Core world vulnerability

JohnRoth wrote:
Let's look at this thing about forts for a moment. RFC has, in fact, talked about forts a bit in the books. There are three tactical environments to consider.

The first is pre laser-head missile. A fort in that environment is a super-duper super-dreadnaught (SDSD) that has no hyper capability, but has a gazillion energy weapon mounts, a gorilla-level spherical sidewall, at least some missile offense and lots of auto-cannon defenses.

This is a perfectly reasonable defensive emplacement for something you can't afford to lose and which you expect to be attacked, such as a hyper terminus.

In a laser-head SDM missile environment, that kind of fort is simply a very expensive target, which was one of the few things that the Janacek admiralty got right. Upgrading the forts for the new environment probably means new construction.

In the long-range MDM with grav-pulse communication environments, those forts are even more expensive targets. If you look at the tactical description of Manticore II, you'll see that a fort simply isn't something you want to get stuck with. Manticore's ops plan depended on lots of small units (LACs) with good anti-missile weapons thinning out missile attacks before they even got into anti-missile range of the core SDs. KZT just posted another take on it that comes to the same conclusion.

So no, I don't think there are a lot of systems that have invested in forts, and the ones that have are probably reconsidering their defensive strategies. Or they've got their heads in the sand, which leaves their posterior positioned for you know what.

JohnRoth wrote:

Theemile wrote:
...

But that doesn't say anything about defenses.

In particuliar RFC never mentioned forts in the above calculus. While Manticore had ~300 DNs and SDs in 1905, it had ~120 forts around the Manticore junction which all massed >16 MTons (or if you do the math, about the same mass in Wallers as in Junction Forts, if the Forts did not have the advantage) as well as Forts around the planets, the Gregor terminus (mentioned in HaE) and being built at Basilisk.

In short, the RMN, an active navy who policed it own merchant marine across the cosmos, who was planning on a multisystem war had as much mass tied up in forts as it did mobile units.

So a peacetime SDF, whose interstellar commerce is protected by the SLN's FF, only needs to police their claimed volume - and will probably be Fort heavy. Forts are a permanent fixture - an infrastructure improvement. something Politicians can point to. Ships go away - they are an agressive statement, with agressive intent. Forts are only defensive - they are that ever present reminder that your children are safe and your government cares that they are.

...

Let's look at this thing about forts for a moment. RFC has, in fact, talked about forts a bit in the books. There are three tactical environments to consider.

The first is pre laser-head missile. A fort in that environment is a super-duper super-dreadnaught (SDSD) that has no hyper capability, but has a gazillion energy weapon mounts, a gorilla-level spherical sidewall, at least some missile offense and lots of auto-cannon defenses.

This is a perfectly reasonable defensive emplacement for something you can't afford to lose and which you expect to be attacked, such as a hyper terminus.

In a laser-head SDM missile environment, that kind of fort is simply a very expensive target, which was one of the few things that the Janacek admiralty got right. Upgrading the forts for the new environment probably means new construction.

In the long-range MDM with grav-pulse communication environments, those forts are even more expensive targets. If you look at the tactical description of Manticore II, you'll see that a fort simply isn't something you want to get stuck with. Manticore's ops plan depended on lots of small units (LACs) with good anti-missile weapons thinning out missile attacks before they even got into anti-missile range of the core SDs. KZT just posted another take on it that comes to the same conclusion.

So no, I don't think there are a lot of systems that have invested in forts, and the ones that have are probably reconsidering their defensive strategies. Or they've got their heads in the sand, which leaves their posterior positioned for you know what.

Scuffles wrote:I think this is overly pessimistic for forts, at least in the terms of this particular discussion. Laser heads aren't new enough that you can expect core world forts to not have them, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a current generation fort has a larger missile 'broadside' and more point defense than a current generation Sollie SD.

Additionally, Sollie ships have really small salvo sizes. There's pretty much no chance that even a Sollie SD can throw enough missiles to kill a fort one on one and there's absolutely no chance that anything less than SD size can. So if we're talking multiple SDs we're well past the level of casually raiding core worlds - only the actually wealthy worlds are going to be able to muster that level of force to raid with.

Theemile wrote:

hanuman wrote:I read in one of the books (beats me which one, though) that most of the Core Worlds have their own system defence forces.

It's unlikely, to say the least, that enough pirates would ever band together to threaten a system whose SDF consists of more than frigates.

What is very likely to happen once the League falls apart, is that some of its former member systems might decide to engage in a bit of empire-building of their own. THAT is what Barregos and Rozsak were afraid of when they originally started their conspiracy.

While most core worlds have their own SDFs, the question is how many have just a hundred or so LACS, or just some hyper combatants?

We know there are 25 or so navies (the top 1%) that have 25 or more BB-SDs. Another 25 or so have 3-24. And another 50 have 1-2 white elephants. So just ~4% of navies in the universe have 1 or more BB-SDs.

But that doesn't say anything about defenses.

In particuliar RFC never mentioned forts in the above calculus. While Manticore had ~300 DNs and SDs in 1905, it had ~120 forts around the Manticore junction which all massed >16 MTons (or if you do the math, about the same mass in Wallers as in Junction Forts, if the Forts did not have the advantage) as well as Forts around the planets, the Gregor terminus (mentioned in HaE) and being built at Basilisk.

In short, the RMN, an active navy who policed it own merchant marine across the cosmos, who was planning on a multisystem war had as much mass tied up in forts as it did mobile units.

So a peacetime SDF, whose interstellar commerce is protected by the SLN's FF, only needs to police their claimed volume - and will probably be Fort heavy. Forts are a permanent fixture - an infrastructure improvement. something Politicians can point to. Ships go away - they are an agressive statement, with agressive intent. Forts are only defensive - they are that ever present reminder that your children are safe and your government cares that they are.

As to the mention that the breakway systems will lay claim to part of the SLN - if every of the ~1780 SL Systems get their equal share of the SL's Battlefleet right now, they will each get 5-6 SDs - just enough for a mild workout for a Sag-C division.

lyonheart wrote:Hi TheEmile,

What's the basis for your reference to '25 SDF's with 25 or more capital ships'?

Is this a 1% of SL rule?

That's rather fascinating, actually.

But I don't think the protectorates should be included, since they're not permitted warships etc.

We have the textev from SFtS that stated Crandall's TG massed more than 95% of the extant or real navies [including the non-SL verge], is that what you're referring to?

So it depends on your definition of a 'real' navy, and given only a third of the SL had hyper warships in their SDF's, many perhaps half or more of those have too few to be considered 'real' navies.

The number in SFtS might refer to all those that at least had a BC or CA, but we're just guessing.

The 1% ratio seems very interesting.

L

Theemile wrote:While most core worlds have their own SDFs, the question is how many have just a hundred or so LACS, or just some hyper combatants?

We know there are 25 or so navies (the top 1%) that have 25 or more BB-SDs. Another 25 or so have 3-24. And another 50 have 1-2 white elephants. So just ~4% of navies in the universe have 1 or more BB-SDs.

But that doesn't say anything about defenses.

In particuliar RFC never mentioned forts in the above calculus. While Manticore had ~300 DNs and SDs in 1905, it had ~120 forts around the Manticore junction which all massed >16 MTons (or if you do the math, about the same mass in Wallers as in Junction Forts, if the Forts did not have the advantage) as well as Forts around the planets, the Gregor terminus (mentioned in HaE) and being built at Basilisk.

In short, the RMN, an active navy who policed it own merchant marine across the cosmos, who was planning on a multisystem war had as much mass tied up in forts as it did mobile units.

So a peacetime SDF, whose interstellar commerce is protected by the SLN's FF, only needs to police their claimed volume - and will probably be Fort heavy. Forts are a permanent fixture - an infrastructure improvement. something Politicians can point to. Ships go away - they are an agressive statement, with agressive intent. Forts are only defensive - they are that ever present reminder that your children are safe and your government cares that they are.

As to the mention that the breakway systems will lay claim to part of the SLN - if every of the ~1780 SL Systems get their equal share of the SL's Battlefleet right now, they will each get 5-6 SDs - just enough for a mild workout for a Sag-C division.

SYED wrote:There seem to be a cntradictory statement. Most of the league SDF are limited, except for a few that have a proper nacy like beowolf. On the other hand, the navy of sdf are said to be more advanced than the league.

SWM wrote:

SYED wrote:There seem to be a cntradictory statement. Most of the league SDF are limited, except for a few that have a proper nacy like beowolf. On the other hand, the navy of sdf are said to be more advanced than the league.

Not a contradiction. Most of the League SDFs are very limited in size and composition. But at least some (no one said all) League SDFs have paid more attention to the changes in warfare evident in the Haven Quadrant than has the SLN, and have done what they can to understand and make use of that information. How much they have been able to do (especially with the limited size of their navies) is not clear.