Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 48 guests

Forts & Energy Weapons

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by cthia   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:04 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

I didn't realize that the Forts themselves have no energy weapons but rely on being protected by laser platforms.

Basilisk Station wrote:The smallest fortress out there massed close to sixteen million tons, twice as much as a superdreadnought, and its weapons-to-mass ratio was far higher. The forts weren't hyper-capable, for they used mass a warship might have devoted to its hyper generators and Warshawski sails to pack in still more firepower, but they were far more than immobile weapon platforms. They had to be.

Each of those forts maintained a stand-by battle watch and a 360° sidewall "bubble" at all times, but no one at this end of the Junction could know anyone was coming through it until they arrived, and no one could remain eternally vigilant. Thus a sneak attack—from, say, Trevor's Star—would always have the advantage of surprise; the attacker would arrive ready for battle, already seeking out targets for his weapons, while the defenders were still reacting to his arrival in their midst.

That was why no defensive planner placed his permanent defenses closer than a half million kilometers or so to a junction. If a hostile task force emerged within energy weapon range of the defenses, those defenses would be destroyed before they could reply, but ships transiting a wormhole junction arrived with a normal-space velocity of barely a few dozen kilometers per second, far too little for a high-speed attack run. With the closest forts so far from him and too little speed for a quick run-in to energy weapon range, any attacker must rely on missiles, and even impeller-drive missiles would require almost thirty-five seconds to reach them. Thus the forts' duty watches—in theory, at least—had time to reach full readiness while the weapons accelerated towards them. In practice, Honor suspected, most of them would still be coming on-line when the missiles arrived, which was why their point defense (unlike their offensive weaponry) was designed for emergency computer override even in peacetime.

In time of war, the forts would be augmented by thickly seeded remote laser platforms—old-fashioned, bomb-pumped laser satellites—much closer in and programmed to automatically engage anything not positively identified as friendly, but such measures were never used in peacetime. Accidents could always happen, and the accidental destruction of a passenger liner whose IFF wasn't recognized could be embarrassing, to say the very least. An attacker would still have sufficient surprise advantage for his energy batteries to kill a lot of satellites before they could respond, but enough of them would survive to handle him very roughly indeed.

Nonetheless, heavy losses could be anticipated in the inner fortress ring under the best possible circumstances, so the "forts" in the outer rings had to be able to move to fill in the gaps and mass upon an attacker. Their maximum acceleration rates were low, well under a hundred gravities, but their initial positions had been very carefully planned. Their acceleration would be enough to intercept attacking forces headed in-system, and their engines were sufficiently powerful to generate impeller wedges and sidewalls to protect them.

What happens when a Fort shoots itself dry but has to leave the protection of the shell of platforms, like a quarterback being forced out of the pocket with no protection?

Scenario: A heated battle which sees an attacker shot dry and the Fort's missiles shot dry and the Fort is left to fend for itself. Without missiles and away from the protection of the laser platforms a Fort is helpless against a ship closing to energy range?

Can a Fort be augmented with the new platforms Shannon came up with to utilize salvaged SLN grasers? With these grasers a Fort can possibly swashbuckle its way out of a knife fight.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by cthia   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:11 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

And in peace time, like now, there's not even a shell of laser platforms. Shouldn't they at least remain in peace time as well, but inactivated?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by Annachie   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:40 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

cthia wrote:And in peace time, like now, there's not even a shell of laser platforms. Shouldn't they at least remain in peace time as well, but inactivated?
Probably something to do with maintenance costs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by noblehunter   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:48 pm

noblehunter
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:49 pm

I don't think it's a scenario worth worrying about. Given how short the flight times are, I think one side or the other (probably the attacker) would get blown up before they had a chance to shoot through all their missiles.

I know it's been said that a wormhole assault might be impossible given current tech. Transiting one-by-one would be a massacre but a single mass transit would be obliterated by missile pods.
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:24 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8793
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

That says the energy platforms augment the fort's weapons. Nothing says these forts doesn't mount energy weapons of their own - just that if an alert enemy appears withing energy range that the forts would likely die before their crews could react.

That's why the forts hang back so that they aren't withing onboard energy range of the terminus. Stick expendable energy mounts that close and keep the fort and its missiles (and I assume energy mounts) back out of range the enemy can reach.





Though in this first book I don't think RFC had fully explored the implications of his tech in this respect. Later on he makes clear that ships transiting wormholes can't raise normal sidewalls. And elsewhere points out that while energy range against an intact sidewall doesn't exceed 500,000 km that energy range against a target without sidewalls can be up to 1,000,000 km.

I'd expect at least any forts not down for maintenance cycles, or in motion, to have their bubble sidewalls up. That means if they were hanging back at, say 750,000 km from the closest exit lane that they should be immune to energy fire from attackers while able to inflict crippling energy fire of their own on the leading hammerhead and nodes (past that, unless the ship turns broadsides, the sail would block fire in either direction). Plus of course they can fire in missiles and until they clear the grav shear of the exit lane the enemy can't successfully fire missiles or CMs. Later books, taken together, seem to show it should be a total bloodbath to attempt to force though a defended wormhole!
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by cthia   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:00 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Jonathan_S wrote:That says the energy platforms augment the fort's weapons. Nothing says these forts doesn't mount energy weapons of their own - just that if an alert enemy appears withing energy range that the forts would likely die before their crews could react.

That's why the forts hang back so that they aren't withing onboard energy range of the terminus. Stick expendable energy mounts that close and keep the fort and its missiles (and I assume energy mounts) back out of range the enemy can reach.





Though in this first book I don't think RFC had fully explored the implications of his tech in this respect. Later on he makes clear that ships transiting wormholes can't raise normal sidewalls. And elsewhere points out that while energy range against an intact sidewall doesn't exceed 500,000 km that energy range against a target without sidewalls can be up to 1,000,000 km.

I'd expect at least any forts not down for maintenance cycles, or in motion, to have their bubble sidewalls up. That means if they were hanging back at, say 750,000 km from the closest exit lane that they should be immune to energy fire from attackers while able to inflict crippling energy fire of their own on the leading hammerhead and nodes (past that, unless the ship turns broadsides, the sail would block fire in either direction). Plus of course they can fire in missiles and until they clear the grav shear of the exit lane the enemy can't successfully fire missiles or CMs. Later books, taken together, seem to show it should be a total bloodbath to attempt to force though a defended wormhole!

Good eye Jonathan. I certainly may have jumped to unwarranted conclusions rereading the passage. But I can't find anything about a Fort's energy weapons. The reason I was so quick to believe Forts have no energy weapons is to fit more missiles. IINM, I understand that Forts are so much more heavily armed with missiles than an SD(P) yet aren't much larger than an SD(P), and an SD(P) already uses IINM ~ 75 % of its volume for offensive weapons? Which doesn't seem to leave much more room to make up for that many more missiles. Well, unless I'm also mistaken about the missile loadout of a Fort -- which I always pictured as being equivalent to at least 2 - 3 SD(P).

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by cthia   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:07 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Annachie wrote:
cthia wrote:And in peace time, like now, there's not even a shell of laser platforms. Shouldn't they at least remain in peace time as well, but inactivated?
Probably something to do with maintenance costs.

I considered that, but thought maintenance costs would be drastically reduced if not active. I'm certain I'm wrong, but that was my thought.

How are laser platforms kept on station?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by cthia   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:19 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

noblehunter wrote:I don't think it's a scenario worth worrying about. Given how short the flight times are, I think one side or the other (probably the attacker) would get blown up before they had a chance to shoot through all their missiles.

I know it's been said that a wormhole assault might be impossible given current tech. Transiting one-by-one would be a massacre but a single mass transit would be obliterated by missile pods.

Well, until it is worth worrying about, to the men — unlikely to be but somehow are — put in the hot seat . . .

"Man, I sure wish we had energy weapons right about now. We're about to be taken out by a phucking Malign Destroyer."

I got a feeling the MA is going to change tactical doctrine as drastically as the BOM changed the threat environment of missile combat. At any rate, it seems as odd and ironic for Forts not to have energy weapons (if they don't) as missile colliers chock-full of missiles that couldn't fire. Hooray!, Charles Ward.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by cthia   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:35 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

cthia wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:That says the energy platforms augment the fort's weapons. Nothing says these forts doesn't mount energy weapons of their own - just that if an alert enemy appears withing energy range that the forts would likely die before their crews could react.

That's why the forts hang back so that they aren't withing onboard energy range of the terminus. Stick expendable energy mounts that close and keep the fort and its missiles (and I assume energy mounts) back out of range the enemy can reach.





Though in this first book I don't think RFC had fully explored the implications of his tech in this respect. Later on he makes clear that ships transiting wormholes can't raise normal sidewalls. And elsewhere points out that while energy range against an intact sidewall doesn't exceed 500,000 km that energy range against a target without sidewalls can be up to 1,000,000 km.

I'd expect at least any forts not down for maintenance cycles, or in motion, to have their bubble sidewalls up. That means if they were hanging back at, say 750,000 km from the closest exit lane that they should be immune to energy fire from attackers while able to inflict crippling energy fire of their own on the leading hammerhead and nodes (past that, unless the ship turns broadsides, the sail would block fire in either direction). Plus of course they can fire in missiles and until they clear the grav shear of the exit lane the enemy can't successfully fire missiles or CMs. Later books, taken together, seem to show it should be a total bloodbath to attempt to force though a defended wormhole!

Good eye Jonathan. I certainly may have jumped to unwarranted conclusions rereading the passage. But I can't find anything about a Fort's energy weapons. The reason I was so quick to believe Forts have no energy weapons is to fit more missiles. IINM, I understand that Forts are so much more heavily armed with missiles than an SD(P) yet aren't much larger than an SD(P), and an SD(P) already uses IINM ~ 75 % of its volume for offensive weapons? Which doesn't seem to leave much more room to make up for that many more missiles. Well, unless I'm also mistaken about the missile loadout of a Fort -- which I always pictured as being equivalent to at least 2 - 3 SD(P).


Wait-a-minute!

::scratches head and arse::

Forts should have been carrying 2 - 3 times the missiles of an SD. SD(P) should have closed the gap, no? So, an SD(P) has damn near the missile loadout of a fort?

::scratches head/arse again::

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Forts & Energy Weapons
Post by Annachie   » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:59 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

cthia wrote:
Annachie wrote:[quote="cthia"]And in peace time, like now, there's not even a shell of laser platforms. Shouldn't they at least remain in peace time as well, but inactivated?
Probably something to do with maintenance costs.

I considered that, but thought maintenance costs would be drastically reduced if not active. I'm certain I'm wrong, but that was my thought.

How are laser platforms kept on station?[/quote]You'd think standard station keeping thrusters.
Which means refueling.

Do you think the maintenance ships will be heavily stealthed. Also applies to maintenance ships for missile pods in system defence roles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top

Return to Honorverse