Hyper-Optic Targeting System

[brianeyci]

I was reading an article on DW's site and was particularly intrigued by this,

Based on the parallel use of phasers and photon torpedoes, the effective range of missiles seems to be far lower than their theoretical range. A likely explanation is that their limited AI and ECM (in addition to poor maneuverability) makes them easy to shoot down at long range, where the defenders have a lot of time to see them coming.

Then it got me thinking. Why does a targeting system have to vulnerable to ECM at all? This applies to both Trek and Wars, since both Wars and Trek occasionally miss. This is my idea for a "passive" tracking system that relies on visual cues -- presumably if the pilot could see the ship, so could the tracking system. It goes like this,

Some sort of camera mounted outside that can turn really fast to follow the movements of a ship. The camera is hooked up into a computer that can differentiate the background from metallic ship's hulls. The camera locks onto a target and feeds its data directly into a computer which calculates the trajectory the ship is moving on. The computer has direct control over the weapons, and calculates where the ship is most likely to go. If the ship is likely to go in multiple directions, or is too unpredictable, the computer aims several guns and brackets the ship with fire. The ship is hit.

This kind of system should be easy to create for both Trek and Wars. Hell, Trek could have used it so many times those pesky cloaking ships showed up, given that cloaking ships until Shinzon gave out a little visual distortion. And why crew controlled guns in Wars, when you could use a system like this and get hits every time? Especially useful in Wars considering all the fighters flying around -- difficult for a pilot to outguess a computer unless he was very experienced. If you've solved artificial intelligence, it should be easy for you to create a computer that could work like this. You'd just need the engineering prowress to create a gun and a camera that could turn fast enough. The "camera" could be a very high resolution camera, so it could notice things thousands of kilometers away.

Bye-bye ECM. No more Vader hanging around waiting for Luke to blow up the Death Star, or Jango Fett missing his shots from point-blank range, or ST photon torpedoes being used at point blank range (you could put the system on the torpedo). Of course this would only work with turreted guns that could turn fast enough, or "array" type weapons which can aim at any direction -- both of which Wars and Trek have in abundance.

As well, you couldn't really tell whether or not someone was "locked-on" to you. Enclose the camera in some kind of dome, and they won't know whether they are being targeted until the gun was pointed right at them! The gun should turn fast enough to be unpredictable, or the gun should be a device which you couldn't actually see where it was aiming eg. a dome with twenty turbolasers sticking out of it that rotates around.

Courtesy of a game I'm playing where I just built my first "Hyper-Optic" scanning vessels... the actual mechanism I thought of myself though

Brian

[Robert Walper]

The only problem being the camera and computer are electronic systems vulnerable to electronic interference...hence the term ECM.

[Prozac the Robert]

The only problem being the camera and computer are electronic systems vulnerable to electronic interference...hence the term ECM.

I think there will be other problems, but this isn't a problem. You could just stick the camera and computer in a faraday cage or something like. Also I don't think trek ECM would work like that anyway, SW might interfere with actual onboard systems a bit, but the computers on the X-wings seemed to function fine during the trench run.

[brianeyci]

That's why the camera is heavily shielded and so on. If ECM interfered with the onboard systems a lot, then pilots would start losing control not being able to pilot or shoot.

I've always thought of ECM as a countermeasure to active scanning. The visual targeting system would be a passive system -- hence ECM wouldn't work. The camera and turret would have to be shielded strongly enough of course.

Brian

[Batman]

I've always thought of ECM as a countermeasure to active scanning. The visual targeting system would be a passive system -- hence ECM wouldn't work.

Doesn't work that way. ECM is just as effective against passive systems as against active ones.
All you need is a flare bright enough to blind the camera.

[Mad]

This is my idea for a "passive" tracking system that relies on visual cues -- presumably if the pilot could see the ship, so could the tracking system. It goes like this,

Some sort of camera mounted outside that can turn really fast to follow the movements of a ship.

Star Wars already does this:

A number of standardized sensors are used by ships across the galaxy. Electro-photo receptors, also known as EPRs, are short-range visual scanners that gather data provided by normal light, infrared, and ultraviolet telescopes; they are also the primary sensors used in targeting computers.

That's right, short-range combat sensors in Star Wars are glorified cameras. And yet they are jammed (quotes from the ANH novelization refering to all short- and long-range scopes being affected). Not really sure how, but we know that Wars has the technology to do so.

[Winston Blake]

I've always thought of ECM as a countermeasure to active scanning. The visual targeting system would be a passive system -- hence ECM wouldn't work.

Doesn't work that way. ECM is just as effective against passive systems as against active ones.
All you need is a flare bright enough to blind the camera.

Wouldn't very bright flashes of light or whatever have the same blinding effect on human eyes?

Keep up your visual scanning. With all this jamming, they'll be on top of you before your scope can pick them up.

Any advantages of visual scanning could be improved by computerising it, and any visual countermeasures against the computerised version would work more effectively against the naked eye.

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to use visual targeting (besides make battles more exciting, of course).

ECM could be messing up the electronics serving the camera, but they should be able to just put it in a faraday cage with optical fibre wherever stuff needs to go in or out.

[harbringer]

The use of flares and lasers to blind cameras/sensors is used now (in a very limited way) but is expected to become more common once testbed systems and so on make it into full production units (this being used in the american way that includes everything a weapon system needs to function).

The main obsticle is making the ECM blind only the enemies sensors and lasers seem to be the best method, note they don't have to penetrate the shielding just put a bright spot that the camera cant see through in front of the lens.

[Batman]

All you need is a flare bright enough to blind the camera.

Wouldn't very bright flashes of light or whatever have the same blinding effect on human eyes?

Yes. Your point being?

Keep up your visual scanning. With all this jamming, they'll be on top of you before your scope can pick them up.

Any advantages of visual scanning could be improved by computerising it, and any visual countermeasures against the computerised version would work more effectively against the naked eye.

Bullshit. Cameras have this nasty tendency to having a very narrow field of vision, and even if Wars overcame that hurdle there's the question of how to PRESENT that improved information to a human pilot. Who, you know, is somewhat limited in his ability to absorb visual data.

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to use visual targeting (besides make battles more exciting, of course).

Which is why modern pilots never ever look outside their cockpits and rely completely on radar. Oh wait they don't.

[Isolder74]

alot of this graces back to the idea the airforce adobted in the opening stages of the Vietnam War. They said Missiles kill far away and are more effective. So Guns are now obsolite and the first batches of F-4 Phantoms were shipped witho ut any guns at all! The hardpoints weren't even designed into the airframe!

There were some who suggested with Radar a pilot could fly and not even need a window on the plane to look out of. One of the jokes of the term dead ceconing is the fact that instruments only can sometimes be wrong. Now the airforce has yet to build a windowless airplane, which means that in some ways the windows and the pilot being able to see is important. Yes the pilot will detect the enemy planes before he will ever see them, but once in close quarters the radar is pretty much useless!

[The Silence and I]

I don't immediately see an issue with this system, the novel for ANH has that line stating the enemy can jam every sensor except your eyes--soo... make an artificial eyeball? Makes sense to me, and I expect SW already does this to some extent. As for bright flashes blinding a camera/eye, it is not too easy to support the effective use of this, as fighter pilots rely almost exclusively on their eyes. If they were blinded every now and then battles would be a little different
"I can't see! Wait, I see something...yes, it looks like an ISD hull. Oh shit."

Transparasteel is supposed to filter out excessively bright light IIRC. That may be fine for preventing camera blindness. As for feasibility of a camera able to compete with the human eye, come on! How hard can that possibly be for such an advanced technology base Data has superior vision, and SF is to Star Wars as the stone age is to us by the accounts of several on this board.

Now I don't expect this system to be terribly useful to starfighter pilots, but this may allow dedicated gunners to achieve hits at long range regardless of the ECM going on. Now, by my own reasoning either ECM can block visual wave lengths regardless of what we see on screen or what people say in the books, or something *else* is going on, because in heavy ECM range is very much limited. *shrug*

As for Starfleet, my opinion works from assumptions different than many on the board--essentially I favor the ranges stated in the dialog over actual visuals for several reasons I will not go into on this thread. But at the ranges I expect them to operate at passive visual systems may not have enough to work with.

[Sea Skimmer]

alot of this graces back to the idea the airforce adobted in the opening stages of the Vietnam War. They said Missiles kill far away and are more effective. So Guns are now obsolite and the first batches of F-4 Phantoms were shipped witho ut any guns at all! The hardpoints weren't even designed into the airframe!

Actually, every Phantom built without an internal gun was designed to be able to carry a 20mm gun pod on the centerline station. However, they also designed the Phantom's fuel capacity with the idea that a large centerline fuel tank would always be carried into action, so it was rare that the pod was used since you then had to carry twin wing tanks, and many missions required all three tanks. The hard point mounting though didn't provide the gun with enough ridgity to be accurate as an air to air weapon. It was sometimes used for ground attacks though.

[SPOOFE]

Bullshit. Cameras have this nasty tendency to having a very narrow field of vision, and even if Wars overcame that hurdle there's the question of how to PRESENT that improved information to a human pilot.

1. Fish-eye lenses.

2. Why does the information have to be directly presented to the pilot?

[Batman]

Bullshit. Cameras have this nasty tendency to having a very narrow field of vision, and even if Wars overcame that hurdle there's the question of how to PRESENT that improved information to a human pilot.

1. Fish-eye lenses.

Which have a nasty tendency to distort the picture something fierce (which admittedly Wars technology should have no problem compensating for, which leaves the problem of how do you present the picture to the pilot?)

2. Why does the information have to be directly presented to the pilot?

Well, how DO you intend to present the information to the pilot?

[Isolder74]

Bullshit. Cameras have this nasty tendency to having a very narrow field of vision, and even if Wars overcame that hurdle there's the question of how to PRESENT that improved information to a human pilot.

1. Fish-eye lenses.

2. Why does the information have to be directly presented to the pilot?

For part two it just has to be slaved into the targeting computer, that shows an image of the target inside it in the movies which inplies some type of optical input to the system.

[The Silence and I]

Bullshit. Cameras have this nasty tendency to having a very narrow field of vision, and even if Wars overcame that hurdle there's the question of how to PRESENT that improved information to a human pilot.

1. Fish-eye lenses.

Which have a nasty tendency to distort the picture something fierce (which admittedly Wars technology should have no problem compensating for, which leaves the problem of how do you present the picture to the pilot?)

2. Why does the information have to be directly presented to the pilot?

Well, how DO you intend to present the information to the pilot?

I've an idea: incorporate the information into the viewscreen. Have the window highlight brighten and enhance distant targets, and provide targetting information right on the screen--for example display where the guns are currently pointing, with arrows and things telling the pilot which way to turn. Make it customizable, and you have a detailed, easy to read display suited to each pilot's tastes.

[brianeyci]

This is how I see ECM,

E - Enemy Ship

S - Your ship

> - some technobabble signal

Sucessful tracking
S >>>>>>>>>>>> E
S <<<<<<<<<<<< E
Boom

Unsucessful tracking
S >>>>>>>>>>>> E
S ECMECMECMECM E

Regarding flares and such -- how would this be an advantage? You blind yourself along with your enemies, and the best case would be a stalemate with both sides shooting horribly.

The optical targeting system would be more for capital vessels. Optical targeting does not mean that a human eye has to be involved -- the information would be routed into a main computer which would make the decisions where to turn the turbolaser batteries/aim the phaser arrays. The weapons could also be ball mounted, to allow for really fast tracking against fighters. Obviously the weapons have to turn faster than a fighter can fly for the system to work, and the computer has to make decisions in a split second with many many variables (possibly many cameras mounted taking in information), but I don't see that being overly complex for either Wars or Trek.

Brian

[Stark]

Passive IR detectors can easily be defeated by pointing an IR-frequency source at the sensor, and a purely optical system would encourage the use of decoys. Without active sensors to assist, they wouldn't even have to be very good. And how do you get range without active pulses or passive triangulation? Scaling?

However, at the ass-end, you'd expect them to be able to track movement against the starfield, or detect their exhaust (or even the distortions caused by their jammers). This wouldn't nessecarily be good enough to target weapons, though. But I see what you're saying; since SW fighters essentially rely on eyeballs anyway, they could try simply automating the system. All of the above suggestions would work just as well on human eyes and an electronic system.

[Mad]

Remember: I already posted above that SW ships (fighters and capships) do use glorified cameras as their primary short-range combat sensors.

They're still jammable by SW tech.

Another quote, from the Star Wars Sourcebook:

Electro Photo Receptors (EPRs)
These are the simplest sensing devices. They combine data from sophisticated normal light, ultraviolet (UV), and infrared (IR) telescopes to form a composite holo or two-dimensional picture. Useful only at shorter ranges. Most targeting sensors use EPRs.

Trying to figure out why they don't use cameras for targetting is rather silly seeing as they do.

[brianeyci]

Trying to figure out why they don't use cameras for targetting is rather silly seeing as they do.

Yes, but the Hyper-Optic targeting system would be more for capital ships, and I remember some capital ship turbolaser batteries being crew-controlled, and fighter weapons are definitely crew controlled. Why not put everything in the hands of a competent supercomputer? Does wars ECM have the ability to jam heavily shielded electronic systems in the heart of an ISD?

Brian

[Mr Bean]

Trying to figure out why they don't use cameras for targetting is rather silly seeing as they do.

Yes, but the Hyper-Optic targeting system would be more for capital ships, and I remember some capital ship turbolaser batteries being crew-controlled, and fighter weapons are definitely crew controlled. Why not put everything in the hands of a competent supercomputer? Does wars ECM have the ability to jam heavily shielded electronic systems in the heart of an ISD?

Brian

Because like most REAL Militarys, at the end of the day, no matter how powerful the computer, how advanced the system, it pays to have a Human there to run backup and oversight

[Batman]

Regarding flares and such -- how would this be an advantage? You blind yourself along with your enemies, and the best case would be a stalemate with both sides shooting horribly.

Why does the flash have to be omnidirectional? Put a sufficiently powerful laser on the eye of the camera-Poof. One blind camera. An optical flare that you ignite behind, say, a fighter, isn't going to faze the pilot much (and could still be directional).

The optical targeting system would be more for capital vessels. Optical targeting does not mean that a human eye has to be involved -- the information would be routed into a main computer which would make the decisions where to turn the turbolaser batteries/aim the phaser arrays. The weapons could also be ball mounted, to allow for really fast tracking against fighters. Obviously the weapons have to turn faster than a fighter can fly for the system to work, and the computer has to make decisions in a split second with many many variables (possibly many cameras mounted taking in information), but I don't see that being overly complex for either Wars or Trek.

Nobody's saying optical targeting can't work (apparently Wars already uses it). I'm pointing out some of the problems with it, and that it is by no menas unjammable.

[Aaron]

YOur ignoring the fact that even if the missile/torpedo is optically guided, it still has to transmit the info back to the ship. That radio signal is what will be jammed, and the missile/torpedo will quickly become ineffective. The only real way around this is to have them be wire-guided, and I trust you see the problem with that.

[Batman]

YOur ignoring the fact that even if the missile/torpedo is optically guided, it still has to transmit the info back to the ship. That radio signal is what will be jammed, and the missile/torpedo will quickly become ineffective. The only real way around this is to have them be wire-guided, and I trust you see the problem with that.

1. Untrue. You are assuming the weapon is actually guided by the launch vessel. Given there are completely independent optical guided weapons now, (EO Maverick, anyone?) assuming that Wars warheads are needs some explaining.
2. Utterly irrelevant where gun fire control is concerned.
Actually, I can't think of ANY modern EO targeted missile that is NOT completely independent.

[Aaron]

1. Untrue. You are assuming the weapon is actually guided by the launch vessel. Given there are completely independent optical guided weapons now, (EO Maverick, anyone?) assuming that Wars warheads are needs some explaining.
2. Utterly irrelevant where gun fire control is concerned.
Actually, I can't think of ANY modern EO targeted missile that is NOT completely independent.

You're right. I was thinking of the Bullpup weapons of Vietnam fame that required a human to guide it to the target. I forgot about Maverick. Would Hellfire be considered an EO weapon considering it is laser guided?