The nuclear warhead pumped laser was first proposed by the high frontiers
foundation for use in the SDI system. They are well described in the Novel
"FootFall" by Larry Niven and are called "SpurtBombs" that focus Gamma
Radiation from a Nuclear Reaction towards a target. The description that the
1d6 demonstrates how many of the beams actually hit their target is an apt
one, except that it is 2d6. Phil P.
> Phil P. wrote:
Thanks. I'll have to check it out.
> The description that the 1d6 demonstrates how many of the beams
For standard missiles that's right. In addition, a needle missile does 1D6 as
well as possibly knocking out a specific system (overspray?;)). In any case, I
find the rules do a fine job of representing missile damage, as taking a
missile hit is no small matter.
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> The description that the 1d6 demonstrates
Ah, yes. I've modified missiles quite a lot; I forgot that I'd reduced the
damage too. <shrug>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Mike Miserendino wrote:
[missiles cause 2d6]
> For standard missiles that's right. In addition, a needle missile
In any
> case, I find the rules do a fine job of representing missile damage,
I find needle missiles mighty strange. To fire a needle beam, you need lots of
scanner capacity (ie, they require a dedicated firecon). How, then, can a mere
missile carry scanners powerful enough?
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Well if we can today use modern technology to fly a missile into someone's
back door, it should be possible to carry this out in the future. Also,
these mere missiles are quite huge in FT - mass 2. Some of that
internal volume would likely carry powerful sensors able to do the job.
> Oerjan Ohlson writes:
@:) I find needle missiles mighty strange. To fire a needle beam, you @:) need
lots of scanner capacity (ie, they require a dedicated @:) firecon). How,
then, can a mere missile carry scanners powerful
@:) enough?
By the time it gets to its destination (this will sound painfully obvious) the
missile is extremely close to the target. One can imagine that the sensors
required to locate and attack a system from 100 meters would need to be much
less refined than those required to attack the same system from 100
kilometers. (Multiply these figures by
whatever you think FT ranges are.) In order to hit its (tank-sized)
target, the Maverick missile uses the super-high-tech expedient of
... a TV camera. No fancy scanners there.
> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> I find needle missiles mighty strange. To fire a needle beam, you need
Probaly has to do with the closer proximity of the missile, it is scanning
from 6" wheras normal needles can be fired from further out. Like modern radar
an AWACs uses very powerful radar to spot planes hundreds of miles away wheras
radar guided missiles require much less powerful sets to spot a plane since
their range is tens of miles.
--Binhan
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >then, can a mere missile carry scanners powerful enough?
> Mike Miserendino wrote:
Some
> of that internal volume would likely carry powerful sensors able to do
> the job.
Others have commented on the differences between search and terminal attack
sensors. In addition, the missile that Mike describes, TLAM-C (Tomahawk
Land
Attack Missile -- Conventional), uses digitized satellite imagery and a
radar
altimeter to attack _stationary_ targets. In other words, you program
in a course and tell it to follow it, which it does with extreme precision.
The only version of Tomahawk designed to hit moving targets, the Tomahawk
Anti-
Ship Missile (TASM), uses a different terminal guidance system entirely.
Of course, this has nothing to do with _future_ capabilities, but as far
as present capabilities go, the analogy doesn't necessarily hold.