Nukes, love them or leave them...

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

Klempik
Redshirt
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-08-08 07:59am

Post by Klempik »

You don't NEED to aim at a sensor to blind it.

Just consider a flash-bang : It doesn't focus on anything, and will blind you neatly.
User avatar
Steel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1123
Joined: 2005-12-09 03:49pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by Steel »

Klempik wrote:You don't NEED to aim at a sensor to blind it.

Just consider a flash-bang : It doesn't focus on anything, and will blind you neatly.
Not at 20+m The flashbang gets away with not focusing on anything because it is assumed the targets are close. Why do you think that flashbangs are not used much outside during the day?

In order to blind a sensor effectively you need to stuck a certain intensity of energy into it, and your means for doing that will drop off in effectiveness with inverse square. My laser will be able to blind you from many times further than a flashbang will. So if you want to have a space flashbang, its going to have to be some kind of massive nuke that lights up most of the system to be effective at long range...
Klempik
Redshirt
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-08-08 07:59am

Post by Klempik »

Steel wrote :
In order to blind a sensor effectively you need to stuck a certain intensity of energy into it, and your means for doing that will drop off in effectiveness with inverse square. My laser will be able to blind you from many times further than a flashbang will. So if you want to have a space flashbang, its going to have to be some kind of massive nuke that lights up most of the system to be effective at long range...
Of course but neither do you need a blinding beam with a projected surface the size of the antenna you're aiming at : That's just too much.
I just wanted to illustrate that you don't need pinpoint accuracy to aim a jamming signal.
Most 1st gen jammers work this way and they are very crudely directed toward their targets.
Post Reply