NathanKell
03/13/02 07:17 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Doesn't the bit in the TOTC arc when TFS is testing orbital bombardment (and using TAG, for some reason...) mention TAG is a laser designator?
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/13/02 07:48 PM
63.12.141.49
|
Well I do remember the time they decided to kill Ulric Kerensky off they went through the explanation of how it was a 'beam' operating outside the visible spectrum. The problem with the idea of TAG though is that the description of Artemis is similar (does it not use a corrective beam to adjust the missile trajectory so that they stick closer togother? If that is so then why is it affected? I mean it as a system is more useless than TAG so why hinder such a system?).
One thing on C3 .... has it said anywhere that the C3 system communicates by any method? Seeing as how the C3 requires LOS I couldn't see why they don't utilise similar technology to TAG since the C3 Master can 'emulate' the TAG on its own. Maybe some of the earlier books deal with exactly how it transmits data?
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/13/02 07:59 PM
12.91.139.169
|
The Artemis system uses an IR laser and then communicates with its missiles via a microwave link to provide course updates. There is no indication of such a microwave link with TAG (or IR beam, for that matter). TAG just "designates" a target and projectiles home in.
>One thing on C3 .... has it said anywhere that the C3 system communicates by any method?
"The C3 system links up to 4 units together in a communications network." pg124, BMR-unrev. No particular method of communication mentioned.
The C3 network does not itself need line of sight to communicate target information to other units in the C3 network (they must all just be on the same board), but weapons fired must observe usual LOS rules. Hence a C3 unit close to an enemy may have hills between it and its C3 unit mates, but the unit mates do not magically gain the ability to fire lasers through the hill at the enemy.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 08:09 PM
63.12.141.49
|
'microwave link'
Tightbeam Micorwave Link (technical correction but in many many novels they go on about how effective 'tightbeam' communication is). You would think that would have some integrity, its a poor game mechanic. You fire a spread of missiles some 600 meters away being corrected all the time by the system then just before the target they hit a ECM field and go bat faeces? There should be less chance of interference from ECM with Artemis than with TAG considering the munitions opperating off TAG may not even be coming from the same direction and so on.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/13/02 08:17 PM
12.91.139.169
|
....I'm not sure why a (probable) laser designator like TAG would care in the least about an ECM field, or why TAG-guided munitions would have trouble seeing a laser dot in the middle of an ECM field.
Jamming a microwave link like Artemis and causing missiles dependent on that link to go haywire I can understand. ECM can interfere with microwave links.
More baffling is why the Artemis system bothers with the microwave link in the first place and doesn't just have the missiles home in on the infrared spot on the target.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 08:20 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Except that it's well established that SRMs and LRMs are pretty much unguided. In order for AIV to work, you add a big block next to the launcher (which includes the transmitter) and a little bitty reciever onto each missile. Radio Control, in other words.
TAG and Guided Arrows are different. The Arrow is a large surface-to-surface missile with a home-on-laser tracking head--i.e. the electronics are *already in* the missile, vs. Artemis where the steering package is on the unit and the missile just has a little tiny radio control bit.
It's the difference between a TOW and a JSOW (The latter I'm not sure about, it's the GBU-(some number) with a strap-on rocket. Actually, the GBU bit is itself a converted guided artillery shell with fins, anyway.)
In sum: Artemis IV has to maintain a controlling link to its rockets (the AIV system steers them, and transmits course correction data) whereas the TAG just lights up the target and the Arrow homes *on its own.*
There is no *controlling* link between TAG and the munition.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
03/13/02 08:22 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Because radio (or microwave, or whatever) recievers are light (and cheap) enough to be put on throwaway unguided POS 8.33kg LRMs (and 10kg SRMs) whereas a home-on-laser guidance package is B.I.G. and is reserved for standoff 200kg (440lb) missiles.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
03/13/02 08:39 PM
12.78.177.236
|
Note BT's laser guidance systems also fit onto 8.33kg semi-guided LRMs.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
03/13/02 08:41 PM
12.78.177.236
|
>Except that it's well established that SRMs and LRMs are pretty much unguided
Though guided enough that LRMs, which have the same warhead as MRMs, are twice as big as MRMs. Apparently the stock LRM has a fairly hefty guidance package.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 09:01 PM
24.44.238.62
|
I always thought it was just 'cause MRMs were less aerodynamic and didn't need as much propellant.
TRO 3025 said it best: SL era L/S RMs were certainly guided, but modern crud isn't.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/14/02 12:55 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'whereas the TAG just lights up the target and the Arrow homes *on its own.*
There is no *controlling* link between TAG and the munition.'
Then tell me what happens to sensory equipment that enter a ECM bubble? This is in fact what you are saying are you not (that the missiles have a sensor package to detect the specific band or signature of the TAG)? Could that like the Artemis IV FCS missiles be distorted enough to cause it not to detonate or work at all?
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/14/02 07:18 AM
204.245.128.3
|
I know about the TR:3025 - the Crusader entry is pretty explicit. However, by...I think it was Sword and the Dagger...LRMs were already guided again and making course corrections toward dodging mechs, and the fluff description in the BMR, as I recall it, is pretty clear MRMs are dumbfire missiles that are smaller than LRMs due to their lack of guidance.
Then, of course, there's the (in)famous dumbfire LRMs and SRMs of the Tactical Handbook, which blatantly gave the LRMs and SRMs bigger warheads at the expense of guidance.
But if you have a solid quote from the BMR to the contrary, I'm all ears. I don't have it handy.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
03/14/02 07:20 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>Then tell me what happens to sensory equipment that enter a ECM bubble?
A laser-sensitive photocell won't care about an ECM field, particularly not if it's in a conductive shell to screen out RF interference.
Unlike Artemis-compatible missiles, TAG-guided munitions (presuming they are laser guided) do not have radio frequency receivers open to ECM jamming and ECM beguiling.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|