Fortress Command

Brigade XO wrote:Manticore knows the value of the Junction. We haven't seen any other areas with specific terminus fortification. Not clear if Mesa-Visigoth wormhile is fortified on either end though one might think that there is something at the Mesa end just because they have so many people who hate them.

JeffEngel wrote:SD's at the Junction aren't able to get to Manticore A or B in time to stop attackers short of any of the planets or belt installations. For that matter, SD's in Manticore A or B can't reach the other star system quickly enough for real satisfaction. Microjumps from A, B, or the Junction to one another can help, but often not enough. So you've got three regions there and only moderate ability for mobile forces to cover more than one effectively. The Junction hasn't got any hyperlimit to protect it to speak of, so maneuverability there is a non-issue, so fortresses there can provide it all the protection it can use.

It's not that secondary - it's the reason anyone attacks the Manticore System, and it's now the vital heart connecting the lobes of the Empire together - and the fortresses represent a huge economy in personnel that you're still not taking to heart.

JeffEngel wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:Manticore knows the value of the Junction. We haven't seen any other areas with specific terminus fortification. Not clear if Mesa-Visigoth wormhile is fortified on either end though one might think that there is something at the Mesa end just because they have so many people who hate them.

One of the posts Duckk linked early on from RFC states that junction and bridge termini are not normally covered by fortresses. The thinking seems to be that you pay for hyper-capability and serious maneuverability under wedge for everything but a very small, select class of very important targets, and even then you may be defending them with warships instead of fortresses if the star system gives a number of spots it's important to cover.

Systems with heavily populated, industrialized planets but not much in the way of (e.g.) asteroid work may be candidates for fortress-based self-defense, but given how routinely habitable planets in the Honorverse make important use of the rest of the system, that case is probably exceptional. The other class of exceptions will be specific planets that are politically very important - imperial capitals and maybe Mars.

Some League systems may have somewhat more than token SDF's consisting of old LAC's and some fortresses in orbit, and they will at least be able to give the finger to a FF destroyer demanding they keep paying the Mandarins illegal money for an illegal war. But chances are those fortresses are awfully, awfully dated and enough metal in Battle Fleet - if it can be spared - can bring that system back in line.

Theemile wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Someone asked why Beowulf would pay to support Junction
Forts after Manticore's planets fell to Haven.

All Termini of a Junction are effectively next to each
other. Therefore a Junction might be ruled from *any*
Terminus.
Especially the one with the strongest nearby Polity!

Beowulf might pay for those forts,
as a part of taking control of that Junction!

For that matter, once the Manticore-Beowulf Route was
found, Beowulf (then *very* much stronger) might have
turned Manticore into a vassal state at any time before
Manticore grew its navy larger than Beowulf's.


HTM

This also give more power to Janacheck's arguments in his rebuttal letters to Lt Cmdr Winton - as mentioned, The 25 capitol ships of the RMN (as antiquated as they were) were a powerful force in the galaxy and no none was directly threatening them ... then. In addition, however, there was a powerful force of Junction forts and inner system forts that greatly outnumbered (and was probably more modern than) the mobile RMN battle fleet, and those forts would actually be the main line of defense of the Star Kingdom, with the mobile force backing them.

This brings up something I've mentioned several times in the past, namely RFC has never mentioned the scarcity of Forts in the SL. We know at only a dozen or so SDFs have more than a squadron of the wall - but how many of these "single star polities" have powerful forces of forts? We know most only have LACs for mobile forces, but does that mean that their habitable areas are covered by dozens of 20 Mton forts?

Because let's face it - these are Self Defense Forces for essentially single system polities, with (in the form of the SLN) an umbrella body which provides piracy suppression and strategic retaliation forces. There is no need for hyper ships if you have no need to deploy them outside your hyper limit - which most SL members wouldn't due to the fine work of the FF and the existence of the BF.

So, what would a single system SDF need for a good defense? LACs for patrolling the system... and Forts to protect the strategic nodes.

And as I said - RFC have never mentioned the scarcity (or quantity) of Forts in the SL.

Makes you wonder what is in Beowulf orbit, doesn't it?

I believe I've expressed my views on this possibility in the past. To summarize, there already are non-hyper capable "warships" in the Honorverse; they're called fortresses. In certain very specific instances, it makes sense to have a defensive force which will be permanently assigned to cover especially valuable, fixed points within a star system or at a wormhole junction or terminus. For those points, Honorverse star nations build fortresses, which are actually (as I've said repeatedly) mobile units; they just aren't very mobile, and they don't have hyper-capability. Those units, however, are always regarded as highly specialized (which is why they are very carefully referred to as "fortresses" and not "ships"), and they are also almost always regarded as an unfortunate compromise between expense and what the admiralties in question would really prefer to have. No one is happy about tying up significant amounts of combat power in units which cannot possibly be deployed anywhere except in the star system in which they were built. The only case in which it might makes sense to build such units as a first choice would be in a single-star star nation, with only a single star system to defend. Even there, however, the tactical limitations imposed by an inability to enter hyper are severe. If the attacker knows you can't enter hyper, then he has the option of using feints with hyper-capable units to draw your sublight units into disadvantageous positions before he commits to the actual attack. For anyone with more than one star system to defend, or with the need to project military power across interstellar distances, however, a purely sublight unit is effectively a hole in space for him to dump money down. He wants units which he can deploy across interstellar distances in response to changing mission requirements and threats. He doesn't want units that he can't redeploy. That's one reason why LAC doctrine has developed the way it has. Essentially, those are sublight units which can be deployed across interstellar distances, but no one is going to build a larger non-hyper-capable warship if he has any other option at all.

boballab wrote:HTM

I believe I've expressed my views on this possibility in the past. To summarize, there already are non-hyper capable "warships" in the Honorverse; they're called fortresses. In certain very specific instances, it makes sense to have a defensive force which will be permanently assigned to cover especially valuable, fixed points within a star system or at a wormhole junction or terminus. For those points, Honorverse star nations build fortresses, which are actually (as I've said repeatedly) mobile units; they just aren't very mobile, and they don't have hyper-capability. Those units, however, are always regarded as highly specialized (which is why they are very carefully referred to as "fortresses" and not "ships"), and they are also almost always regarded as an unfortunate compromise between expense and what the admiralties in question would really prefer to have. No one is happy about tying up significant amounts of combat power in units which cannot possibly be deployed anywhere except in the star system in which they were built. The only case in which it might makes sense to build such units as a first choice would be in a single-star star nation, with only a single star system to defend. Even there, however, the tactical limitations imposed by an inability to enter hyper are severe. If the attacker knows you can't enter hyper, then he has the option of using feints with hyper-capable units to draw your sublight units into disadvantageous positions before he commits to the actual attack. For anyone with more than one star system to defend, or with the need to project military power across interstellar distances, however, a purely sublight unit is effectively a hole in space for him to dump money down. He wants units which he can deploy across interstellar distances in response to changing mission requirements and threats. He doesn't want units that he can't redeploy. That's one reason why LAC doctrine has developed the way it has. Essentially, those are sublight units which can be deployed across interstellar distances, but no one is going to build a larger non-hyper-capable warship if he has any other option at all.

boballab wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Some League systems may have somewhat more than token SDF's consisting of old LAC's and some fortresses in orbit, and they will at least be able to give the finger to a FF destroyer demanding they keep paying the Mandarins illegal money for an illegal war. But chances are those fortresses are awfully, awfully dated and enough metal in Battle Fleet - if it can be spared - can bring that system back in line.

Actually we know for a fact that more than one League system has more than token SDF's just from the books alone: Beowulf with at minimum 36 SD's (ART) and the Mannerheim SDF (Torch Of Freedom). The other thing to keep in mind is that the SDF's "know" more than the SLN about what is truly state of the art in war-fighting capability because they believed what their observers have been telling them about the SKM/Haven war and they have reacted accordingly. Then to top it off the way the SLN spends what resources it does have it ends up that the SDF's are actually more modern than the SLN as a whole.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/si ... gton/190/1

So a single SLN Destroyer wouldn't necessarily be able to bully around even the SDF's that are LAC only if that system breaks away from the League. What they have traditionally relied on is the conclusion of what happens when you do whack that destroyer: All those SD's and BC's show up and trash you. That is basically the setup for the battle of Farley's Crossing:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/si ... gton/203/1

JeffEngel wrote:Yes. I was speculating about some of the League members with smaller, weaker SDF's than those more serious SDF's. A SDF built with a very small number of fortresses in orbit and a scattering of LAC's would not be in that tier, but would be a plausible approach to take for the next tier down and would suffice to stand off token FF responses. With FF so overwhelmed and BF suffering significant losses in numbers and massive loss in prestige, that kind of SDF could support some secessionists fairly well. It still won't suffice in case BF shows up in force, of course, but there are only so many places it is going to be able to do that at a time and it's going to have to pray that neither a GA force nor a secessionist first tier SDF shows up to help protect the weaker secessionist target.

Theemile wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Yes. I was speculating about some of the League members with smaller, weaker SDF's than those more serious SDF's. A SDF built with a very small number of fortresses in orbit and a scattering of LAC's would not be in that tier, but would be a plausible approach to take for the next tier down and would suffice to stand off token FF responses. With FF so overwhelmed and BF suffering significant losses in numbers and massive loss in prestige, that kind of SDF could support some secessionists fairly well. It still won't suffice in case BF shows up in force, of course, but there are only so many places it is going to be able to do that at a time and it's going to have to pray that neither a GA force nor a secessionist first tier SDF shows up to help protect the weaker secessionist target.

Really , all you need is a quartet of 16 Mton forts at your planet and you should be able to stand off all but the most determined (and well equipped) forces, if you are following the 1800-1900 paradigm.

We know that only 12-15 SDFs have 8 or more wallers, and any fort is the equal to more than it's mass in SDs, so our quad of forts would require ~10 SDs just to reach combat parity (or ~12 DN sized Scientists). Since no one wants to fritter away it's combat power on one target, the assault force would need a greater than 2:1 combat power ratio to assure low causalities, so would require 20 SDs or more for the assault.

That probably knocks a few would be conquistadores off the list and makes everyone else (with that combat paradigm) have to try that much harder.

Theemile wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:
1 - And as I said - RFC have never mentioned the
scarcity (or quantity) of Forts in the SL.

2 - Makes you wonder what is in Beowulf orbit, doesn't it?