Missiles: Do they ever miss???

[jc173]

quote:

---

You don't need to see the hat anymore. You look left, dark. You look right, dark. You look ahead, bright. Run forward and slam the 'friend'. Now throw a nuclear CSM punch and blow a big hole in the evil alien hat and it's mind-controlled host.

I'm no military physisist, and that example didn't work for me. Why can't you track a big ECM source anyways?

---

You can depends on the missile's seeker/seekers though, you would have to make specfic provisions to have the sensors and processors that are necessary for it to work. But it doesn't necessarily always work out that well. I know we're trying to get away from real world analogies here, but most modern missiles are not equipped with this homing mode. Which is either a comment on the effectiveness of this homing mode, the cost, or the state of current technology, not sure which is the major factor personally. Anyhow not all jammers work on brute force power, many of them "seduce" the missile into seeking a false target. Some methods I've read about include messing with the active range gate, by returning radar/active pulses to the missile on the same freq as its seeker thereby confusing it by messing up its range calculations. So you would have a bearing on the target but you wouldn't have the range to it. I think some ECM has a mode to generate a lot of false returns so the missile does not which target is the true one. Therefore it may be getting closer to what it thinks is a target but what in actuality is just a sensor ghost.


BTW: MM's ECM stands for "Electromagnetic coutermeasures," according to the description, which may be different from what you were thinking "ECM" stands for (electronic CM, I believe).

Should be the same deal.


Heres how I accept the 100% missile hitrate in SE4:
In tactical a ship can find even a cloaked ship.
In tactical a fighter can find even a cloaked ship.
So a missile (similar to a fighter in size) can find even a cloaked ship.

So, any vehicle/missile can locate any other to within 1 square at tactical combat distances. Your beams cut through that square, but are thin and sometimes miss. The CSM fills the entire square with a nuclear fireball and thus hits. The plasma missle spreads fiery plasma & antimatter throughout the square and thus hits.

I'm not sure this works for a straight detonating nuke warhead. There's nothing in space which robs a nuke of a lot of its damage from the pressure of shockwaves. There's definately thermal bloom and EMP/radiation, but to get the most out of the bLast wouldn't it still have to almost directly hit the target, thereby reducing it to the same operating paramters as a direct fire kinetic/energy weapon? Granted it can make course corrections if it can find the correct target. Personally I got around that by changing the description and my frame of mind by changing the warhead on the CSM to be a nuclear pumped X-Ray laser warhead so its more like a guided round of buckshot.

An example of this is trying to shoot DU bullets at camoed people in a valley VS napalming the valley.

To change this example into SE4,
replace DU bullets with DUC
replace camo with ECM
replace napalm with nuclear CSM
replace valley with combat square.


See above.

quote:

---

2) For an active seeker, the radiation must travel both ways, so the energy disapates at something like 2 times the distance while while point jamming only travels one leg, from the ship back to the missile.

---

Which provides a constant 4x bonus for ECM. Of, course, if the seeker is using passive sensors, then there's no bonus.

I am all for more moddability in SE, but I feel missiles are fine the way they are.


Depends, not very many long range missiles that home in on manueving targets use passive sensors. There are ways to decoy or jam even those sensors, although some of them are questionable as to whether they would fall into the Category of PD or ECM in SEIV terms.

I'd honestly perfer to be able to make my own missiles have the launchers designed to fire missiles of a certain size, that way you could match different seekers, warheads, and propulsion systems together. There's a pretty good technical game based background on missiles in some of GDWs Traveller The New Era stuff, if you have a hankering to read about it. Some good items are in Fire Fusion and Steel and in Brilliant Lances.


[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 04 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 04 May 2001).]

[Suicide Junkie]

Nerfman: thanks for the links... I'll take a look around there. I am already convinced that ECM would be effective against the targetting systems, but what do you think about the saturation attack to get 100% accuracy with reduced damage?

I apologise for any agressive Posts, this forum should be for gaining knowledge foremost.

quote:

---

I know we're trying to get away from real world analogies here, but most modern missiles are not equipped with this homing mode. Which is either a comment on the effectiveness of this homing mode, the cost, or the state of current technology, not sure which is the major factor personally. Anyhow not all jammers work on brute force power, many of them "seduce" the missile into seeking a false target. Some methods I've read about include messing with the active range gate, by returning radar/active pulses to the missile on the same freq as its seeker thereby confusing it by messing up its range calculations. So you would have a bearing on the target but you wouldn't have the range to it. I think some ECM has a mode to generate a lot of false returns so the missile does not which target is the true one.

---

Thanks. I still don't see how you could get a false ping appear to come from the side. That would leave a flickering line of sensor ghosts connecting you and the missile

What if your missile sends out random patterns of sensor pulses, then listens, and only follows the recieved signal that matches the timing and frequency spacing of the transmission.
To get an ECM sensor ghost of the right "color" you'd have to guess lucky and hit the missile with the correct pattern of sensor returns.

quote:

---

There's nothing in space which robs a nuke of a lot of its damage from the pressure of shockwaves. There's definately thermal bloom and EMP/radiation, but to get the most out of the bLast wouldn't it still have to almost directly hit the target, thereby reducing it to the same operating paramters as a direct fire kinetic/energy weapon?

---

I figured that was why the CSM only does 75 damage. Most of the nuke is wasted. I was going to make CSMs not target planets, and have a specific nuke missile to hit planets with that would be more effective.
75 damage is only enough to destroy a missile launcher and an engine or two.

quote:

---

I'd honestly perfer to be able to make my own missiles have the launchers designed to fire missiles of a certain size, that way you could match different seekers, warheads, and propulsion systems together. There's a pretty good technical game based background on missiles in some of GDWs Traveller The New Era stuff, if you have a hankering to read about it. Some good items are in Fire Fusion and Steel and in Brilliant Lances.

---

Sounds like you want drone launchers with kamikaze warheads aboard

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

[nerfman]

Well, some are right in that this discussion is getting a little heated. Sorry myself to all for getting too worked up, but I do like a little argument now and then. For anyone who seriously would like to see some of the current systems in order to gain a little more understanding, check out the following

AN/SLQ-32 Overview, shipboard tacital ECM and ESM. Neat package and there is a lot of material http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s.../an-slq-32.htm

summary of all US Navy ship systems. Maybe this will inspire some new components http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...aps/index.html

Same as above but for aircraft. Check out the list of countermeasures. There's a lot of good reading of you can handle the terse nature of some of the dsicussions. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/index.html

Once more, I'll try to be more informative and save the combat for the Rage and Phong. Hope somebody learned something. nerf

[jc173]

quote:

---

Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Thanks. I still don't see how you could get a false ping appear to come from the side. That would leave a flickering line of sensor ghosts connecting you and the missile

---

Got me, I'm pretty bad with EM physics, I've just read it's supposed to be possible, the actual methods used are probably classified. So I probably won't be telling you how anytime soon <G>

quote:

---

What if your missile sends out random patterns of sensor pulses, then listens, and only follows the recieved signal that matches the timing and frequency spacing of the transmission.
To get an ECM sensor ghost of the right "color" you'd have to guess lucky and hit the missile with the correct pattern of sensor returns.

---

Probably possible although the return time will depend on the range to the target? But once you get an intial return the rest of the patern should follow at pretty much the same interval as you sent them out. Its likely you would have to some encode the patterns into all missiles in flight at once so their signals didn't mutually intefere with each other.

quote:

---

I figured that was why the CSM only does 75 damage. Most of the nuke is wasted. I was going to make CSMs not target planets, and have a specific nuke missile to hit planets with that would be more effective.
75 damage is only enough to destroy a missile launcher and an engine or two.

---

quote:

---

Sounds like you want drone launchers with kamikaze warheads aboard

---

Heh pretty much. I think that for the most part a lot of missile upgrades for ships etc don't require an entire overhaul of the launcher itself maybe some targetting system upgrades. Also I think that you should be somewhat limited in the number of missiles you can carry. Of course that would require that be treated like units or as a different type of supply so I'm not sure that it would work out all that well the way SE IV is currently set up. Might be too much detail for some people's tastes too.

[DirectorTsaarx]

Glad to see we're back to getting along here. I've been on too many other message Boards that turned into constant flame wars to want to see that here.

Anyway, as for creating false images "to the side", that could probably be accomplished by altering the phase of the signal. And as for following a "line of false sensor images", well, what if the "real" image is in the middle of the line? The missile can't just be programmed to seek the Last image (assuming it could figure out that there were multiple images). So even a line of images may be sufficient...

I may have to just look up some of nerfman's links. Back in my college days, I got a scholarship from the "Association of Old Crows" (Army EW association, IIRC). I'm sure they'd be shocked to hear I haven't kept up with EW technology .

[Suicide Junkie]

What do you guys think about the missiles saturating the target square with damage? You get less damage but cover every possible position in the tactical square.
That could be why the CSM only does 75 damage with a nuclear warhead. (disables 4 components on an enemy ship)

[nerfman]

I looked this up Last night in regards to "false images to the side." Deceiving a sensors angular return is harder, but done in two ways:

1) Side Lobe Exploitation: A radar reciever is basically a highly tuned directional antenna. Interfernce phenomena cause "Side Lobes" to be present in both transmitting and receieving. These side lobes are areas that aren't directly "ahead" where the system can register a return as well. Their specifics (angle, "width", sensitivity) are determined by the geometry and materials of the emitter and/or reciever. By carfully timing a deception "ping," you will be able to have a radar actually think a target is in front of it while in real life the thing is down one of its side lobes, and of course, the sensor system is usually designed to make that as hard as possible to do. I do not know if it is theoretically possible to design a radar w/out any side lobes, but even some of the most advanced radars today have them. In 1000 years? Who knows?

2) Some sensors localize by moving in a pattern and locking in on the target, like a conical scan. The radar moves in a circular fashion regularly and tracks the target's movement based on the feedback. Anyway, it is possible to use deceptive false pings to make make it think you are really not exactly where you are. They will still know pretty much where you are, but the targetting solution gets a little more "fuzzy." This type of measure will be designed to defeat a certain type of scan. So if one seeker scanned in a certain way and another came up another way, you would have to decieve each one differently. Possible to do w/ one system, but a lot harder.

That is the only two methods I could find. Also remember that the missile usually doesn't fly "at" the target, its flying towards where it is going to be. Even deception that only makes the target closer or farther is useful here. If the missile thinks the target is farther away it may not get close enough to execute its terminal manuever (attack) before it realizes it and not have enough fuel to come back. On the other hand, if it thinks it is closer, it may fly past and not be able to make its terminal manuever. If it flies "past" it might hit the target, but the chances of that are slim considering the volume of space considered. This all might not make sense if you consider trying to hit something coming right at you or standing still, but when you are trying to get close enough to cause damage against a real target moving through 3d space it is possible to be decieved until it is literally too late to do anything about it.

In fairness to SJ, many missiles now incorporate "Home on Jam" capbilities which can work. Of course new countermeasure make it harder for the mssiles to know it is being jammed. So its all like a big rat race with the only real winners being the defense contractors.

SJ - didn't see your Last post.
Can you elaborate? I don't really understand what you are getting at. Thanks

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 04 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 04 May 2001).]