> I haven't gotten a chance to review your calculations in detail, but
at first glance they look reasonable.
Yippee, at least I have a good chance that my work is on the right track,
I’m keeping my toes crossed, trying to type with crossed fingers makes my typing
skills a lot worse.
> I suggest that the back-up system should not consume power or require
crew; the backup can be manned and powered-on when needed.
Ethan McKinney pointed out that having the back-up consume power did not
make sense and a correction has been made to the spreadsheet. The Medium
Military Package LADAR/LIDAR power drops from 4.8 to 2.4 and the overall package
power drops from 23.1 to 20.7.
Looking at the Crew requirements the correction needed is not to count the
back-up system, at TL-9 that appears to be the LADAR/LIDAR, which changes the
medium military package hard-coded number of systems from 5 to 4. Is this the
correction that is needed for the crew?
>> 2. The Consolidated TNE Errata, p.
35, has directions for adding the note: Antenna Price (in MCr) = Antenna Area
x 0.05 below the Radar
>> on TNE FF&S p. 50. The
addition of antenna price changes the final price of the TL-9 sensor
packages.
> Right. I'm sure this item was not included in QSDS, so the price
of the TL-9 sensor packages will change.
They change, but I think that the biggest difference was about 0.5.
>>
3. Jammers are not mentioned in the Sensor overview on QSDS p. 10. But they
are listed in the >> USD column of the Standard Sensor Systems Table on
p. 11. TNE FF&S p. 53, indicates that a
>>
there are four types of jammer. There is a jammer designed to be used against
a radio
>>
communicator, another one for radar, and one for the AEMS. The fourth system
is an area
>>
jammer which degrades radio and sensors. My guess is that the jammers used in
QSDS are for
>>
radar and the AEMS. At minimum I would suggest adding a radio jammer as part
of the small
>>
and medium military sensor packages. An alternative would be to have three
separate jammers
>>
to cover TL-9 and introduce the area jammer at
TL-10.
> QSDS packages currently include only an EMS jammer (or radar jammer at
TLs where the EMS jammer is unavailable). For purposes of producing
> errata, I don't think that we should modify the capabilities of the
existing sensor packages. They are what they are - and certainly there
are
> innumerable other conceivable packages that might be included.
So for errata purposes, we should limit our changes to correcting errors in
the
> existing tables.
After a bit of comparison of the Area Jammer with the EMS Jammer and input
from Ethan McKinney I withdraw my suggestion on both the adding of more jammers
to the TL-9 packages and the Area jammer at TL-10. Ethan McKinney indicates that
a radar jammer can make hash out of radio communications, if that is the case
there is no need for the radio jammer. I created an EMS Jammer and an Area
Jammer at the same TLs and ranges which resulted in the area jammer’s antenna
area being smaller than the EMS jammer. Of course the EMS maximum short range id
480,000 km and the area jammer’s range is only limited by how big the designer
wants the power plant.
> That said, if you would like to produce data for an add-on expanded
set of electronics packages (kind-of an electronics-focussed version of the
"QSDS
> Big Book of Hulls"), that would be excellent. At minimum, it
would be nice to expand the sensors and communications tables to include
TL-13
> through TL-15. It would also be nice to add an "advanced"
civilian sensor package, and produce more options for military packages - for
example, it
> would be nice to have Scout and Wild Weasel packages at each TL.
Another project to add to my list that I may get to some day. Of course I
need to get this little project and several others done first.
>> The Improved package increases the range of
the active sensor.
> This should be obvious from the data table.
My suggested change after further review as shown below is incorrect,
however per the QSDS 1.5e Sensor overview “The Improved package increases the
range of the basic sensors.” is not reflected in the Standard Sensor System
Table. Unfortunately, the increases in range was not obvious to me until I tried
using T4 FF&S and eventually TNE FF&S to recreate one of the sensor
packages.
From the Standard Sensor Systems Table USD column for the Basic and
Improved sensor packages the entries for TL-9 and TL-10 are A0 P2 J0. There is
are obvious increases in the sensor USD for TL-11 and 12. Using TNE
FF&S Chapter 5B and 30,00 km equal to 1 hex I was able to determine
that the Active sensor range changed from 300 km at TL-9 to 3,000 km at
TL-10. The Passive USD 2 x 30,000 gives the TL-9 and 10 HRT a range
of 60,000 km which fit the total system volume, power, and cost requirements. My
error in the suggested change only focused on the TL-9 and TL-10 active sensor.
There still appears to be a difference between the “The Improved package
increases the range of the basic sensors.” overview and the table
information.
>> Both military packages add a LADAR system for
accurate range-finding and target designation,
>> jammers
(radar or AEMS when available),
> Not all of the military packages listed include
jammers. For example, the TL-10 small military package has a jamming USD
of 0.
> I believe this was done to make the package fit in specific
constraints (cost, area, power, etc.) we had established for each package
category.
> The fact that some of the military packages include jammers should be
obvious from the table.
> While the type of jammer is important to re-creating the designs in
FF&S, I seem to recall that they aren't important in terms of the T4
game
> itself. QSDS exists to support roleplaying using the basic T4
rules, so a lot of details that don't have specific game effects are omitted in
the interest
> of saving space and simplifying the system.
In the e-mail from 4/282015 replying to my question on how was the jammer
data calculated the following comment was made:
“That said, there is a discrepancy with the TL-10 Small Military sensors –
there is no jammer value supplied (even through TL-9 and TL-11 small military
sensors include jammers). I don’t know if I forgot to include the jammer in the
sensor package, or forgot to include the jammer’s capability in the USD. Going
by the pattern of the rest of the small military sensor packages, it should have
a J2 jammer included.”
Adding the J2 EMS jammer to the TL-10 small military package fixed the
differences between my calculations and those in QSDS 1.5e. Based on the
cited information is my reason to suggest adding the bolded text about jammers.
>> The passive
sensor antenna diameter determines the
minimum hull length and size in
>> displacement tons
the sensor can be mounted on.
> QSDS uses either displacement tons or hull length as the
constraint, not both. Early versions of QSDS used a "Min Hull" and
required that ships be
> built only with the hulls listed. Later versions switched to
"Min Length" to allow use of additional hulls (for example, from the "QSDS Big
Book of
> Hulls"). For compatibility with the "QSDS Big Book of Hulls", we
should continue to use length.
Looks like my mind played a trick on me because I thought the entry had
and/or since I was not sure which way to go even after our discussion. The TL-10
through TL-12 calculations will only have Hull Length entries.
> Strictly speaking, the largest antenna in the package determines the
minimum length for a ship mounting these sensors. This is normally the
passive
> sensor, but possible other sensor packages in an as-yet-unwritten
"QSDS Big Book of Sensors" could have their size dictated by something other
than
> the passive sensor antenna.
Looking at the design rules in TNE and T4 FF&S both indicate that the
passive sensor antenna determines the hull length. The hull length, if I’ve
figured this right, is based on the hull length listed on the TNE Hull Size
Table p. 11 and T4 FF&S Table 159: Basic Hull Size p. 102, which is a
spherical hull.
>>
Passive sensor antennas for the basic and improved packages are fixed array
while the
>>
military packages use folding
arrays.
> Similar to the above, I don't recall that T4 had any rules
specifically for fixed versus folding sensor arrays, so this detail was omitted
in the QSDS.
T4 FF&S p. 73 Sensor Options:
Folding Arrays:
If a ship is to small to mount a sensor with the desired diameter, the
sensor may be designated as a folding array. The sensor elements are mounted on
a folding framework, which allows the sensor to be stowed when maneuvering or
not in use. Folding arrays double the volume of the sensor.
TNE FF&S p. 52
AD: Antenna Diameter, in meters. If the antenna diameter is greater than
the hull length (unmodified by configuration), the antenna must be a folding
array.
Antenna Volume: The volume of the antenna in cubic meters (kiloliters) is
equal to the antenna area x 0.05 for a fixed array or x 0.1 for a folding
array.
My comparison indicates that the Standard Sensor Systems antennas for basic
and improved are all fixed arrays and the military ones are folding arrays at
least for the standard hulls shown using the TNE FF&S design system. A quick
check of the small craft the antenna arrays appear to be fixed.
Should the review of the QSDS be incorporated into the Consolidated T4
Errata document and a QSDS version x.x be generated the next individual as crazy
as this old sailor, hopefully, will be able recreate the sensor package using
the TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 book more easily by knowing which array is fixed or
folding. Of course the individual may also try using T4 FF&S prior to
dumping back to TNE FF&S. On the other hand and I get around to and do a
bang up job on submitting T4 FF&S errata they might be able to pull that
off. Please don’t place any bets that I’ll be able to pull that off since I
haven’t gotten through the QSDS.