kzt wrote:My reason for expecting that Mk23s are harder to stop is that at all but SDM range they are moving a lot faster. And it has been noted that velocity matters to defenders.
If there are ridiculously more Mk16s on hand than Mk23s then it makes perfect sense to use them when a target doesn't absolutely need to be hit by a Mk23. This would be true for both the BC(P) and the SD(P), to conserve the rounds in short supply. So then logically you'd expect that SD(P)s facing SLN ships would employ Mk16s?
Realistically the only targets that really would need to be serviced with Mk23s are being operated by the people you are not fighting. But I understand can use mixed load and have the pod core ammo handling system move the desired pods around, so you could have some loaded 'just in case'.
Most all of this is true. And it's also true that velocity does matter for point defense, but mostly only because of the way it shortens engagement time because of how quickly the incoming crosses the engagement envelope. Both the Mk-16 and the Mk-23 come in ridiculously fast by Solarian standards, so both have presented serious challenges to interception predictions for SLN missile defense, as well. Between the two Manty missiles, however, it's mostly a matter of degree, not of kind. That is, both of them already give Solly missile defense fits because nothing should move that fast. As some passages in UC mention, the SLN's getting better in that respect, however, as the evidence that Manty missiles are that flipping fast is actually digested back home.
The real killer for penetrating the defenses, though, is in the EW and ECM support of the attacking missiles; that's where the Mk-16/Mk-23 playing field is essentially equal. And that is larghely because both of them are fusion powered, not capacitor powered, and so have preposterous power budgets by Solly standards. This means they can do things the Sollies believe have to be impossible simply because none of the Solly projections factor in the "size" of their power supply.
In a lot of ways, there isn't a Solly target that really requires the Mk-23 treatment at this point, although the Cataphracts mean that the Manties can't operate with the degree of impunity they might have against pure single-drive missiles. But the Mk-16 is still a far more effective weapon than Cataphract, both in terms of punch and in terms of flexibility, accuracy, and penaids. The Mk-23 is a more impressive weapon, however, and it can do to Solly SDs what the Mk-16 can do to Solly CAs and BCs, so there are definitely still roles in which it is required/at least desirable.
For some missions, the SD(P)s will, indeed, carry a mix of MK-16s and Mk-23s, especially any of them sent out on warp terminus denial missions. Grand Fleet, which is also tasked as the primary defensive force for the Manticore System has (post Raging Justice) a straight Mk-23 loadout for its SD(P)s and a straight Mk-16 loadoat for its CAs, BCs, and BC(P)s. The theory is that the "small fry" can probably handle anything that comes their way and the heavy hitters are available for really long range engagements and to deal with anything that seems to be giving their screening elements a tussle. The massive pod deployment that greeted Filaretta was largely for psy-war purposes, but also reflected the fact that the GA was still not quite able to believe its degree of superiority and no one was taking any chances when it came to defending the Manty capital and the Junction.
I'm not saying that the Mk-23 isn't a better, longer-ranged, heavier-hitting, smarter missile than the Mk-16. I'm saying that the degree of difference is not as great as some people seem to be assuming, especially in the operational and tactical environment the GA currently faces. And I'm also saying that for the foreseeable future, the Manties will continue to favor the Mk-16, possibly with the control missile upgrade I mentioned in another post, for its lighter combatants because they can pack so many more into a single platform. As long as the missile can handle any opponent their ships are likely to meet, it makes sense to use the one that gives them the greatest depth of magazines for a lot of reasons.
The situation is (roughly) analogous to the one the British Navy faced when it shot itself in the foot with the cruiser limitations it got written into the Naval disarmament treaties. They got tonnage limited to 10,000 tons and maximum battery limited to 8" in no small part to avoid scrapping a class of 7.9"-armed cruisers they'd just commissioned. Unfortunately for them, their primary competitors --- the USN and IJN --- promptly went to the upper bracket for tonnage and armament because they were interested in primarily fighting units. The Brits really needed smaller, lighter ships as cruising units, and the 6" or the DP 5.25" would have been a far better main gun for the ships that actually suited their operational needs. If they'd been willing to give up their shiny new cruiser class in the 1920s, there might not have been any modern 8" cruisers in WWII at all.
Absent any artificial, treaty-mandated limitations, the Manties are going to opt for ships that aren't the maximum possible set-piece battle combat platforms they can build because they don't need to build max-capability units to deal with anything they're likely to meet and they do need larger numbers of adequately capable platforms.
)