Rupert replied to me: > > I doubt that AWACS could designate for many SARH SAMs, they're > > more for mid-course corrections of homing cruise missiles. But > > then I'm explicitly talking about the post-AEGIS case here. > > > It doesn't need to - you lets you get the missiles in the air and > pointing the right way, so that they can engage as soon as your systems > can see the target. That buys time for another attempt at shooting down > the missiles. It also buys you faster lockons, and means everything is > pointing in the right direction.
Possibly we're not talking about quite the same thing. AWACS gives warning and preparation time, but early TL7 radars can only paint one target at a time (VE196), while late TL7 sets can paint multiple targets. If it takes one turn to paint a new target, one turn for the missile to lock on, and one turn for the missile to hit, the missile radar effectively limits RoF to 1/3 at best. That would be cutting it close, more like 1/5 or 1/6. And that would mean a hypothetical 'early TL7 AEGIS cruiser' couldn't fire all 88 missiles on a supersonic, roughly time-on-target attack. However, I'm talking about late TL7 radars. Under the rules, a targeting-capable radar in an AWACS could paint as many targets as a shipboard radar, but I doubt that this rule is realistic, so I will simply refrain from using AWACS as SAM guidance radars for this battle. > I doubt the Kingfish is good for mach 3.5. That seems very fast for > that generation of Soviet missile (while they were supersonic, unlike > western anti-shipping missiles, they weren't *that* supersonic). It is nicely consistent with the Vehicles rules for TL7, and isn't the Wikipedia the font of all wisdom these days? :-) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/as-6.htm says Mach 3.5 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/37564/AS-6-Kingfish says Mach 3 and 250 miles http://books.google.de/books?id=l-DzknmTgDUC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=as-6+kingfish&source=bl&ots=2rhMA0mfDj&sig=e0OQhdlFX6wWTK4h5EakWD1PnOE&hl=de&ei=ca_hS_70L4OD_Ab367WZAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=as-6%20kingfish&f=false says Mach 2.5 to 3.5, and mentions high and low attack profiles. > > Googling accurate stats seems to be difficult. A diameter > > of 340mm and a modest HEPF warhead are 160 lbs., which is a > > bit high but within tolerances. The guidance seems to be > > BSARHMU, and skill is hard to determine since I don't know > > when the missile switches over from command guidance to > > SARH. > On command, I thought. So the operator waits until the missile has a > lock, and then tells it to switch. My problem was how to size the seeker -- how soon would that switch typically happen, against a SM+4 target? > > So start with the rated power, which is supposed to be 6 MW > > (presumably for all four antennas). That would be 6,000 mi. > > nominal range, and 60 tons of radar gear, a bit high. > > > Naval radar ranges are limited by considerations other than power, and > always have been. Line of Sight, sea conditions, and technical > considerations (in particular, beam width vs the amout of the sky to be > covered). Which is why the published range is meaningless unless they also publish the battlefield conditions. I'm assuming that the SPY-1 has a 'nominal GURPS range' of several thousand miles, even if the effective range will never be that high. In GURPS, range means power and vice versa, and raw signal power is required along with CPU power to burn through jamming, or bad environmental conditions, or stealth. _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
