Remaining holes in SLN intel

Jonathan_S wrote:I do want to add the postscript that MDMs do give you one nice advantage over SDM carrying SD(P)s, even on the strategic defensive. The fact that you and bring them under fire from beyond their own missile range means that they can't pre-deploy pods for a massive alpha strike.

No, it they are the RMN they will wait until the enemy is well within their powered range so they can maximize the hit probability, just like BoM.

Loren Pechtel wrote:I don't think they could properly control that heavy a volley--the whole point of Apollo is precision control as it enters the defense zone. I think that means they're going to have to dedicate a channel per Apollo control missile. It's not like the old missiles where the lightspeed lag meant there was no point to second-by-second control anyway.

1) The "missile storm," "alpha strike," or whatever name you want to give overwhelming a targets defenses (with more missiles than the target has CMs and PDLCs combined) came long before even the Trojan-class AMCs. Additional control links and techniques for control of additional missiles are a priority in every ship built since the reintroduction of pods with aSVW.

2) Textev says that ONE Apollo capable SD(p) can control everything an SD(p) squadron can launch. (that basically means that Keyhole II can control 1/8 that many non-Apollo.)

3) The whole point of Apollo was extending effective control out to the full range of the MK-23. The Apollo Control Missile (ACM) exists because FTL control links can't be squeezed into each MDM. As a result, the ACM has room for a much more capable AI so it can control its brood of eight MK-23s without constant updates from the launching ship (or squadron.)

4) The ACM also serves as a "force multiplier" in that each pod only requires one channel so any ship (using the legacy light-speed links) can control eight times as many missiles as it has control links for. That is a serendipitous effect rather than a design goal, BTW.

5) As demonstrated at Saltash, neither Apollo nor pods are necessary to overwhelm SLN missile defenses. Dragon's Teeth and Dazzlers helped, but 200 MK16Gs would have been massive overkill for a SLN BC even without them.

kzt wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I do want to add the postscript that MDMs do give you one nice advantage over SDM carrying SD(P)s, even on the strategic defensive. The fact that you and bring them under fire from beyond their own missile range means that they can't pre-deploy pods for a massive alpha strike.

No, it they are the RMN they will wait until the enemy is well within their powered range so they can maximize the hit probability, just like BoM.

Yes I know you object to how RFC had the RMN fight the Battle of Manticore - but let's not get carried away. (Remember, the scenario is SDM equipped pod layers vs MDM tube based ships)

There's no way if you're sitting on a 65,000,000 miles powered range that you'd wait until the enemy was within 6-8 million km to maximize your hit percentage.

They could wait way later than they did at the historic BoM (IIRC they wanted to wait till 50 million km) and still open fire at two to three times the ~7 million km SDM range.

Jonathan_S wrote:

kzt wrote:I do want to add the postscript that MDMs do give you one nice advantage over SDM carrying SD(P)s, even on the strategic defensive. The fact that you and bring them under fire from beyond their own missile range means that they can't pre-deploy pods for a massive alpha strike.

No, it they are the RMN they will wait until the enemy is well within their powered range so they can maximize the hit probability, just like BoM.

Yes I know you object to how RFC had the RMN fight the Battle of Manticore - but let's not get carried away. (Remember, the scenario is SDM equipped pod layers vs MDM tube based ships)

There's no way if you're sitting on a 65,000,000 miles powered range that you'd wait until the enemy was within 6-8 million km to maximize your hit percentage.

They could wait way later than they did at the historic BoM (IIRC they wanted to wait till 50 million km) and still open fire at two to three times the ~7 million km SDM range.[/quote]

There are just so many tech advantages the Manties have. They can fire from longer distances with far more accuracy with even better distractors. And they have really good anti-missile defenses.

ldwechsler wrote:

There are just so many tech advantages the Manties have. They can fire from longer distances with far more accuracy with even better distractors. And they have really good anti-missile defenses.

... Realistic training simulations, actual combat experience, a nore realistic threat environment awareness to defeat thousands of missiles fired simultaneously instead of 35 to 40, ...

robert132 wrote:

cthia wrote:As an aside:

This prompted me to investigate the difference between the sizes of aircraft carriers of the world. Some nations must react towards the U.S. carriers as the SLN reacts to Manty BCs and SDs.
*SNIP*

São Paulo (A12), Brazil
São Paulo (A12) is the eighth biggest aircraft carrier, weighing more than 32,000t at full load. It is a Clemenceau-Class aircraft carrier currently operated by the Brazilian Navy. Originally commissioned by French Navy in 1963 as Foch (R99), the carrier was sold to Brazil in 2000.

The São Paulo can complement 1,920 crew, including 1,338 ship’s company and 582 Air Group crew. Its flight deck can accommodate 39 aircraft including fighters, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.

The armament aboard the ship includes SACP Crotale EDIR systems, Simbad launchers and naval guns for protection against surface and aerial threats. The six boilers generating 126,000shp make São Paulo one of the most powerful conventional aircraft carriers in operation. The propulsion system of the vessel provides a maximum speed of 32kt.

Just to update and not intending to start an argument, but São Paulo has been retired. The Brazilian Navy is replacing her with the former HMS Ocean, a 22,000 ton helicopter carrier.

She's being modified by BAE Systems Plc and Babcock International Group Plc, with the work funded by Brazil and at present is scheduled to join the Brazilian Navy in June.

The 50 year old São Paulo was formally retired in 2017, estimates of the amount of work necessary for her to continue in service were incredibly high in time and money. I think you could build a new carrier in the time and within the costs required for her overhaul. The Brazilians did right in putting this old lady out to pasture.

Thanks for the update, but... helicopter carriers? Are they effective except in very specialized, untraditional roles?

cthia wrote:Thanks for the update, but... helicopter carriers? Are they effective except in very specialized, untraditional roles?

I think the only role they'd lose is "air superiority." They'd gain awesome ASW capability as well as airlift.

Helicopter Carriers retain the A/G airstrike capability of a conventional carrier, if more oriented to CAS and tactical "air mobility" than strategic bombing. They are primarily ASW platforms, though. "Air Superiority" can be provided by SAM and AAA, but ASW isn't a strong point of fixed-wing acft.

Weird Harold wrote:

cthia wrote:Thanks for the update, but... helicopter carriers? Are they effective except in very specialized, untraditional roles?

I think the only role they'd lose is "air superiority." They'd gain awesome ASW capability as well as airlift.

Helicopter Carriers retain the A/G airstrike capability of a conventional carrier, if more oriented to CAS and tactical "air mobility" than strategic bombing. They are primarily ASW platforms, though. "Air Superiority" can be provided by SAM and AAA, but ASW isn't a strong point of fixed-wing acft.

And then you buy some F-35Bs to operate off them and you’ve got air to air capability as well. (Assuming you can find space for their ammo, spares, and maintenance activities). The other thing you do lose over a CATOBAR carrier is the ability to fly fixed wing AWACs. There are helicopter based systems, but they aren’t as far seeing or powerful as an E-2 Hawkeye, nor can they patrol for as long or as far from the carrier - so your long range raid detection is nowhere near as capable.

Still, the helicopter carriers mentioned are at least as large as a WWII fleet carrier - these aren’t small aviation ships.

Jonathan_S wrote:The other thing you do lose over a CATOBAR carrier is the ability to fly fixed wing AWACs. There are helicopter based systems, but they aren’t as far seeing or powerful as an E-2 Hawkeye, nor can they patrol for as long or as far from the carrier - so your long range raid detection is nowhere near as capable.

Without air superiority aircraft to control, you don't really need the "AC" part of AWACs. A ring of destroyers as part of your carrier battle group can stay on EWR (Early Warning Radar) station far longer than an E-2 can orbit. So you don't really need the "AW" half either.

Brazil has long-range ground-based aircraft that can reach anywhere their Navy is likely to go and hang around even longer than an E-2 -- which Brazil doesn't have in any case. (they do have AEW&C aircraft and Boeing 767 tankers with intercontinental range to keep them airborne indefinitely)

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The other thing you do lose over a CATOBAR carrier is the ability to fly fixed wing AWACs. There are helicopter based systems, but they aren’t as far seeing or powerful as an E-2 Hawkeye, nor can they patrol for as long or as far from the carrier - so your long range raid detection is nowhere near as capable.

Without air superiority aircraft to control, you don't really need the "AC" part of AWACs. A ring of destroyers as part of your carrier battle group can stay on EWR (Early Warning Radar) station far longer than an E-2 can orbit. So you don't really need the "AW" half either.

Brazil has long-range ground-based aircraft that can reach anywhere their Navy is likely to go and hang around even longer than an E-2 -- which Brazil doesn't have in any case. (they do have AEW&C aircraft and Boeing 767 tankers with intercontinental range to keep them airborne indefinitely)

Seeing the # of countries which have built/purchased small carriers in the last few years, I'm surprised that no one has attempted to reopen the Harrier line. Everyone is probably betting on grabbing some of the ex-marine/UK airframes as they retire from US service, But they will have high hours. The only other VSTOL solutions are MV-22s and F-35s, neither of which are readily abundant.

It wouldn't surprise me if Japan or India didn't try though. it would give either country another domestic fighter (which India needs more than Japan) and an excellent export item.