View Thread
Page 2 of 2: 12
|
 Electronic Warfare Drones
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 26-09-2005 07:21
|
 Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
Oh. Right  Thought i would try and restore some functionality to scouts. Doesn't seem like people use them all that much. Oh well. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 27-09-2005 01:15
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
There's one issue to consider in retrofitting the Scout as a EW or command fighter - if you can minaturise the relevant systems to fit into a hull that small, it is more viable to retrofit such capability into the fleet's frontline fighters. Remember that here we are dealing with fleet-range operations and the Scout, while still a very useful auxiliary craft, has no place trying to engage in direct action against the enemy. |
|
|
|
| blackness |
Posted on 02-11-2005 23:45
|
 Posts: 23 Joined: September 27 2005 |
I recently went through a tirade of playing Mech warriar: Mercenaries and presented an intersting concept to me. All the ships in the game are visually cued in when they are picked up on radar. You get ship health, along with designation and full tactical read out. When ships fall out of radar range they are compleatly gone. I find this to be well unreasonable. Even in todays modern day of technology and radar readouts things are seen on radar but to the extent to which they are known are minimal at best. A good visual is still required to identify the actual ship, its actual force size and its strength damaged or at full operational strength. I am proposing a new radar read out for all ships to be designated as either a red or yellow radar read out. Red when radar acuisition is known to be a hostile based on read out of radar singature and unresponsive to incoming hails by friendly ships. Once a ship is in radar range it should be designated as a hostile but the actual strenght size and dispositon of those ships should not be known. Until direct visual range reached and is then acuired by ships whitin this range to realay this to tachtical command at best ships should be represented as red triangles, trapezoids based on prelimnary read out of radar. The actuall number and true location of hips should be represented by a small number to designate estimated strength ie a 5 for possible 5 fighter wings. Yet to be determined are unite dispositoin bombers, hacks, avengers etc. Only on command ships capable of carring large highly sensitive monitoring equipment should be able to at extreme range id and know actuall ship disposition and strength. Once a ship reaches a minimum distance to a ship it is ultimatly found out as to waht that ship is regardless of ship size and ecm capablities. Which brings me to another point ECM should help conceal a ship id, strenght and visual acausiton from extreme range until a point where from the bridge visual confermation can id strenght and ship disposition. Until a ship, unless it enters a eccm field can not be id'd at range to medium range. Just before a ship is within range of firing long range weapons should its id an designation and actual unit strength be known. Thus the attacers still hold some aspect of suprise in the area of ship and unit strenght. A ship ided to be a carrier, battle cruiser or destroyer is unknown it could be any of the three. When a two frontal assault is commenced or the ships are seen on radar from afar the commiting of fleet assesets becomes more strategic than if you know there is a carrier coming with some light fighters or a battle cruiser with frigate line support is attacking. |
|
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 03-11-2005 00:05
|
|
Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Quote TelQuessir wrote: There's one issue to consider in retrofitting the Scout as a EW or command fighter - if you can minaturise the relevant systems to fit into a hull that small, it is more viable to retrofit such capability into the fleet's frontline fighters. Remember that here we are dealing with fleet-range operations and the Scout, while still a very useful auxiliary craft, has no place trying to engage in direct action against the enemy. Then perhaps instead of a drone, you could have some sort of frigate. The frigate could be used to not only fool the enemy into thinking you have a larger or different force then you actually do, but perhaps it could also serve to "cloak" other ships from the radar (if possible), and even sort of a way to combat missiles (mess up their accuracy) or confuse enemy targeting systems. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 03-11-2005 11:44
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
On the original concept of "EW" drones - these should be implemented in roleplay as expendable decoys launched by small attack craft to boost their chances of survival in the close attack phase of an anti-capital ship strike. That would be one explanation for why our fighters won't get swatted by CIWS very easily. |
|
|
|
| blackness |
Posted on 03-11-2005 17:47
|
|
Posts: 23 Joined: September 27 2005 |
Yes, yes, yes. Thats all fine and danddy but im tlking about retrofitting the radar read outs of ship hud, tachtical display and id's etc. The actual data displayed at times is way to accurate for the distance and level of radar and even slight tachtical stealth and ecm measures. The ability of ships to fly in close squadrin formation to hide thier actual numbers is still dune today, close battleship grouping of the past was also used to hide actual enemy strength size and ship designation. What could be five destroyers 2 battleships could easily be mistaken for 2 to 3 large frigates and a few smaller ones in close grouping, or vise versus. I am mearly trying to point out that if we are tbelieve and ingage in full retrofit of hull design, battlespace tachtical placement and all other things dune so far to the game. We must also admit to the proable and soon passible change of radar read outs of ships and enemy id at range beeing less accurate at extreme range and better at close range. A possible lengthing of battlespace rader is potential a good idea to give the effect of long range read out of enemy ships without full and accurate read out of ship detail and size alonfg with accurate and precise size of incoming tachtical frorces. Come on we still have intermiten contacts today, you get a blip and its gone and as to what it may have been is a mystery. Untill close range high sensor detection is commenced or direct visual confermation of the object accurs and a report is made to tachtical command. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 03-11-2005 23:19
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
We have telescopes without the interference of air or horizon, visual range is measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometers. Once the radar has picked something up just swing a scope at it and see what it is. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 03-11-2005 23:49
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Quote Yes, yes, yes. Thats all fine and danddy but im tlking about retrofitting the radar read outs of ship hud, tachtical display and id's etc. How quaint. Start doing the work yourself then. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 04-11-2005 00:51
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Look, there was a reason for the Radar/ Sensors Sphere in the Tactical HUD. I don't think it should be changed and remodified to make it realistic, to be honest, why would you want to pick something up that you wouldn't be able to see anyways? Think Dust Cloud. My only suggestion would to have to be upgrade the sensors disruption probe to give the wrong co-ordinates to the enemy about the position of the actual ships moving in on that fleet, ie, have the battle group appearing to come form below, when in fact they're coming from port. That would be something interesting to see. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| blackness |
Posted on 04-11-2005 04:51
|
|
Posts: 23 Joined: September 27 2005 |
OK, ok. This is only my delluisional grandger, but Ttharu I will have to say that the ECM helps counter radar and missle tracking and lock on times. Not to mention that I, in my ramble, neglected to mention stealth and stealth capabilities of ships and there ability to reduce there radar singnature. So although it may seem moot, it would be far more practical in a military sense. Diversions, deception and similar tachtics are a military trait used for thousands of years, there is no reason it should go out of style in the futre. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 04-11-2005 09:19
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
It would help if you can give me an example of a jammer today that gives a remote false contact. To my knowledge we have decoy drones that can simulate full sized aircraft, and that's about it. Jammers create lots of "white noise" on the enemy's radar scope, in laymans terms, and active cancellation, the best and latest, if it works gives the enemy a blank area where your aircraft is flying without telling them that you're jamming. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 04-11-2005 19:50
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote TelQuessir wrote: It would help if you can give me an example of a jammer today that gives a remote false contact. To my knowledge we have decoy drones that can simulate full sized aircraft, and that's about it. Jammers create lots of "white noise" on the enemy's radar scope, in laymans terms, and active cancellation, the best and latest, if it works gives the enemy a blank area where your aircraft is flying without telling them that you're jamming. A real life example is hard to come up with. No one wants to emulate a larger object using a smaller one, it's mostly about making a larger plane look like a bird on the radar screen. Besides, there have not been any wars where the need to make false radar signatures has been very important or nescessary. And I'm wondering, why aren't disruption probes used better in game? I really can't say I've seen one used against me in game. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 04-11-2005 22:01
|
|
Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Quote Itharu wrote: Besides, there have not been any wars where the need to make false radar signatures has been very important or nescessary. I would like to point out that that is not true. In WW 2 when the allies were about to attack Germany we created an army and a navy that didn't actually exist. The Germans were "leaked" info about this force and its attack plans. The purpose of this was to divert their defenses away from where we were actually landing. We knew the Germans had radar there so we took a few bombers and then loaded them up with chaff (bits of metal like aluminum foil and whatnot) and had them fly around in a sort of oval patern that slowly advanced towards the coastline. The radar return off this massive cloud of chaff caused the Germans to believe that there was an actual armada heading towards them. Anyway, I was thinking for the EW drones, perhaps they could be made to project the false images of a bunch of units onto the radar to the enemy and possibly increase the effectiveness of allied units. For the increasing the effectiveness, I cant remember the name but I think a while ago there was a ship that had the little sphere of 2 circles thing around it (only visible if you selected it) that somehow increased the abilities of your ships that were in the sphere and decreased that of the enemies. Abilities meaning like accuracy and other such things. Also on that frigate I was suggesting, perhaps some sort of defender frigate. Meaning that maybe it has a sheild generator, loads of PD guns on it, probably a cloaking field, if possible it generates false targets for the enemy, and various other things of that nature. Edited by Warman1 on 04-11-2005 22:09 |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 04-11-2005 23:10
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Please keep in mind that it's not just radar. It's the entire electromagnetic spectrum (which of course includes radar, eh?) plus occlusion trackers, emissions analysis...a bunch of things that are impossible for one little frigate to emulate. Cloaking fields are largely ineffective due to the level of sensor technology possessed all around. As for the circles, ECM and ECCM? Many, many ships have EW capabilities. Try turning on the max tactical view to see all of those circles. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 04-11-2005 23:27
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote Warman1 wrote: I would like to point out that that is not true. In WW 2 when the allies were about to attack Germany we created an army and a navy that didn't actually exist. The Germans were "leaked" info about this force and its attack plans. The purpose of this was to divert their defenses away from where we were actually landing. We knew the Germans had radar there so we took a few bombers and then loaded them up with chaff (bits of metal like aluminum foil and whatnot) and had them fly around in a sort of oval patern that slowly advanced towards the coastline. The radar return off this massive cloud of chaff caused the Germans to believe that there was an actual armada heading towards them. That entire tatic was throughly plotted out for months. The fact that they basically (I know they didn't, they made it look all secret and leaked) said 'A FLEET IS COMING FOR YOU' And making the Germans look for something that might resemble that means that there's a better chance they're going to be looking for anything that could be that, regardless of resemblance. An ECM/ Disruption drone is not something the enemy plans for. If they happened to wander into it's field without knowing they had done so, that changes the entire scenario. It becomes unplaned and harder to counter. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Cobalt Shiva |
Posted on 10-11-2005 18:02
|
 Posts: 118 Joined: September 07 2005 |
This thread is drifting into dangerous territory! Warman, Itharu, Blackness, can you give us objectives you're working towards or a synthesis of your main points? What do you want to get out of this thread, and how can it help the dev team or the RPers? Remember, brevity is the soul of wit. "This is tactical control..."
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 10-11-2005 23:02
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Quote No one wants to emulate a larger object using a smaller one, Ironically, that is the exact point of decoy drones. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 11-11-2005 02:02
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote TelQuessir wrote: Quote No one wants to emulate a larger object using a smaller one, Ironically, that is the exact point of decoy drones. In PDS yes, but that was in the context of real life situations. Modern warfair has been dealing with hiding from the enemy, not entirely trying to throw them off. Usually AWACKs are deployed to oversee controling radar and communications on a battle field. I dunno, in PDS and HW;2 in general, I feel that the abilities of the Sensors Disruption probe were mostly ignored, and havent' been improved upon. There's good potential for using it, if it were to recieve a new systems overhaul. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 11-11-2005 16:25
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Um...it's an awesome piece of hardware right now. It has a large disruption radius, and an absolutely HUGE sensor radius. I never deploy standard probes unless I have to. Barrage probe for teh win! |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2: 12
| Jump to Forum |