c3k Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 See the story: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/10/14/anti-drone-shoulder-rifle-lets-police-take-control-uavs-with-targeted-radio.html?intcmp=hpff Sure, it's only got a 400m range, and it's probably tuned for civilian drone frequencies. Rumor has it that Russian forces have a similar device. How hard could it be to field a portable comms jammer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Why bother when you can have Marines with lasers blow them up. (I will not comment here on the morality of giving lasers to Marines.) Edited October 17, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The portable coms jammer thing already exists. While they're all branded as counter-IED devices, there's a family of small electronic warfare doohickies that'll make a wide spectrum of frequencies no longer viable. In regards to giving Marines lasers, god have mercy on us all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtsjc1 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The portable coms jammer thing already exists. While they're all branded as counter-IED devices, there's a family of small electronic warfare doohickies that'll make a wide spectrum of frequencies no longer viable. In regards to giving Marines lasers, god have mercy on us all.Or give the morons who like to shine laser pointers into commercial a/c cockpits the job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I assumed something like this was coming into service, this is why I suggested purchasable EW formations for QB - off-map of course before someone comes in guns blazing about fielding on-map static EW kit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I think EW formations is the wrong way to do it simply because it's something that's hard to quantify. An EA-18G or whatever supporting a CMBS sized battlefield is a bit crazy, as the amount of EW screwery most EW type systems are capable of in a small localized area is pretty nuts. More realistically you're benefiting from a Division-Corps level asset giving wide spectrum EW support for a good portion of the Ukraine. Rather than EW formations, perhaps have it detract some points from the QB pool based on EW disparity. One force with extensive EW fighting one without any EW support will have a good deal less points than its opponent, while two forces each with EW kicked up to 11 will have about equal points. Basically keeps one side from effectively having more "bang" for the same buck. In regards to in service, there's already a wide range of vehicle mounted EW jammers, it's just a question of what they can do without significant modification. What I know that's solid totally failed my "is this readily available on the internet test?" but needless to say stuff like DUKE and WARLOCK were demonstratively effective against the wide spectrum of communications systems and given what they could do to AFN when a convoy went by, I got the impression the range had more to do with "need" than "technological limits." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 Yeah, there's a LOT of stuff out there. I was pondering the way the Russian drones are immune to any countermeasures by the US ... in-game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 That may be correct from a US point of view but on the other side of the fence, the orbat of a BTG has/can have attached an EW platoon from the Bde EW Coy - which consists of 3-4 ground based comms and GPS jamming stations based on the mtlb-u chassis, specifically fielded and deployed as a formation.The point of them being purchasable was to give the player the choice, if its a preset thing before the game nobody will use it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but isn't there an EW setting for scenario designers that will limit a lot of comms. Can you make that purchaseble as a setting in QBs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I think EW formations is the wrong way to do it simply because it's something that's hard to quantify. An EA-18G or whatever supporting a CMBS sized battlefield is a bit crazy, as the amount of EW screwery most EW type systems are capable of in a small localized area is pretty nuts. More realistically you're benefiting from a Division-Corps level asset giving wide spectrum EW support for a good portion of the Ukraine. Rather than EW formations, perhaps have it detract some points from the QB pool based on EW disparity. One force with extensive EW fighting one without any EW support will have a good deal less points than its opponent, while two forces each with EW kicked up to 11 will have about equal points. Basically keeps one side from effectively having more "bang" for the same buck. In regards to in service, there's already a wide range of vehicle mounted EW jammers, it's just a question of what they can do without significant modification. What I know that's solid totally failed my "is this readily available on the internet test?" but needless to say stuff like DUKE and WARLOCK were demonstratively effective against the wide spectrum of communications systems and given what they could do to AFN when a convoy went by, I got the impression the range had more to do with "need" than "technological limits."In my opinion, EW systems on both sides would saturate any size CM map while it was active. However, once it is active, an EW asset then becomes target-able itself and they would be high on the target list for any battalion or higher level command. That would make EW warfare much of a game of operational cat and mouse, just like with anti-air radars, and submarine warfare for that matter. I could even see TLAMs being used tactically against radars and EW targets, and aircraft loaded out with JDSSMs on station just for that purpose as well.The Russians would be trying to do the same but with less platforms. Instead, they would relay on mass fires to make up for the lack of speed and precision in their targeting cycle. It would be effective until those systems are reduced, which they would be since they are more vulnerable to attack than US stand off systems.But the point that I am trying to make is that for CM, EW settings should not be just like a weather setting that does not change. It should be fluid, and depending on the month, it might not last. It would be really cool to be able to set a time duration as tactical operations, especially offensives, would be coordiniated with EW support, but due to the above 'EW battle' that duration would be limited. This would also balance out EW, which makes a game not so much fun to play as the player suffering from EW unless you are a masochist! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Yeah, there's a LOT of stuff out there. I was pondering the way the Russian drones are immune to any countermeasures by the US ... in-game. Hopefully the Avenger will make it into the module for both the US Army and Marines. It has a .50 cal AAMG that would be ideal versus drones. (And Stinger missiles to attack helicopters and fast movers). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Why bother when you can have Marines with lasers blow them up. (I will not comment here on the morality of giving lasers to Marines.)Laser rifles with fire and forget 40mm missiles!Coming to Lance Corporals around the world soon! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) freakin looks like something an Imperial stormtrooper would carry, but we know how easily those guys are hit and how completely unable they are to hit a target. Edited October 18, 2015 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Laser rifles with fire and forget 40mm missiles!Coming to Lance Corporals around the world soon!Is this the Colonial Marines or the US Marines? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.