Battles within the gas giant

[Omnivore]

I wasn't implying that he did say we had gravitics. However, how do you get from today's mitigation of background "noise" with gravimetric sensors, to assuming any artificial gravitic noise would be filtered out?

 

[McPerth]

Meaning, any artificial gravitic noise would be filtered out.

Not so sure about that if the artificial gravitic 'noise' is made expressely to confuse your gravitic detectors.

Natural 'noise' may be usually filteres because it behaves differently that artificial 'noise' you ry to detect (either more or less regular, different frequency, etc). But if you achieve that the 'noise' is more symilar to the natural one (more so when the natural noise is as strong as the gravitic/neutrino noise of a GG), I guess sensors will have a harder time to filer it and discriminate what's natural 'noise' and what's a 'blip' in your tactical screen.

 

[Omnivore]

Sure, and that would probably help, maybe. But, just like today's ship mounted radars (or aircraft mounted radars), the mounting reduces the induced noise level, doesn't eliminate it though.

 

[Cryton]

I wasn't implying that he did say we had gravitics. However, how do you get from today's mitigation of background "noise" with gravimetric sensors, to assuming any artificial gravitic noise would be filtered out?

Simple logic.

If we at TL7 can filter out gravity sources with our present gravimetric sensors, it stands to reason that when artificial gravity becomes available that the sensors of the day will be able to not only recognize artificial sources of gravity but filter them out if needed.

 

[HG_B]

Devolve? No, certainly not. However... we don't have gravitics at TL 7.

What ARE you talking about? Where EXACTLY did I say he have gravitics at TL 7?

I await you pasting my quote to your answer....

 

[Cryton]

Not so sure about that if the artificial gravitic 'noise' is made expressely to confuse your gravitic detectors.

Natural 'noise' may be usually filteres because it behaves differently that artificial 'noise' you ry to detect (either more or less regular, different frequency, etc). But if you achieve that the 'noise' is more symilar to the natural one (more so when the natural noise is as strong as the gravitic/neutrino noise of a GG), I guess sensors will have a harder time to filer it and discriminate what's natural 'noise' and what's a 'blip' in your tactical screen.

I would assume that you would use additional sensors along with your gravitic ones, and that your computer would know that a gravity source with no accompanying physical object would be artificial, or a black hole.

 

[Greylond]

Sure, and that would probably help, maybe. But, just like today's ship mounted radars (or aircraft mounted radars), the mounting reduces the induced noise level, doesn't eliminate it though.

Well, the primary area of noise reduction is in the receiving equipment, a combination of the antenna, waveguide and other components of the RADAR. Being mounted above/outside of the ship reduces reflections and other interference.

But you're right, we are only guessing at gravatic detection. Still, if you accept the existence of the sensor and their presence mounted on a starship then logically there must be a reason for their presence. In other words, if they were not useful, then they wouldn't be there.

Therefore, the sensor exists in the game and the game mechanics has a defined possible detection range, arguing that they wouldn't work is denying the rules and therefore you must change the rules. So, the question is, is this discussion about equipment and capabilities as presented in the rules? Or is the purpose of this thread to change the rules?

 

[McPerth]

I would assume that you would use additional sensors along with your gravitic ones, and that your computer would know that a gravity source with no accompanying physical object would be artificial, or a black hole.

Sure, but most of those sensors will be tryed to fool. I told about gravitics and neutrinos, but sure there will be other sensors to be fooled/downgraded (radar, IR, etc.), and the conditions in a GG will represent unique conditions for it. The huge storms there will surely downgrade radar and IR efficiency too.

After all, the matter will reduce to: will the ECM be at par with the sensors as to downgrade them to a point where lurking in a GG will be possible (as I guess the EM/ECM contest wil lbe kept, both sides trying to outmatch the other)?

 

[Cryton]

Sure, but most of those sensors will be tryed to fool. I told about gravitics and neutrinos, but sure there will be other sensors to be fooled/downgraded (radar, IR, etc.), and the conditions in a GG will represent unique conditions for it. The huge storms there will surely downgrade radar and IR efficiency too.

After all, the matter will reduce to: will the ECM be at par with the sensors as to downgrade them to a point where lurking in a GG will be possible (as I guess the EM/ECM contest wil lbe kept, both sides trying to outmatch the other)?

Real point is will my ECCM beat your ECM. :rofl:

 

[Omnivore]

Not interested in contributing to this board.

 

[McPerth]

Therefore, the sensor exists in the game and the game mechanics has a defined possible detection range, arguing that they wouldn't work is denying the rules and therefore you must change the rules. So, the question is, is this discussion about equipment and capabilities as presented in the rules? Or is the purpose of this thread to change the rules?

Well, in fact the discussion was thought to be about the unique conditions of fighting inside a GG atmosphere, but, once determined that it had weapons effets (making nukes more letal, AP useless, etc...), we believe that the main effect will be on sensors, and so the discussion has derived to it...

In any case, to see if we are discussing about equipment or rules we should agree about what set of rules to discuss about (as always...)

 

[McPerth]

Real point is will my ECCM beat your ECM. :rofl:

and my ECCCM beating your ECCM , and so on...:devil:

 

[Omnivore]

Simple logic.

If we at TL7 can filter out gravity sources with our present gravimetric sensors, it stands to reason that when artificial gravity becomes available that the sensors of the day will be able to not only recognize artificial sources of gravity but filter them out if needed.

Simple logic? Big assumption.

Consider electro-magnetics, a car alternator puts out a horrendous amount of EM noise in certain bands. How do we know that a device that employs gravitics technology will not emit an equivalent "noise"?

With EM today, background noise in most environments can't be entirely filtered out. If it could, radars could be much lower in power for example, and we'd use AM radios instead of FM for high quality sound.

 

[pendragonman]

Real point is will my ECCM beat your ECM. :rofl:

Which will depend on TL difference, sensor suites, and alertness of the sensor operators of the combatants.

Canon says that we have SDBs lurking in a GG to defend it. It follows logically that they would need to be able to sense targets. It also follows that if the tech has evolved for SDBs to sense targets from within a GG, then tech has evolved for skimmers to detect SDBs lurking.

Therefore, logic says tech has evolved enough to filter out enough of the "noise" to make detection possible. Since we are currently at various TLs between 7-A here on Earth at this time, of course we don't know how the various sciences will be developed at TL D-F, and therefore we cannot know how ECM/ECCM will develop at those TLs.

 

[McPerth]

Which will depend on TL difference, sensor suites, and alertness of the sensor operators of the combatants.

Canon says that we have SDBs lurking in a GG to defend it. It follows logically that they would need to be able to sense targets. It also follows that if the tech has evolved for SDBs to sense targets from within a GG, then tech has evolved for skimmers to detect SDBs lurking.

Therefore, logic says tech has evolved enough to filter out enough of the "noise" to make detection possible. Since we are currently at various TLs between 7-A here on Earth at this time, of course we don't know how the various sciences will be developed at TL D-F, and therefore we cannot know how ECM/ECCM will develop at those TLs.

Unless you use remote sensors (that can even be in orbiting moons) and maser/meson transmition to the lurking SDBs (either directly or through a command center/ship) for them to fire their missiles to a general area and rely on the missiles own sensorss/targeting systems.

After all, the observed fire dates down to TL5 (circa WWI).

 

[Cryton]

Simple logic? Big assumption.

Consider electro-magnetics, a car alternator puts out a horrendous amount of EM noise in certain bands. How do we know that a device that employs gravitics technology will not emit an equivalent "noise"?

With EM today, background noise in most environments can't be entirely filtered out. If it could, radars could be much lower in power for example, and we'd use AM radios instead of FM for high quality sound.

I am under the assumption that if Gravitics come into use, the scientists of the day will study them before putting them into public use, and not only will such noise be a known quantity, the "noise" will be seen for what it is when its detected. ie Gravitic Sensors will come into play. Gravity fields will be identified, and those that emit those "noises" will be marked as artificial if they make that noise. If they dont make any "noise" then they will be marked as artificial because other sensors, say the Densiometer, will note that the gravity source does not have the mass to have that much gravity, and is therefore artificial.

As to whether this will have any bearing on on combat in a Gass Giant is pretty much moot, as we can see through cloud covers, discern the chemical makeup of stars tens of thousands of light years away, find planets in other solar systems and tell you if there is water on them, as well as spot a human thermal signature in a forest fire from orbit all at TL7 (modern).

So it is my opinion that if you are hiding in a Gas Giant, your pilot gets a negative DM for high winds, your maneuver drive better be able to overcome the gas giants gravity or your hosed, and your ECM package had better be able to spoof my sensors. Can you do it? sure, but its not guaranteed to work. But all that is covered in the various rules editions.

 

[Omnivore]

Which brings me full circle to my original objection to the 'SDB lurking in GG' scenario - it doesn't make much sense tactically. You're putting yourself in a situation where once you are detected, you are much more vulnerable to the most common weapon (nuke missiles) and your defenses against those weapons are degraded (laser/sandcaster range).

Let me put it this way, in a TCS campaign, where would you put your missiles to prevent an enemy from refueling?

 

[Cryton]

Let me put it this way, in a TCS campaign, where would you put your missiles to prevent an enemy from refueling?

I'd put mine into the hull of his ship...:rofl:

 

[McPerth]

Which brings me full circle to my original objection to the 'SDB lurking in GG' scenario - it doesn't make much sense tactically. You're putting yourself in a situation where once you are detected, you are much more vulnerable to the most common weapon (nuke missiles) and your defenses against those weapons are degraded (laser/sandcaster range).

So much as a submarine is in a quite vulnerable position if it is detected.

I envision those lurking SDB much as the submarines in WWII and after, where they knew they were vulnerable if detected, but the difficulty to detect them, coupled with the damage they could do made them an acceptable risk weapon.

 

[Ishmael]

any combat in a GG's atmosphere will be similar to combat in any world's atmosphere. ( yay! aircraft )
Aerodynamics will matter, and energy, whether from active sensors or weapons will be attenuated.

Aircraft will be more manoeuvrable, as will missiles, when compared to craft and missiles designed to operate in a vacuum.