fixed wing's use certain SAM's too?) Smart-ass
remark aside, what do you call that? Surface and/or Air to Air
Missle? (SAAM? S/AAM? ASAM?)
As low as choppers fly these days what is the difference anyway?
> From: Randall Joiner <rljoiner@mindspring.com>
> can't some slow moving fixed wing's use certain SAM's too?) Smart-ass
Sorry for the time delay response, but I have been on vacation for a while,
then needed to catch up with real life.:)
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Sorry for the time delay response, but I have been on vacation for a
Ie. ATK.
> >Oh, and for the record Sweden is officially *not* a member of NATO
> NATO ones". Doesn't make any reference to your country.
You were appearently trying to refute my counter-argument by limiting
the discussion to NATO missiles only.
My point was that Sweden is not a NATO member, and that many of the
missiles built by the company I work for are not "NATO ones" - which
makes your "at least not NATO ones" objection invalid.
Regards,