Tech Level news: so, you can buy a Gauss Rifle now

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

So - how effective would those UT radscanners be when the EM munitions start sporting radar and laser absorptive materials to defeat the counter-battery fire's active measures?

At TL9? -4 to "skill" to spot. However you might only be going down from 16- to 12- at the cost of adding hundreds of $ to each shell.

Of course, I'm dubious of counterbattery sensors that are active. Active radar or even ladar emitters are probably too attractive as targets to be used ubiquitously.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

So - how effective would those UT radscanners be when the EM munitions start sporting radar and laser absorptive materials to defeat the counter-battery fire's active measures?

What happens when the first rounds fired from EM guns are designed to triangulate the active measures and create an opportunity for bringing fire on the counter-battery coordinates? Passive systems would come to the fore would they not?

Current counterbattery measures are primarily active radar, but the reason we were talking counterbattery was the idea of detecting the EM pulse from launching...which would be detected passively and totally unaffected by putting stealth coatings on shells.

Also, I doubt it's difficult to find a radar-based counterbattery system. You don't need to launch a mortar shell with an EWAR suite cunningly crammed in, just put up a sensor pod on a stick.

Passive systems for detecting mortar shells in flight probably aren't going to get much done. Mortar shells don't need to emit energy for anything...

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

C
Passive systems for detecting mortar shells in flight probably aren't going to get much done. Mortar shells don't need to emit energy for anything...

Maybe not if they are EM launched. The magnetic field might not induce much heating. Mortars shells launched by chemical propellants will be IR sources.

High velocity shells might radiate in the IR from air friction if nothing else. IR missiles from the late 70s could spot targets even from the frontal aspect because of friction heating of the nose and wing edges of aircraft.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Current counterbattery measures are primarily active radar, but the reason we were talking counterbattery was the idea of detecting the EM pulse from launching...which would be detected passively and totally unaffected by putting stealth coatings on shells.

There is no need to passively detect the launcher if the rounds are detectable by active measures in flight. Making the rounds stealthed ups the ante on this part of the arms race and provides incentive for development of other means.

Also, I doubt it's difficult to find a radar-based counterbattery system. You don't need to launch a mortar shell with an EWAR suite cunningly crammed in, just put up a sensor pod on a stick.

'Always on' active measures are not going to survive in a near peer conflict. They are doing fine in areas of low intensity conflict when the OpFor has no Anti-Radiation Missiles to deploy. Therefore a force needs to bait the OpFor into turning the system on and get a salvo of ARMs launched. Might as well make the bait smart enough to be of use in pinpointing the positions of the active measures units.

Passive systems for detecting mortar shells in flight probably aren't going to get much done. Mortar shells don't need to emit energy for anything...

True, I wrote my first line badly. 'Mortar munitions' instead of 'EM Munitions' makes that clearer.

Let's read between the lines of what I wrote and get onto thrashing out the limits of the UT radscanners or actual IRL developments for passive detection of electrical fields.

Can they detect any sort of firing signature? Can a squad firing gauss weapons be detected? Can that signature be stealthed or augmented to give a different result?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

T

Let's read between the lines of what I wrote and get onto thrashing out the limits of the UT radscanners or actual IRL developments for passive detection of electrical fields.

Can they detect any sort of firing signature? Can a squad firing gauss weapons be detected? Can that signature be stealthed or augmented to give a different result?

The UT Radscanner can detect the gauss weapon's _power cells_ even when they aren't firing. At TL10^ you can put Distortion Chips on the cells to hide them.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

SNIP
Can they detect any sort of firing signature? Can a squad firing gauss weapons be detected? Can that signature be stealthed or augmented to give a different result?

They can that´s clear, actual prototypes even the smallest ones, have such a output of EM emissions, a detection is for sure. Imagine how much energy you need to propel a projectile, how inefficient the conversion is, and how much electricity you need in one very short pulse no chance to really hide it. You can try to mask it a bit but building a Faraday cage or other measures, add a lot to bulk and costs of the system, and will do with actual tech not much to hide the signature.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

There is no need to passively detect the launcher if the rounds are detectable by active measures in flight. Making the rounds stealthed ups the ante on this part of the arms race and provides incentive for development of other means.

But passively detecting the launcher is a much superior option, if you can do it. As much of your post was dedicated to establishing...

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

'Always on' active measures are not going to survive in a near peer conflict. They are doing fine in areas of low intensity conflict when the OpFor has no Anti-Radiation Missiles to deploy. Therefore a force needs to bait the OpFor into turning the system on and get a salvo of ARMs launched. Might as well make the bait smart enough to be of use in pinpointing the positions of the active measures units.

I'm not sure how a counterbattery radar that you only turn on after you start being shelled, and which will itself be shelled shortly after turning on, is supposed to be something anybody would bother with.

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm not sure how a counterbattery radar that you only turn on after you start being shelled, and which will itself be shelled shortly after turning on, is supposed to be something anybody would bother with.

The obvious solution is to make them small, mobile, cheap, unmanned, and numerous. TL9 aerial scout robots with small tactical radar, for example, seem almost impossible to hit with shells (and at least somewhat costly to hit with hunter missiles). Of course, you can also do the same trick in reverse; use highly mobile robot rocket artillery which launches its payload and gets out of the area before the enemy shells arrive.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

The obvious solution is to make them small, mobile, cheap, unmanned, and numerous. TL9 aerial scout robots with small tactical radar, for example, seem almost impossible to hit with shells (and at least somewhat costly to hit with hunter missiles). Of course, you can also do the same trick in reverse; use highly mobile robot rocket artillery which launches its payload and gets out of the area before the enemy shells arrive.

Once the soldier is freed of size limitations the battlefield is going to go nuts trying to figure out the right size for all of this stuff.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But passively detecting the launcher is a much superior option, if you can do it. As much of your post was dedicated to establishing...

What I was dedicating effort to was laying out the path likely to be followed in a setting that has EM gunnery capability and radscanners. As long as active measures are effective there is no need to have radscanners as a military PESA technology for artillery. Something has to break the AESA of the counter-battery fire. As long as the active measures are effective in fixing the location of the incoming fire it doesn't matter if the guns are using chemicals or coils to propel munitions.

I'm not sure how a counterbattery radar that you only turn on after you start being shelled, and which will itself be shelled shortly after turning on, is supposed to be something anybody would bother with.

Ask the NVA AA radar batteries that were protecting Hanoi how they felt about it when the US introduced ARM missiles. This is exactly the kind of technological development that renders a known defense moot. Damned if you do, and useless if you don't. Work arounds would include bomb shelters for the AESA assets that they retreat into once they have got their first fix. Or very mobile AESA assets that can shift out of the CEP zone of a counter attack. Slaving a CIWS or another active point defense to prolong the life span of the system might be useful.