CGT sensors and Star Trek cloaking devices

[Howedar]

A good example would be the Voyger episode "Human Error". The target missile was supposed to be thousands of kilometers away yet when Voyger opened fire it was right behind Voyger !

You can't accurately display thousands of kilometers on screen without making the ships nanometers in size. That wouldn't be very watchable ,would it ? So the only way to convey such distances is dialogue.

The fact that ramming is a viable tactic in DS9 fleet battles demonstrates conclusively that the ranges are very short.

[The Kernel]

FYI, the Federation had gravitic sensors along parts of the neutral zone to detect cloaked ships. I would assume that the more sensitive the sensors the better resolution and greater chance of detecting a cloaked ship would be. I assume this is why gravitic sensor networks can detect cloaked ships that normal ship mounted sensors couldn't.

Anyway given what we know about the CGT array, it strongly supports that it can indeed detect cloaked Trek ships.

I'd go further and say that almost all cloaked ships in Star Trek could concievably be detected by regular SW sensor technology, with a few exceptions.

Star Trek "cloaking" is very similar to a sensor stealth mode in SW rather than directly comparable to SW cloaking. SW cloaking is double-blind; nothing comes in and nothing goes out. ST cloaking OTOH lets a great deal of stuff in and out ("neutron radiation" among the cornicopia of other particles mentioned) and ST ships CAN use sensors inside their cloaks. This suggests that ST cloaks are actually a trade off from SW cloaks, instead of being completely invisible by preventing any sort of emissions, they instead mask the detectable emissions as best they can. The description we got of cloaking in TNG's "The Defector" is very consistent with this. Hell, it may be a better solution than SW cloaking too since SW cloaks have only very limited uses on starships.

The lone possible exception to this is the Scimitar's cloak from Nemesis. As Geordi said, it was a perfect cloak with no leakage (more evidence to support my theory about ST cloaking being a masking technology since Geordi obviously expected to find something), or at least none that the E-E could detect. There obviously must have been some leakage though since the Scimitar could use sensors as well as weapons while cloaked.

[Patrick Degan]

ST ships can detect ion residues as seen in "The Battle" and in ST VI yet they are normally unable to detect cloaked ships. In "Face of the Enemy " we hear that the emissions of cloaked ships are carefully monitored to avoid detection. If it were that easy to find a cloaked ship don't you think the Federation could do it too?

The one reason why the Federation can be stymied by cloaking technology as much as it usually falls prey to is because they do not seem to understand the principle of passive sensing. They rely almost exclusively upon active scanning systems which are always vulnerable to jamming and spoofing measures. And there isn't any measure which can prevent ion emission or the escape of waste heat from a ship's engines.

[Trekdestroyer]

All a cloak does is stop electromagnetic energy(UV,X-Ray,visible light,ect) so in theory a CGT should do that to ST cloaks as well as SW cloaks.

[Prozac the Robert]

The one reason why the Federation can be stymied by cloaking technology as much as it usually falls prey to is because they do not seem to understand the principle of passive sensing. They rely almost exclusively upon active scanning systems which are always vulnerable to jamming and spoofing measures. And there isn't any measure which can prevent ion emission or the escape of waste heat from a ship's engines.

That doesn't make any sense. Active sensing is more powerful than passive sensing and therefore better able to detect things. Otherwise no-one would use it.

Also a cloaked ship can hardly afford to start playing with countermeasures because that would instantly give it's presence away and give a good idea of it's general location.

[Haze Gray]

Active sensing is more powerful then passive sensing, but is more limited in its applications. As with sonar, active systems have a shorter range, and are used best to focus on an object that is KNOWN to be there (like an enemy ship). Passive systems are used to detect the ship in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

A good example would be the Voyger episode "Human Error". The target missile was supposed to be thousands of kilometers away yet when Voyger opened fire it was right behind Voyger !

You can't accurately display thousands of kilometers on screen without making the ships nanometers in size. That wouldn't be very watchable ,would it ? So the only way to convey such distances is dialogue.

The fact that ramming is a viable tactic in DS9 fleet battles demonstrates conclusively that the ranges are very short.

Not to mention the fact that 3km was explicitly specified onscreen in TNG as a typical ambush range for a cloaked ship. If they're normally capable of hitting 400m wide ships at a range of, say, 50000km as per oft-cited claims, they should be able to easily nail a one inch target on a ship at 3km range. This is much more accuracy than they need or have ever demonstrated in combat.

[Prozac the Robert]

Cloaked ships might as welll attack from short range as long range as they still won't be detected until they open fire. So why not get to a range where they simply cannot miss?

[Darth Wong]

Cloaked ships might as welll attack from short range as long range as they still won't be detected until they open fire. So why not get to a range where they simply cannot miss?

No reason, and that's precisely my point. It means that the range where they simply cannot miss is 3km, which in turn means that they can miss at greater ranges, even with a target that's hundreds of metres long.

[Enola Straight]

In normal space an object emits energy at lightspeed and particlates at slower-than-lightspeed.

In hyperspace an objects mass-shadow...a quantity which may very well have more components than merely mass and gravity...should emit things at FTL.

A ST style device which cloaks a vessel in normal and sub space may not be engineered for hyper and be readily visible to hypersensors

[Sarevok]

Hyperwave sensors may be able to detect cloaked ships. Since Trek cloaking device is designed to fool EM wavelength and subspace they may not stop hyperwaves the way they stop other sensors.

[teleguy]

Cloaked ships might as welll attack from short range as long range as they still won't be detected until they open fire. So why not get to a range where they simply cannot miss?

No reason, and that's precisely my point. It means that the range where they simply cannot miss is 3km, which in turn means that they can miss at greater ranges, even with a target that's hundreds of metres long.

Who says they get this close because of targeting issues? Another possible reason could be giving the opponent less time to raise shields.

[Ghost Rider]

Cloaked ships might as welll attack from short range as long range as they still won't be detected until they open fire. So why not get to a range where they simply cannot miss?

No reason, and that's precisely my point. It means that the range where they simply cannot miss is 3km, which in turn means that they can miss at greater ranges, even with a target that's hundreds of metres long.

Who says they get this close because of targeting issues? Another possible reason could be giving the opponent less time to raise shields.

Once again it would be your onus to show proof of this given we have never seen this effect explained in this manner and shield have nearly zilch delay factor.

[Patrick Degan]

The one reason why the Federation can be stymied by cloaking technology as much as it usually falls prey to is because they do not seem to understand the principle of passive sensing. They rely almost exclusively upon active scanning systems which are always vulnerable to jamming and spoofing measures. And there isn't any measure which can prevent ion emission or the escape of waste heat from a ship's engines.

That doesn't make any sense. Active sensing is more powerful than passive sensing and therefore better able to detect things. Otherwise no-one would use it.

On the contrary, it makes eminent sense. An active sensor, aside from being subject to jamming, also makes your ship stick out like a flare. The question is not which one is more "powerful" but which method does the job best in the given situation. Modern submarines rely far more extensively on passive sonar rather than banging away with an active set, to name one example, because the transmissions would make them a target.

Also a cloaked ship can hardly afford to start playing with countermeasures because that would instantly give it's presence away and give a good idea of it's general location.

A cloaking system is an active sensor countermeasure by definition.

[Darth Wong]

Cloaked ships might as welll attack from short range as long range as they still won't be detected until they open fire. So why not get to a range where they simply cannot miss?

No reason, and that's precisely my point. It means that the range where they simply cannot miss is 3km, which in turn means that they can miss at greater ranges, even with a target that's hundreds of metres long.

Who says they get this close because of targeting issues? Another possible reason could be giving the opponent less time to raise shields.

Nonsense; even at ten times that range, given the speed figures claimed for photorps, the hit would occur long before they could finish the following verbal exchange:

"Captain, Klingon vessel decloaking and firing on us!"
"Raise shields!"

And that's assuming everyone has perfect response times and there is no confusion or hesitation whatsoever.

Actually, given the speeds some Trekkies claim for photorps they could be 3 million km away and it would still hit before that verbal exchange could be completed, but that's Trek-wank territory.

[nightmare]

FYI, the Federation had gravitic sensors along parts of the neutral zone to detect cloaked ships. I would assume that the more sensitive the sensors the better resolution and greater chance of detecting a cloaked ship would be. I assume this is why gravitic sensor networks can detect cloaked ships that normal ship mounted sensors couldn't.

Anyway given what we know about the CGT array, it strongly supports that it can indeed detect cloaked Trek ships.

This brings up the interesting question of why they wouldn't fit gravitic sensors on their starships. I seem to recall that Fed ships can detect gravitic anomalities, which suggest that they do have such equipment.. given that cloaked ships have not been detcted on multiple occasions even when at spitting range, it suggest that either a) not all UFP ships carries gravitic sensors or b) they are not very effective against cloaked ships, possibly due to short range or other detection limitations.. one might theorize about others using the same mass lightening technology employed by the Federation, and perhaps all warp-capable ships?

Either way, this have nothing to do with CGT sensor capabilities, I just find it amusing..

[Prozac the Robert]

On the contrary, it makes eminent sense. An active sensor, aside from being subject to jamming, also makes your ship stick out like a flare. The question is not which one is more "powerful" but which method does the job best in the given situation. Modern submarines rely far more extensively on passive sonar rather than banging away with an active set, to name one example, because the transmissions would make them a target.

I will try to put this simply; If a ship cannot be detected by active sensors then turning the active sensors off and relying on passive sensors is not going to detect it either.

Heavy relience on active sensors is not the reason the federation is voulnerable to attack by cloaked vessels.

[Darth Wong]

On the contrary, it makes eminent sense. An active sensor, aside from being subject to jamming, also makes your ship stick out like a flare. The question is not which one is more "powerful" but which method does the job best in the given situation. Modern submarines rely far more extensively on passive sonar rather than banging away with an active set, to name one example, because the transmissions would make them a target.

I will try to put this simply; If a ship cannot be detected by active sensors then turning the active sensors off and relying on passive sensors is not going to detect it either.

No, you STILL don't get it. A ship which is using active sensors can be picked up by another ship using passive sensors which is outside its own detection range, because in order to detect something with active sensors, the bounce signal must still be strong enough to be picked up via passive sensors when it comes back. Since it has to travel to the enemy ship AND THEN ALL THE WAY BACK AGAIN, this means the signal you get is much weaker than the signal the enemy ship gets. If the enemy ship is far away, they will pick up your signal but you won't pick up the bounce because it will be too weak.

In short, if you use active sensors, they will detect you before you detect them. They will know where you are, and you won't know where they are. Get it?

Heavy relience on active sensors is not the reason the federation is voulnerable to attack by cloaked vessels.

You need to put down the Star Trek and start reading up on real-life before you make more of a fool out of yourself. You honestly don't understand why real-life submarines don't actively ping all the time, do you?

[Prozac the Robert]

When given the choice between being easier to spot but having some chance to spot cloaked vessels and having X times less chance to spot cloaked ships but being Y times harder to spot Starfleet has picked active sensors. That seems to sugest that either X is a big number and/or that Y is a small number. Either way, I can't believe starfleet didn't think all this through when they devised their SOP.

Anyway, look what I was originaly responding to:

The one reason why the Federation can be stymied by cloaking technology as much as it usually falls prey to is because they do not seem to understand the principle of passive sensing. They rely almost exclusively upon active scanning systems which are always vulnerable to jamming and spoofing measures. And there isn't any measure which can prevent ion emission or the escape of waste heat from a ship's engines

He is, or at least seems to be, sugesting that the federation could pick these emmisions up using pasive sensors when they can't spot a cloaked ship 3k away using full active sensors. This is blatantly mad.

Also I'd like to know what spoofing and jamming a cloaked ship can do (apart from simply being cloaked, which works just as well against passive as active sensors) without giving away both its presence and it's general location.

[Patrick Degan]

On the contrary, it makes eminent sense. An active sensor, aside from being subject to jamming, also makes your ship stick out like a flare. The question is not which one is more "powerful" but which method does the job best in the given situation. Modern submarines rely far more extensively on passive sonar rather than banging away with an active set, to name one example, because the transmissions would make them a target.

I will try to put this simply; If a ship cannot be detected by active sensors then turning the active sensors off and relying on passive sensors is not going to detect it either.

Utter bullshit. Submarines in the modern day already rely upon passive sensing as their primary detection means, as is done with SOSUS. In the case of a cloaked ship, it's mass-signature, waste heat, and ion trails are telltale signs of its presence. Several television episodes and films clearly show cloaked ships being detected by reading these footprints. Canon evidence. You have no argument.

Heavy relience on active sensors is not the reason the federation is vulnerable to attack by cloaked vessels.

"Redemption (2)" says otherwise.

When given the choice between being easier to spot but having some chance to spot cloaked vessels and having X times less chance to spot cloaked ships but being Y times harder to spot Starfleet has picked active sensors. That seems to sugest that either X is a big number and/or that Y is a small number. Either way, I can't believe starfleet didn't think all this through when they devised their SOP.

Wrong. TNG has shown too many examples of Federationists applying ridiculously complex solutions to simple problems and taking painful amounts of time to figure out the obvious solution to a technical problem. As it is however, Starfleet very clearly relies upon passive detection as a major componnent to its anticloaking methodologies by the inclusion of gravitic sensor nets along the Neutral Zone.

Anyway, look what I was originaly responding to:

The one reason why the Federation can be stymied by cloaking technology as much as it usually falls prey to is because they do not seem to understand the principle of passive sensing. They rely almost exclusively upon active scanning systems which are always vulnerable to jamming and spoofing measures. And there isn't any measure which can prevent ion emission or the escape of waste heat from a ship's engines

He is, or at least seems to be, sugesting that the federation could pick these emmisions up using pasive sensors when they can't spot a cloaked ship 3k away using full active sensors. This is blatantly mad.

"A Matter Of Honour", "Balance Of Terror", and Star Trek VI all say you're dead wrong.

Also I'd like to know what spoofing and jamming a cloaked ship can do (apart from simply being cloaked, which works just as well against passive as active sensors) without giving away both its presence and it's general location.

That was not my argument. Read what I actually say instead of putting up a ridiculous strawman. It is the cloaked ship which is spoofing the Federation ship's sensors, not the other way around. And Sela's tactic of the tachyon burst aimed at the Sutherland in "Redemption" is a clear example of active jamming. Data's response to use passive detection to pick up the eddies of the cloaked Warbirds illustrates my point precisely.

[Sher KhalSaad]

As far as detecting gravity's effects in realtime goes- As I recall, during Obi-Wan's search for Kamino in Ep II, he was able to detect its gravitic effects on the systems surrounding it all the way from Coruscant, in real time. ("Gravity is pulling all the stars in the area toward this spot" or something similar) - I suppose he could have extrapolated the presence of a planet where none was supposed to exist by carefully computing eccentricites in the orbital paths of surrounding bodies, but that seems to me to be a little out of his league- he's a Jedi Knight, not an astrophysicist. Am I incorrect in interpreting this as an indication of a very sensitive and extremely long range , faster than light gravity/mass dectection capability?

By the way, first post here. Hi, everybody.

[Crown]

<snip> Am I incorrect in interpreting this as an indication of a very sensitive and extremely long range , faster than light gravity/mass dectection capability?

By the way, first post here. Hi, everybody.

Hi! And to answer your question; yes/no.

Now I don't like playing semantics but here we go; he got this info from the archives which should give you a hint that it wasn't real time (besides the fact that you can't delete something in real time)

However, on the other hand, the sheer detail of the map suggests that somewhere, somehow they did account and measure a single planet's (possibly solar system) gravity at SOME POINT.

What remains if this was over the course of millenia/centuries/decades/years/months/days etc




As for the very sensitive passive sensors that SW has, I thought it would have been obvious (and I don't think it has been mentioned); The Last Command the NR wants toe CGT in order to detect asteroids only a few hundred (?) meters accross that are orbiting a planet. Call me crazy, but unless those asteroids are denser than your average trekkie, their gravitational 'pull' would be almost negligeable!

[Darth Yoshi]

Too be fair, I believe Garm bel Iblis had doubts about whether or not the CGT would work so close to Coruscant's grav well. But the fact that the CGT was considered at all does say something about the precision of the array.