PDS/ADFC/ADS

2 posts ยท Mar 14 2000 to Mar 14 2000

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:08:14 -0500

Subject: PDS/ADFC/ADS

1. ADS killing does not seem like cheese. It seems like a viable thing
to do. Look at it this way - you end up spending a rack of resources to
do the job. So they aren't spent on other things. And killing ADS opens up the
enemy force to other engagements.

2. Oerjan's comments about CG and some other rounds not being stoppable
(or HKPs) I do have to ask him to re-examine. IF I remember the report I
heard, the Phalanx system deflected (with 20 or 25mm rounds) a 2000 lb 16 inch
projectile from a battleship. So why is a CG warhead so hard to stop? It'd be
harder to track than the (presumably ballistic long range) shot from the BB,
but the round is smaller and easier to deflect or destroy is it not? I know
they haven't stuck Phalanx as PDS (for reasons
of size/cost and various operational concerns - don't want a tank
throwing off 20mm rounds in the vicinity of friendly gropos) on AFVs, but as
it gets smaller and cheaper, we may see a system like a high slew rate rapid
fire railgun throwing slivers at high mach numbers used to engage and defeat
even HKPs.

3. As an alternative to 2, I'd also point out if the lasers they are working
on are anywhere near successful, it is quite likely that (in a Nval context,
and this can't help but eventually make it to the table for ground units) air
units will be nullified as a threat unless they have OTH attacks. Anything
coming over the horizon would be swept from the sky with a laser. Now if we
can get a high energy, rapid targetting laser, I think GMS and even HKPs
(possibly even plasma streams) may be in danger of disruption and destruction.
Of course, the tactic to beat
this is the swarm/DoS style attack. But that requires more sophisticated
GMS (maybe all GMS in 2183 are mutli-round firing with a slight delay
thus letting them beat ADFCs)?

4. Regarding armour on AFVs. In SG2, you're given (I don't use, but the rules
call for) 1 armour rating for the whole vehicle. It is simple, and justified
from the PoV that if everyone is now deploying top attack munitions, top
armour must match. When we go to grav, we need to protect the bottom
(similarly as mines advance we need more bottom armour). So it is believable
that all 6 sides of an AFV need good armour. I've heard one suggestion about a
BMP is that it have bad rear armour to keep the
crew pointed in the right direction - if so, I'd sure develop a
rear-attack GMS to take advantage of this flaw.....

If anyone has played microarmour, (challenger style), you'll recall that a big
part of staying alive was not being spotted. Once spotted, if the enemy had a
decent gun, you died. I think this will be doubly true in the Tuffleyverse.
Stealth, optical and spectral camo will be key. He who shoots first from a
good hidey hole and then scoots to another will be the spoiler.

Tom

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:37:22 +0100

Subject: Re: PDS/ADFC/ADS

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> 1. ADS killing does not seem like cheese. It seems like a viable

Sorry? When did I say that CG rounds are unstoppable? Please quote the exact
words, for I have never intended to say so and am fairly certain that I
haven't.

Going through my "sent mail" bin, the closest I can find is

"Mind you, *none* of the CG rounds go fast enough to be unstoppable by point
defence, and neither do any other HEAT missiles."

The exact opposite of what you claim that I've said, and I'm NOT going to
reconsider this. Please be just a *little* more careful with your attributions
in the future.

What I *have* said is that TODAY'S AFV PDS systems (ie, ARENA and
DROZD) are (probably) unable to deflect LONG-ROD PENETRATORS. Long-rods
move approx. five times faster than a CG round - or, for that matter,
than a 16" projectile does at the end of a long-range trajectory.

The CG does not fire a long-rod penetrator.

No regards this time.