Scouts and drone/robot disabling

Beth mentioned that it is hard to generate an EMP. I'd agree that OO knows his
stuff, but I've seen an EMD (Electromagnetic disabler) which is a sort of EMP
mine used to take out car engines during high speed chases. It generates
enough of an EMP that it just kills the car engine BANG! And does so from the
ground underneath. Now, that's
_nearly_ a contact mine. It could be for disabling robots. Generating
an EMP that carries is probably tougher as I suspect the energy of the pulse
wavefront probably declines as a squared or cubic function of radius. So, I
think it probably IS portable to make EMP mines for killing ground vehicles or
robots, and is very HARD to make airborne
EMP weapons (that are non-nuclear).

Re: Scouts The Canadian tracked ARV is the Lynx. Like a flattened out 113 with
some sensors and only an HMG I think. But in the other kinds of
armoured formations, they're using the 8x8 Coyote (think LAV-III but
made with a heavy duty sensor suite that has some impressive range but retains
IIRC the autocannon and MG). (all from memory, might not be quite right).

To my mind, scouts have to be able to scout from the vehicle and on foot
(urban areas favour foot movements of small units), have to be
capable of calling artillery/ortillery/air assets, should be capable
of limited offensive operations in a crunch (and diversions), and must be
capable of fast movement.

I think in DS2, fast (stealthed) tracked vehicles, high-mob
(stealthed) wheeled vehicles, or grav vehicles (ACV being too noisy even with
stealth IMO) would be the answer.

And perhaps not all scouts are equal. Grav bike scouts work well over swamp,
forest, and as an adjunct to infantry (light horse!), but larger armoured
scout vehicles have far better sensor suites and should have more weapon
guidance options perhaps. Maybe a scout platoon for a mechanized force should
be more of the latter type, and one for a more traditional infantry force (or
for a force designed to operate in jungle, swamp, or mountains) should be more
likely made up of scout PA, small infantry walkers that can lie down (fold
legs up?), and grav bikes.

Tomb.

> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:23:38 -0400, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:

> Beth mentioned that it is hard to generate an EMP.

No, that was me. *S*

> I'd agree that OO

Does it work by frying the electronics, or just disrupting them enough that
the car stalls? If you're a criminal driving along on a high speed chase and
your engine suddenly and unexpectedly stalls, you're going to be too confused
to restart the car while in motion. (Can it even be done in a modern car? Most
modern cars need to have the brake on to start the engine. You'd have to
switch the car into neutral, hit the brake, and then start the car. That will
slow you down, probably enough that if the car restarts it's too late anyway.)

> So, I think it probably IS portable to make EMP mines for

Good point, and an EMP pulse may be enough to shut down the robot. If it just
causes a glitch, and the robot can handle a quick reboot, you may find it
doesn't do much more than slow it down for a minute or so.

> Beth mentioned that it is hard to generate an EMP. I'd agree that OO

Both France and Russia have EM mine sweeping system that can be attached to
the their tanks. They use EMF to detnate mines in front of the tanks. You
are correct about the exponetial decrease of EMF/EMP.  So you need to be
really close, or have a very powerful generator. This means it's not useful
for AIM-9 type missiles, but could be useful for large surface to air
missiles. The difference is the size of warhead. Nukes are the easiest way to
generate large amounts of EMP, espesically designer nukes (nukes optimized for
specific effects).