Approved Tech ASM-41

[Sasha Santhe]

Anti-System/Sensor Missile

Image Source:
Intent: Make a Anti-Radar Missile
Development Thread: Maybe
Manufacturer: Sienar Fleet Systems and Theed Palace Space Vessel Engineering Corps
Model: ASM-41
Affiliation: Open Market
Modularity: Nope
Production: Mass-Produced
Material: Standard Missile Materials
Size: Tube Launched, vehicle mounted.
Length: Comparable to Proton Torpedo
Weight: Comparable to Proton Torpedo

Ammunition Type: Is Missile
Ammunition Capacity: Is Missile
Effective Range: Equivalent to Proton Torpedo
Rate of Fire: Is Missile

Strengths:
High yield - Because of the weapon systems design for attacking aircraft and other active sensors the missile has a high yield to create a larger area of effect than standard missiles. With power similar to a standard proton torpedo but with nearly double the area of effect the weapon has a high explosive yield with damage dropping off the further you get from the explosions source.

Passive tracking - Once fired the weapon doesn’t require the fighter to maintain a lock. This makes the weapon a fire and forget weapon allowing a vehicle armed with this system to take evasive action.

Weaknesses:
Time on target - Because of the tracking equipment and high yield allowing for larger area of effect the missiles travels slightly slower than a proton Torpedo which it was based on.

Shutdown - Because of the way the missiles locks onto a target shutting down systems will break the lock.

Active Deception - The weapon system does not work against active deception systems that spoof emissions rather than send them out.

Description:
The ASM-41 Missile was designed by Sienar Fleet Systems in cooperation with Theed Palace Space Vessel Engineering Corps in order to create a missile less vulnerable to traditional countermeasures. Given the proliferation of stealth technologies along with added electronic warfare and countermeasure systems both companies saw a need for a new missile system capable keeping up with changing times. The ASM-41
is a missile designed to detect and home in on an enemy energy emission sources. Primarily used against enemy sensors the missile can be used to lock onto communications signals, shields, and even jammers in a similar manner. The missile was designed to be compatible with modern proton torpedo launchers in order to better facilitate use of the missile.

In the ground attack role the ASM-41 is designed to suppress enemy air defense by locking onto enemy sensors and firing. Upon firing the weapon gains a lock on enemy emplacements and tracks them down. The enemy can, however, turn off their sensors, breaking the lock, to avoid destruction. The ASM-41 however is a fairly smart missile with inertial guidance capable of remembering where an enemy sensor lock was coming from and redirecting itself on the fly to the last known location. This makes the weapon particularly effective against non mobile targets, or otherwise slow targets. In order to compensate for the enemy's ability to move the missile system has a large blast radius.

For ground to air and air to air attack roles the missile is likewise useful. Capable of homing onto aircraft sensor, shields, and communications emissions the missile is capable of tracking a target through semi active or passive means. This means that the missile itself can’t be used against a fighting system using ASM missiles. In addition there is no lock on warning adding an element of surprise to craft attacked by the ASM system. For fighters with active jammers and other ECM the missile is capable of tracking the sensor noise created by active jammers to obfuscate traditional missile systems. Shooting against such targets is once again less than reliable and so the missile is designed to attempt to locate the center of emissions and detonate destroying the target. Larger jamming fields thus reduce the ability of the missile to lock on by giving it a larger area target with a smaller effective target.

As the ASM is a semi-active or passive missile system it is a fire and forget weapon. As such an enemy vehicle or station may turn off it’s ECM, scanners, shields, and communications temporarily and simply move avoiding the missile entirely. Even this, however is still a partial win as it takes the enemy out of the fight for at least a short time.


Primary Source:

 

[Gir Quee]

RESEARCH REVIEW
-----
Star Wars Canon:
Pending initial review
------
Starwars Chaos:
Pending initial review
------
WITHOUT DEV THREADS
Pending initial review
------
WITH DEV THREADS
Pending Initial review
------
SUGGESTIONS
Pending Inital review

 

[Gir Quee]

I'll admit, I'm kind of surprised that no-one else has made an anti radiation guidance system for a warhead yet; it's a good idea.

High yield - Because of the weapon systems design for attacking aircraft and other active sensors the missile has a high yield to create a larger area of effect than standard missiles.

In order to compensate for the enemy's ability to move the missile system has a large blast radius.

How much of a larger blast radius is this compared to a standard proton torpedo (this can be a rough estimate)? Is this something that does more damage than a standard proton torpedo?

The ASM-41 is a missile designed to detect and home in on an enemy emission sources.

How does the missile react to enemy emission sources that change?

As an example, the classic X-wing has the Screamer Active Jammer which doesn't use brute jamming but rather disguises ion drive emissions.

 

[Sasha Santhe]

[member="Gir Quee"]

edited in a blast radius. I said double a proton torpedo with same relative damage for a direct hit and damage dropoff the further you get from the blast. That's still going to destroy any fighter with a near hit but if it whiffs it isn't a "sonic charge" level of derp that destroys entire squadrons.

Onto meat and potatoes. The particular device you listed changes the ion trail. the Ion trail is like the Star Wars version of infrared signature on a jet which means in that regards it wouldn't effect it. This picks up energy and signal emissions of engine emissions. In addition "it was also capable of interfering with the homing computers aboard concussion missiles and proton torpedoes,[2] but was not powerful enough to jam military-grade sensors." makes it a pretty standard active jammer so the section in the above would be relevant. So the missile would still be able to lock on, but it would be less effective at doing so as is already written in the article. To help avoid this confusion in the future I edited it so say "energy emissions" in the article. Even though that isn't technically correct for Star Wars it's the best possible generic term to use.

Basically though it locks onto shields, active sensors, jammers (which are active by default. That's what a jammer is), and active communications (which would be more of a vehicle on the ground / air defense communicating in a C&C network than a fighter thing).

Alright so given how jammers and other countermeasures try to work against missiles in Star Wars plus the Guide to Warefare it's pretty clear (and even explicitly said the later sources) that standard missiles systems are both active and infrared. This means that they use a lock on from a fighters sensors to guide a missile in until jammer becomes a problem and them limited infrared clicks in. This is why Chaff (attempts to break active lock) and flares (break infrared) can both help in preventing a generic star wars missile attack.

Neither of those would be effective here.

Okay so I thought it was pretty obvious but here it is. You detect a missile incoming but there is no lock. It is detected by your sensors. It's pretty slow so unless it fired close as you flew overhead or was from a fighter on your tail you can react. Could be a few different types of missiles without a lock, IR, Laser Guided, or ASM (ARM). You identify the missile as an ASM-41 and you shut down your active systems. Jamming goes down along with shields, coms, and sensors, everything goes quiet. The missile still knows where you were going so you need to course correct before it intercepts last known location and course. Missile flies by. You turn things back on. That's pretty much how this goes. Obviously in the heat of battle it can be much more complicated than that, and timing matters otherwise the missile can just reacquire, but that's the gist of how to defeat this weapon system. Also remember these are fairly slow moving. Worse comes to worse you can attempt to dodge it last second which is how they do it most of the time in Star Wars anyways.

 

[Gir Quee]

The particular device you listed changes the ion trail. the Ion trail is like the Star Wars version of infrared signature on a jet which means in that regards it wouldn't effect it.

Emissions is a pretty broad term. I haven't see anywhere specifically that the states it only effects an ion trail, though if you have a specific source that states that, I would be interested in seeing that for my own education.

This picks up energy and signal emissions of engine emissions. In addition "it was also capable of interfering with the homing computers aboard concussion missiles and proton torpedoes,[2] but was not powerful enough to jam military-grade sensors." makes it a pretty standard active jammer so the section in the above would be relevant.

But at the same time, it is capable of interfering with a Tie Fighter's sensor systems. I would argue that a starfighter's sensor systems are probably going to be more powerful than those of a starfighter-size warhead, though I think that both would probably pale in comparison to larger military sensors of larger vessels such as those of capital ships.

Alright so given how jammers and other countermeasures try to work against missiles in Star Wars plus the Guide to Warefare it's pretty clear (and even explicitly said the later sources) that standard missiles systems are both active and infrared.

Do you have a page number for that reference in The Essential Guide to Warfare? I did a cursory run through of the book looking for it, but I didn't see it. That being said, I have seen elements in Star Wars books that suggest this, but I haven't seen anything definitive yet.

To help avoid this confusion in the future I edited it so say "energy emissions" in the article. Even though that isn't technically correct for Star Wars it's the best possible generic term to use. Basically though it locks onto shields, active sensors, jammers (which are active by default. That's what a jammer is), and active communications (which would be more of a vehicle on the ground / air defense communicating in a C&C network than a fighter thing).

Basically, the guidance system sounds like it's a Dedicated energy receptor(DER) to me, and that's all good and kosher.

However, I am not certain that real life anti-radiation guidance translates so neatly into the Star Wars universe as this submission currently seems to posit to me.

I would agree that this would probably work reasonably well against brute force jamming (or essentially, most real life jamming). Some star wars sensor jammers appear to work on similar principles (namely full-spectrum distortion projector based devices), but for whatever reason, the authors who composed Star Wars lore were not very strict in their use of technical, real life terms. We do have devices that roughly classified as "sensor jammers" that do not appear to use brute-force/broad spectrum jamming or methods of producing emissions that can be easily tracked.

The main system that I see coming into play here is the dedicated energy receptor projector, which appears to be made as a countermeasure to DERs. While we do not have much information on how it works, it seems to me that it does not generate readings that can be tracked.

Then there are devices such as sensor masks, which appears to generate and manipulate sensor noise. If the missile is passively following a sensor reading that is already being subtly manipulated to deceive an enemy, I think there is a chance that a sensor mask could beat this missile's guidance system.

There are other "jamming" systems, both canon and Chaos canon, that broadly use similar principles in an attempt to prevent their host ships from being targeted.

This is all not to say that the ASM-41 couldn't beat such systems, but if that is the case, I do think this needs a logical explanation as to how it beats these countermeasures which do not use broad spectrum jamming. Alternatively, I would recommend changing the jamming referenced in the submission as tracking "brute-force sensor jamming" or something similar.

Time on target - Because of the tracking equipment and high yield allowing for larger area of effect the missiles travels slightly slower than a proton Torpedo

Also remember these are fairly slow moving.

I get the feeling that we are both old X-wing series computer game players, where proton torpedoes are noted for being slow. Not all canon sources agree with that depiction though. For those writers who are not familiar with that specific conceptualization of a proton torpedo's flight performance, I would probably make the "Time on Target" weakness a bit more generic, like "fairly slow moving compared to most starfighter-grade warheads" or something similar.

 

[Sasha Santhe]

You know it's funny about the X-wing series thing because I loved those games but that isn't the reason I mentioned them being slower than Torpedoes. I mentioned them being slower than torpedoes because they were designed to be compatible with torpedo launchers. So I wanted to get the point across that they are high yield with a larger blast radius and a guidance system that could be argued is more advanced (I could and would argue tthe other way as well) and needed a balancing act. Anyways I made an edit that I hope will clear that up while still paying homage to the fact they were designed around a Torpedo for use in a standard torpedo tube.

Now onto the meat and potatos. I feel like I did a poor job explaining this the first time around. Partly because I keep doing this when I wake up in the morning and everyone who knows me can tell you I'm a horrible morning person. Today I put my coffee in the fridge and walked off with the milk jug to the table. I am NOT a morning person. That being said this is when I know I have time to post so I'm going to try to be clearer.

First Issue, Sensor Mask.

The Sensor Mask is a stealth system not a Jammer by definitions I could find. Like they work on two very different principals despite their similar nature. One is actively trying to fight an enemy system the other is passive trying to go undetected. I never said this could hit stealth systems, that isn't my intent here. That being said if shields were on there is still a chance this weapon could lock on. Imagine it like a nose that sniffs out those things. Using that same analogy Jammers would be like trying to hide your fighters smell with more overpowering smell so the thing still homes in on it and since that big smell moves with you it gets an idea of the target but it isn't perfect. A sensor mask would then be an item that manipulates the environment to stay upwind. If that makes any sense.

Now to defend my "this may still hit" comment. "The device wasn't foolproof however, visually the ship could still be seen, and extreme emissions from within the ship itself (and thus within the sensor mask) were capable of being detected despite the mask." So exactly what this is designed to detect and home in on can still be detected. So I imagine this would pick those things up in the form of an active attempt to lock on or scan, shields, or communications traffic which can be tracked back to stealth ships (That's why only Jedi could use Stealth X's in canon They didn't need coms to talk).

All of that being said I'd like say that I do see your point though and added in the term "active jammers" to the article. Like the definition of a jammer in my opinion precludes a stealth system, in my mind they are very different, but after looking things up I can see your point and I get where people would get confused or have another definition in mind when it comes to Star Wars tech.

I would like to address the wording on DERP though. Because it says ping I'd argue that it only works against an active sensor attempting an active lock. I'll get back to that in a second but if I'm right in that regards it works pretty much the same way as this missile does to detect things only it then throws out false signals instead of homing to the source. That would also explain why A-wings aren't stealth and why the DERP is on an Anti-missile ECM suite. The Article plus the one it's attached to, the 4x Phantom, both use qualifiers of "most" when it comes to enemy sensors. Since it's parent article is a device designed to stop missile lock one can infer it's talking about that type of sensor. Once again otherwise the A-wing is stealth and given source material like scores of books and games and even the newer TV series Rebels, that isn't true. So yeah I'd argue that it doesn't effect this type of missile which doesn't use an active lock like that unless your ruling is that it's a stealth system.

So basically lets put it this way. This missile can't hit a stealth ship, or even a normal ship running silent as it has no active lock it's just following a trail. What it can do it home in on certain things like shield emissions, communications, and active sensors and Jammers. So stealth ships with shields on generally can show up on sensors like MAD's and other things like that. Communication and active scanning, like attempting to lock on with missiles, can all be traced back to the source. Jamming in a traditional sense can be traced to a centralized area of effect. So basically if you Dev'd stealth, turn off your shields and maintain radio silence while not using active sensors to scan and lock onto stuff this can't hit you.

There is enough built-in weaknesses to this (otherwise why don't we use nothing but these in real life) that yeah I don't think it is an unreasonable submission.



So just an aside. Stealth is complicated, and ECM stuff is complicated. In the article itself I was and still am trying to make this as simple as possible so anyone can pick this up and use it without reading entire articles or hell without even reading all of our commentary. I also don't want to have an article that is pages long and create a tldr effect. If you have any suggestions to fit our conversations in (assuming you agree with my above sentiments) I'm all ears.

 

[Gir Quee]

Anyways I made an edit that I hope will clear that up while still paying homage to the fact they were designed around a Torpedo for use in a standard torpedo tube.

I could have missed something, but what is that edit? I'd prefer for people to look at the submission directly and see that it is "fairly slow moving " as you said rather than dig through our conversations.

All of that being said I'd like say that I do see your point though and added in the term "active jammers" to the article. Like the definition of a jammer in my opinion precludes a stealth system, in my mind they are very different, but after looking things up I can see your point and I get where people would get confused or have another definition in mind when it comes to Star Wars tech.

More or less, I think that we're broadly on the same page when it comes to the jamming then, but we disagree on the phrasing, or rather the assumptions that the phrasing brings.

ECM and jamming are admittedly complicated things, and many writers here have differing ideas about stealth and ECM. From that perspective, I do appreciate that you're trying to streamline things, but I think we should take into account the diverse opinions of these technologies and their viewpoints from not only a canon perspective, but also a community perspective. Because there is such a diversity of opinions in this area, I prefer this to be specific about its method of operation to prevent future arguments.

I would prefer "active jammers" to be replaced with the aforementioned "brute force sensor jamming". I think that some forms of active jamming are "steathly" in a sense, broadly comparable to real life "digital radio frequency memory jamming" and several other techniques that focus not on overwhelming a sensor with signal noise, but rather on misdirection. They fall into the unusual spot of being active jamming techniques, but also understandably being viewed as stealth technology by some people as well. Star Wars has these equivalents.


The sensor mask is one area where I would agree that it is more stealth than a sensor jamming, though the method of operation is very similar to something that is listed as a sensor jammer by Wookieepedia: the Tranquility System.

The DERP (dedicated energy receptor projector) is another device that blurs the lines. These is why I feel the need for this submission to specifically address how it deals with interpreting sensor signals if the " active jammers" is going to be used rather than "brute force jamming".

I would like to address the wording on DERP though. Because it says ping I'd argue that it only works against an active sensor attempting an active lock. I'll get back to that in a second but if I'm right in that regards it works pretty much the same way as this missile does to detect things only it then throws out false signals instead of homing to the source. That would also explain why A-wings aren't stealth and why the DERP is on an Anti-missile ECM suite. The Article plus the one it's attached to, the 4x Phantom, both use qualifiers of "most" when it comes to enemy sensors. Since it's parent article is a device designed to stop missile lock one can infer it's talking about that type of sensor. Once again otherwise the A-wing is stealth and given source material like scores of books and games and even the newer TV series Rebels, that isn't true. So yeah I'd argue that it doesn't effect this type of missile which doesn't use an active lock like that unless your ruling is that it's a stealth system.

The 4-x Jammer has a number of components, including not only a DERP, but also a Full spectrum distortion projector. Without a doubt the full spectrum distortion projector is not stealthy at all and easily correlates to a real life radar jammer. Incidentally, its associated sensor type, the full spectrum transceiver, is known for having the classic radar "dish" as well. So really, when we're looking at the 4-x jammer, we're looking at least two different kinds of sensor jamming devices. One which this missile would easily track, the full spectrum distortion projector, and one which I'm not so certain about, the dedicated energy receptor projector. Most depictions of the A-wing's jammer seem to focus on the full-spectrum distortion projector of the 4-x.

The "pinging" that you bring up is a valid point, but I do not necessarily think that that alone unseats the argument that a DERP would be ineffective against that device. So I'm going to quote the most detailed set of information I can find on DER technology that I know of. You can find this on pages 9-10 in the Star Wars Sourcebook, 2nd Edition:

Dedicated energy receptors (DERs):
DERs detect any electromagnetic emission within range of the sensor array, including comlink transmissions, navigational beacons, heat, laser light, and similar emissions. The DER's accuracy is determined by the skill of the operator, whether person or computer: as DERs collect all energy emissions, sorting out the important information from useless data is crucial. A poor operator could mistakenly identify a stray cosmic ray as a brief enemy communication signal; an expert operator may filter through a screen of static to uncover the signature of a ship trying to sneak by. DERs are the primary passive sensor device in military sensor arrays.

I would like to emphasize the need for a DER to filter through all the data, as well as the ability to interpret the data. Torpedo spheres actually have dedicated DER targeting rooms to accomplish this task. It's notable that the process used by torpedo spheres is active rather than passive. My guess is that while DERs can be used to gather information passively, if you're looking for one particular thing in an area filled with many signals(such as a battlefield), that they are using an active mode. This is probably why the DER entry page also has this note:

A DER concentrated its scanning in a narrow, focused beam and is intended to gather detailed, specific information on a previously detected target.

This probably correlates to the "semi active" mode listed in the submission. I think that the DERP would be effective against this mode.

 

[Sasha Santhe]

[member="Gir Quee"]

This isn't a DER. I never said it was a DER. You did. Please don't put your assumptions into my article. This is a Star Wars version of a ARM. The concept is a simple ARM.

That being said okay this was a me problem. There is two types of Jamming. There is Active Jamming. Which is all I've ever been talking about. And then there is Deception Jamming, sometimes called Active Deception Jamming. This only homes in on the former and any form of the later that sends out emissions. I never said it worked on the later. I even changed it to the correct terminology in the article to emphasize this fact. So now to further emphasize this I've added in the correct term for what it doesn't home in on in the weaknesses section.

Anyways I hope those edits make things clearer.

Spoiler

 

[Gir Quee]

Awesome. Pending Admin Approval. Thanks! [member="Spencer Varanin"]

 

[Allyson Locke]

Approved.