Electronic Warfare in Space, a Helpful Tip

[ottarrus]

OK, so some of you might be playing around with flotilla or squadron level ship combat.

It can be hard for a lot of non-military types to imagine electronic warfare in a game. Most literary sources either over-simplify it with see-all know-all 'sensors' or they get very complicated with 3D spatial descriptions that often confuse people.
Hopefully, I have a fairly uncomplicated solution for you.

Traveller EW isn't all that complicated. It's only 2 dimensions, and most of the systems are pretty straight forward.
My advice is to look up a book from the 80s by Tom Clancy, 'Red Storm Rising'. This book details a war between the US and USSR in all four spheres of combat: Ground, Naval, Air and Orbital. In portions of the book discussing Naval, Air and Orbital combat, electronic warfare is actually far more important than the ordnance. The game of hide and seek is described very, very well for the novice. It doesn't go neck deep into details about any given system, and keeps the EW at it's most basic premise: detection and defeat are the same thing.

You can find Red Storm Rising in your local used book store and online, but there is also a really good series on youtube by a guy named 'Fixedit', who pairs chapters of the book with Digital Combat Simulator computer game play. He's done a great job of editing it and perhaps the visuals will help you out. They do at add a great sense of atmosphere

The very raw basics of EW are this:
1. Getting spotted gives your enemy the initiative; most of the time he can launch his attack before you can.
2. The basic question in electronic warfare is this: To radiate or not radiate a signal.
2a. Radiating a signal [like commo traffic, radar pings, etc.] gives you quick accurate information on what's around you. It also tells everybody precisely where you are. You're giving the enemy the same information you are looking for... the exact location of the bad guy. As an analogy, it would be like turning on a flashlight in a darkened theater.
2b. Not radiating means you're relying on your passive sensors... these pick up signals but don't emit any signal. A good analogy is being in that darkened theater and trying to find a specific person with just your eyes and ears. This is a difficult job of work and it takes a skilled operator to tell a bad guy from the background noise. But if you can get a target solution on a bad guy with passive systems only, you will have caught him with his pants down and one boot off.

And Red Storm describes all of this in a very engaging and clear way.

 

[Condottiere]

First, send in the stealth fighters to knock out the sensor platforms.

 

[ottarrus]

First, send in the stealth fighters to knock out the sensor platforms.

See, I told you it was easy

 

[rinku]

It is, however, harder to hide in space, away from planetary orbit. But the basic principles apply.

 

[Terry Mixon]

It is, however, harder to hide in space, away from planetary orbit. But the basic principles apply.

*looks at watch to see how long it will be before @Sigtrygg shows up to mention gravitic heat sinks*

 

[rinku]

Just look as much like a rock as you can.

Hmm... those asteroid hulls really ARE the sensible choice...

Fun fact... NASA tracks near earth objects more than about 140m in size. That's around an 80,000 dTon sphere. So there could easily be Vilani cruisers in orbit.

We'd never know.

 

[ottarrus]

*looks at watch to see how long it will be before @Sigtrygg shows up to mention heat sinks*

But heat sinks won't hide neutrinos or other detectable emissions... but yeah, you'd likely look for heat first.

 

[ottarrus]

Just look as much like a rock as you can.

Hmm... those asteroid hulls really ARE the sensible choice...

Fun fact... NASA tracks near earth objects more than about 140m in size. That's around an 80,000 dTon sphere. So there could easily be Vilani cruisers in orbit.

We'd never know.

Welcome to TL 8.25. Please enjoy what little is left of your stay

 

[rinku]

The real issue with neutrinos is that they are both maddeningly hard to detect, AND space is absolutely awash with them. Even working out the direction one came from is tricky.

So over there we have a ship's reactor... over there we have a bunch of reactors on the planet. There's that moonbase, we assume. Losts and lots from every star in the galaxy. And... several magnitudes bigger than any of those, the system primary.

Take a note from the red baron and fly with the sun at your back...

 

[Condottiere]

There are a lot of infiltration cruisers in Sol.

And, the Imperium Navy hasn't detected them.

 

[rinku]

Actually... the stealthiest approach probably would be from the general direction of the sun, but not *directly* from it, where you might be detected by occulting it. A degree or so from the corona should do it.

Try to pick up THOSE heat sinks...

 

[Vormaerin]

Just look as much like a rock as you can.

Hmm... those asteroid hulls really ARE the sensible choice...

Fun fact... NASA tracks near earth objects more than about 140m in size. That's around an 80,000 dTon sphere. So there could easily be Vilani cruisers in orbit.

We'd never know.

 

[ottarrus]

Well, it's not unreasonable to think that the 7.75 TLs will improve sensors and computers to screen the environmental noise and identify 'mechanicals' a lot easier. OTOH, the Zhos and Sollies only lag 1 TL behind the Third Imperium and that TL is not defined by a great big leap in sensors.
As for the Sollie infiltration cruisers, there's not that many of them and they're using an awful lot of tonnage on stealth systems rather that guns, screens, or armor plating. Those assets will be helpful for a strike against Terra, but they're not enough to take the world by themselves.

 

[Condottiere]

There's a reason the authorities secretly funded:

TERRA'S GOT
TLENT​

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, it's not unreasonable to think that the 7.75 TLs will improve sensors and computers to screen the environmental noise and identify 'mechanicals' a lot easier. OTOH, the Zhos and Sollies only lag 1 TL behind the Third Imperium and that TL is not defined by a great big leap in sensors.
As for the Sollie infiltration cruisers, there's not that many of them and they're using an awful lot of tonnage on stealth systems rather that guns, screens, or armor plating. Those assets will be helpful for a strike against Terra, but they're not enough to take the world by themselves.

Where are these cruisers written up? I have never seen it. I didn't think Stealth took up space beyond its first available TL. Am I mistaken? The TL difference automatically gets a free +1 for the Imps and -1 for the Zhos and the Sollies.

 

[Condottiere]

It was to explain where the money from the cruiser allocation went to:

1. More fast dreadnoughts

2. Black budget

 

[ottarrus]

Where are these cruisers written up? I have never seen it. I didn't think Stealth took up space beyond its first available TL. Am I mistaken? The TL difference automatically gets a free +1 for the Imps and -1 for the Zhos and the Sollies.

The infiltration cruisers came up in Solomani Front. They were not statted up. And yeah, the DMs are correct insofar as I know.

 

[ottarrus]

It was to explain where the money from the cruiser allocation went to:

1. More fast dreadnoughts

2. Black budget

The Sollies don't have J6, and losing 50% tonnage to J 5 fuel tankage isn't the greatest idea for a dreadnought. But we've already discussed battlecruiser warfare.
Everybody has a black budget, but those assets are accounted for in the game text.

 

[phavoc]

OK, so some of you might be playing around with flotilla or squadron level ship combat.

It can be hard for a lot of non-military types to imagine electronic warfare in a game. Most literary sources either over-simplify it with see-all know-all 'sensors' or they get very complicated with 3D spatial descriptions that often confuse people.
Hopefully, I have a fairly uncomplicated solution for you.

Traveller EW isn't all that complicated. It's only 2 dimensions, and most of the systems are pretty straight forward.
My advice is to look up a book from the 80s by Tom Clancy, 'Red Storm Rising'. This book details a war between the US and USSR in all three spheres of combat: Ground, Naval, and Air. In portions of the book discussing Naval, Air and Orbital combat, electronic warfare is actually far more important than the ordnance. The game of hide and seek is described very very well for the novice. It doesn't go neck deep into details about any given system, and keeps the EW at it's most basic premise: detection and defeat are the same thing.

You can find Red Storm Rising in your local used book store and online, but there is also a really good series on youtube by a guy named 'Fixedit', who pairs chapters of the book with DCS computer game play. He's done a great job of editing it and perhaps the visuals will help you out.

The very raw basics of EW are this:
1. Getting spotted gives your enemy the initiative; most of the time he can launch his attack before you can.
2. The basic question in electronic warfare is this: To radiate or not radiate a signal.
2a. Radiating a signal [like commo traffic, radar pings, etc.] gives you quick accurate information on what's around you. It also tells everybody precisely where you are. You're giving the enemy the same information you are looking for... the exact location of the bad guy.
2b. Not radiating means you're relying on your passive sensors... these pick up signals but don't emit any signal. This is a difficult job of work and it takes a skilled operator to tell a bad guy from the background noise. But if you can get a target solution on a bad guy with passive systems only, you will have caught him with his pants down and one boot off.

And Red Storm describes this in a very engaging and clear way.

Good info here, but there's some things missing I think:

1) Space is b-i-g. With the distances listed, and travel times of missiles, launching first when your combat rounds are 6min long is really not an advantage, per se. I suppose the one who gets the first round off MIGHT be able to take advantage of it - but your target is only going to be one round behind, and someone has to lose the initiative die roll. Unless your attack is able launch and hit in the same round it's only slightly, possibly, advantageous. Range and time from launch/impact are the real killers. And getting that close to your target undetected is difficult.

2) Emissions are one thing, but power rules them all. At a distance a small craft with a jammer has the ability to jam/disrupt an emitter. But as the smaller (and less powerful) craft closes, the advantage swings to the side that has more power in their emitters to burn through interference from jamming. And, at some point, the side with the most powerful emitter wins and just overwhelms the less powerful emitter. Of course, detection is one thing, but having good enough data to get a target lock (and keep it) is the key. It's hard to model EW in a game to keep it playable because simplifying the process makes the game flow easier and the players don't have to worry about understanding ECM/ECCM warfare.

3) Active vs Passive is always a conundrum for both attacker and defender. Ground or ship-based sensors are nearly always superior to those in your birds - active allows you the lock to get to the target and (sometimes) keep painting the target for the missile to home in on. Otherwise you can launch blind (passive) and hope your bird's sensors will pick up the target on their own. Passive locks are a misnomer though, since you can't really do that - you need active sensors.

The comment about neutrino detection, well, if you are approaching from deep space then your emissions MIGHT get detected as being inbound rather than outbound from the star. Which means an attacker may arrive at the further side of a system and go towards the sun and then eventuall from a sunward direction. I doubt any neutrino detector would be able to differentiate neutrinos from a fusion-plant based vs. star fusion source. Coming from deep space you'd have a better idea, though one has to wonder if grav tech could dissipate and/or reorient neutrino output so that your emissions are not going out in a cone in front of you. Warfare has taught us that there is always an opponent or technology out there that changes the rules on you.

There is another good book called the Third World War by Sir John Hackett (published a while ago). It posits a short 3-week war between NATO and Warsaw Pact in the 80s. It's not Clancy-esque, but I thought it did a really good job on relaying the battle side of things via the battle vs. the characters.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Good info here, but there's some things missing I think:

1) Space is b-i-g. With the distances listed, and travel times of missiles, launching first when your combat rounds are 6min long is really not an advantage, per se. I suppose the one who gets the first round off MIGHT be able to take advantage of it - but your target is only going to be one round behind, and someone has to lose the initiative die roll. Unless your attack is able launch and hit in the same round it's only slightly, possibly, advantageous. Range and time from launch/impact are the real killers. And getting that close to your target undetected is difficult.

2) Emissions are one thing, but power rules them all. At a distance a small craft with a jammer has the ability to jam/disrupt an emitter. But as the smaller (and less powerful) craft closes, the advantage swings to the side that has more power in their emitters to burn through interference from jamming. And, at some point, the side with the most powerful emitter wins and just overwhelms the less powerful emitter. Of course, detection is one thing, but having good enough data to get a target lock (and keep it) is the key. It's hard to model EW in a game to keep it playable because simplifying the process makes the game flow easier and the players don't have to worry about understanding ECM/ECCM warfare.

3) Active vs Passive is always a conundrum for both attacker and defender. Ground or ship-based sensors are nearly always superior to those in your birds - active allows you the lock to get to the target and (sometimes) keep painting the target for the missile to home in on. Otherwise you can launch blind (passive) and hope your bird's sensors will pick up the target on their own. Passive locks are a misnomer though, since you can't really do that - you need active sensors.

Yeah, Anti-Radiation Missiles are a wonderful thing.