[Abwehran] Sturm ECM

Ok, need some details

a) how many missiles does a launcher hold.
b) what is the ROF
c) how many missiles does it take to 'mimic' a particular class ship?
d) how are the missiles synchronized/controlled, do they work in tandem with each other or controlled by the launching ship's computer

Okay, you do realize that the thermal aspects of this need some way to maintain the temp, other wise the metal will quickly cool down, or heat up based on solar radiation. Also the thermal image will not be able to create a fake engine signature, so its limited in usefullness against a pursuing enemy.

Made necessary edits for A B and C. Thermal aspect given a countdown for space.

Item D doesn't matter, since the ship's targeting computer chooses a point to fire off the ECM and forgets about it. It doesn't 'home' in on a target.

Actually you mis-understood.

D does matter. If you are launching for example 6 missiles so that they can create a decoy to conform to the ship that launched it. Something has to guide the missiles, because you need the missiles to deploy to specific points and then detonate, so, the question remains, are the missiles programmed then launched, or does the launching ship control them and signal the detonation when they get to their designated positions..

Programmed.

Fixed.

This review is for: Sturm Electronic Countermeasure

The submitted article is/has…
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[na] Artwork (illustrations are required for Starships, Vehicles, Hand weapons or Small Arms, Uniforms for military forces or large corporations and new alien species not from the race of the day CCG)
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[x] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[x] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[x] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[x] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[x] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[x] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[x] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[x] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[x] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[x] Lacking Detail
[x] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[na] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[x] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[x] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[x] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.


Summary
Note here if any serious issues are present. These are the issues that will hold up approval.
** Short description of the issue. If a longer explanation is needed, put it in Notes.

Status: Approved.

Notes
This field is for any extra description needed for the issues stated above or (as the name suggests) and additional notes you wish to state in the record regarding the item.

I intend to finish this review by: Complete