GA-League War lessons learned

Jonathan_S wrote:Larger ships can carry far more CM's per tube, thanks to the cube-square law; but that same law means the surface area to mount more tubes climbs more slowly than their volume/tonnage.

There's another problem with an escort versus a LAC: the fact that the escort is a hyper-capable ship. The moment you go from sublight parasite to hyper-capable, you have a step function in terms of internal volume consumption. A hyper-capable escort will be bigger than a LAC, but it will also need to dedicate internal volume to the hyper generators and whatever else is required to run their alpha nodes. Plus the fact that they will have alpha nodes, reducing their surface area. All of this also increases their power consumption, thus requiring larger bunkerage.

And because they are not parasites, they need much bigger bunkerage too in order to perform any hyper voyage assisting the wall. In fact, this may be the nail on an escort's coffin: what is their range? A battle fleet can travel months in hyper. Do the escorts have the legs to keep up? Or do the planners have to send them ahead so they can make pit stops on the way to refuel? Or be called from forward bases when the battle fleet is moving? That opens up for a lot of logistical problems that anything but the most professional navy will surely run into.

Making the escort destroyers hyper-incapable leads to the HAC and we know how David feels about that one.

Any way, on a face to face engagement between LACs and DEs, I'm not sure how much better the DEs would fare. The LACs can mount a battlecruiser-grade graser, which will punch through a DE like it wasn't there. The DEs may be less fragile than the LACs, but in absolute numbers it may not matter. And since we know that the GSN had developed an anti-LAC doctrine with the Katanas, I suspect the same doctrine would work against DEs. Add to that that GA LACs will have GA-quality ECMs to make targeting more difficult. And all of this assumes 1:1 parity in numbers, but DEs have to be more expensive than LACs.

So frankly I don't expect DEs, if they manage to keep up with the battle fleet, to engage LACs at all. The best defence against a bad sailor with a LAC may be a good sailor with a LAC. But the DEs may still have their place as screening units. As Jonathan said, the LACs' Achilles heel are their shallow magazines, so they can only screen the wall for so long before shooting themselves dry. A DE, if it got there, can stay in position as a screen for longer.

And now that I've got time to try to do the other side lets look at LAC vs escort for the SLN. But first, an aside. I know Katana's mount Vipers (which have the same ~3 million km range as a Mk31), but did Manticore ever start building new flights of Shrikes and Ferrets with the larger Mk31/Viper CM launchers? Or are they still stuck with the shorter range Mk30, or even shorter/earlier CM?


The SLN has some fairly decent stealth, but at the moment their ECM and decoys are garbage (made even worse by the RMN having full dumps of all their files and full details on all their hardware). So they need to majorly step up their ECM/decoy game or else their LACs are going to be far easier missile targets than their GA counterparts.

And if you want to try to sweep them out of the way with your own GA LACs you do still need the time to get your Katanas and/or Shrikes and Ferrets into range. But those 3 are the stealthiest and the quickest accelerating LACs anybody's ever seen - so they can close that range better than we'd expect a SLN LAC (or escort) to do. And once in combat range you're looking at short ranged, but crazy high accelerating Vipers or so pretty darned good LAC SDMs, and if things close to energy range the SLN LACs are facing BC grade grasers or else multiple SD PDLCs more than capable of blowing through their weak-ass sidewalls (and able to track and fire at insane rates). We saw how poorly Haven's Cimetters fared when they came up against Katanas and I doubt any SLN LAC that's available soon will be even that capable. So at the very least their first experience on the receiving end of GA anti-LAC tactics is going to be really rough.

And the SLN wall can provide covering fire for their LACs, and even GA LACs shouldn't be tangling with wallers; though they're far more survivable that you'd expect. And unlike the RMN/GSN wall the SLN likely can't fire dedicated anti-LAC missiles out their CM tubes. So they can likely throw fewer missiles as the LACs than an equivalent sized GA wall could - and and they do throw are their full up anti-ship missiles (Cataphracts or whatever replaces them)

Though to be fair, it shouldn't take much work to adapt the 2nd stage of a Cataphract into a Viper analog. It's nearly there as it is; just probably larger than it needs to be in order to squeeze in a warhead able to do something against heavy warships. Shrink that warhead size down a bit, rewrite the software to be optimized for anti-LAC and you'd have something decent. (Though, weirdly, while it does have the same 75 second endurance of a Viper or Mk31, the acceleration of the Cataphract 2nd stage is pretty pitiful; so its range and terminal velocity fall far below the Viper. I say weirdly because its 1st stage was best in class acceleration and has only been getting better, to frankly unbelievable levels, while the 2nd stage appears to have remained unchanged). Still, even after you did that you'd also have to build your ships with the oversized CM launchers that Manticore incorporated, or refit, into their designs in order to launch it (as it'll be larger than a 'classic' CM)

If the SLN went with escorts instead (or in addition to) LACs then Katanas would be far less useful, but Shrikes were built to swarm over and destroy anything up to a BC. And an escort that's highly optimized for anti-missile defense won't be carrying many weapons that can take out a Shrike. Remember, its bow wall is now approaching what pre-war SDs carried - only, maybe, a BC's energy mounts are going to reliably punch through that at full range. And if you've traded away most of your energy mounts and anti-ship missiles then you've very little left to strike back at Shrikes and Ferrets. (Though as an anti-missile platform you can presumably soak up Ferret missiles very well, so the Shrikes are the bigger threat). And again, likely lacking any equivalent to the Viper they won't be able to spray out waves of anti-LAC missiles from their CM launchers.

The downside to Shrikes is they'll have to get in closer, which makes them more vulnerable to fire from the SLN wall. But with Ferrets running decoy/jamming escort Shrikes are damned hard missile targets. So as long as they can stay out of the energy weapons envelope of the wall (and stealth + careful choice of attack vectors can help a lot with that) most will likely survive.

And of course if the SLN goes with escorts instead of LACs those escorts are bigger more easily seen/tracked targets and are likely to be more vulnerable to GA MDMs (even ignoring Apollo) than GA LACs are to SLN Cataphracts.


So it seems to me that for quite some time going forward any anti-missile screen, whether LAC or escort, the SLN can build is going to be less survivable than its GA counterpart. However that doesn't mean it isn't worth building - as failing to improve their anti-missile defense is even worse that building a somewhat vulnerable defense. But my guess is they'll have to build a series of stop-gaps as they work towards a final "proper" doctrine and design.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:
Since the thread is idling, do we have time to peek under the hood here?

What will be some of the weaknesses of using LACs for screens if the SLN should adopt escorts for screens?

What immediately comes to mind is survivability. LACs are eggshells compared to any other ship. And LACs cannot carry nearly as many missiles and CMs as an escort. So, if the SLN develops escorts as screening elements and field them in enormous numbers, even 1:1, then LACs are doomed. Of course, that will depend on an effective anti-Lac doctrine. So let's also consider that ...

If escorts can develop an anti-LAC missile that can engage the LAC far outside of its own envelope, then that in itself will nail the coffin shut. ...

But then, let's look at the GA's LAC doctrine. Historically, screens make up layers of protection composed of an inner and outer screen. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the RMN's LAC doctrine. Of course it would depend on the variant of LACs at the scene, but if they are all present then that probably means layers of screens made up of all three LAC variants. Which would mean an outer, middle and inner layer of screening elements?

But I'm not sure of the facts, I think Manty doctrine waits for the range to tick down before launching the LACs ahead of the fleet. But if an enemy launches first (I don't think that has ever been the case because of the RMNs range advantage) then I presume the LACs would accelerate away from the Fleet to meet the avalanche. No reason to waste CMs protecting LACs whose sole mission is to protect the Fleet. But when LACs accelerate from the Fleet, they are on their own and will be up against a Navy's antj-LAC doctrine. LACs can't equal an approximate parity of escorts. LACs will run out of missiles far too soon, and they are vastly overmatched in survivability. That will leave the SLN with screening elements with many missiles in reserve. Even if the escorts are outnumbered 2:1 the LACs will lose if they are engaged outside of their range.

Even if LACs separate from the Fleet to create another axis or several more axis of threat, it still won't change the dynamics. They will easily be defeated in detail.

As far as sneaking LACs in, if the SLN accomplished this, then the GA will be relegated to having to do do just that as their only recourse, that of sneaking LACs into range to be effective. IOW, LACs will be rendered useless overnight. And the GA will be left without an effective screen.

The main weakness I see of LACs as screens is their lack of combat endurance.

They're not especially vulnerable to long range MDM missiles as they're small targets, and at least the RMN/GSN LACs are quite stealthy (so have small hard to see target profiles) and are supported by very capable onboard ECM and Ferret launched decoys (and quite possible augmented by larger more capable and long lasting decoys pushed forward by the wall they're screening). And while you could probably kill the screening LACs with sustained long range MDM fire they'd absorb far more than their fare share of missiles -- and while you're doing that the wall that they're screening isn't taking any fire. And that means they're free to focus all their efforts on their offensive fire against the enemy wall.

For the crew, or the tonnage, they aren't that weak in CM.
Here's a list of modern RMN designs sorted by CM launchers per kiloton
Katana 0.256
Shrike/Ferret 0.188 [1]
Avalon 0.109
Roland 0.106
Wolfhound 0.097
Sag-C 0.083
Nike 0.025
Invictus 0.023

[1] Note for the Shrike/Ferret I only considered half their CM tubes, as the aft ones are to fill a coverage hole in the forward one; and they're not really intended to all be brought to bear on a single salvo to way the other modern ships are. All other ships simply use total CM tubes. Feel free to double the Shrike/Ferret number to 0.376 if you prefer.

Larger ships can carry far more CM's per tube, thanks to the cube-square law; but that same law means the surface area to mount more tubes climbs more slowly than their volume/tonnage.

And GA LACs are also pretty reistant to being swept away by other LACs. Again, they're difficult missile targets. LAC launched missiles have the advantage of starting from closer, and so getting a better view of the target. But trading off they're smaller and thus carry less capable sensors; and not being MDMs come in at far lower terminal velocity. So they're easier point defense targets and more susceptible to stealth, decoys, or jamming. And trying to send LACs to clear GA LACs screens requires you have the time before missiles start flying, to get them over there. And then they have to face the Katana's with their anti-LAC doctrine - which we saw Havenite LACs succumb to.

So not easy to sweep away a GA LAC screen. But fairly easy to run it out of CMs which will greatly blunt it's effectiveness. (At least if you've got podlayers to keep up heavy salvos -- it's more effective against towed pods as the LACs deplete their CMs blunting the handful of heavy pod salvos)

Nice couple of posts Jonathan. And ThinksMarkedly.

You both make the idea of escorts seem foolhardy, but you seem to concentrate on the mismatch during "dogfights." I never meant that escorts should take on GA LACs. I am proposing the SL develop a missile that outranges what a LAC carries.

Like I said, I'm not sure about GA tactics, but I am under the impression that LACs accelerate ahead of the Fleet to engage the enemy. I do recall that they are hard targets to acquire, but is that in general? Or when they are still with the Fleet during salvos? Certainly smaller targets are ignored then. And I think during their final run towards the wall, point defense may find them harder targets??? At any rate, I was thinking escorts can carry bigger missiles as specialized anti-LAC weapons. And LACs shouldn't be so hard a target when their formation is the only thing being targeted.

But if all else fails in escorts as screens, then my original idea may yet hold water. I originally posited bigger traditional ships as screens. It is unheard of for ships of the wall to screen for itself, but if the SL can indeed build traditional warships fast as lightning like many of us believe, then it can afford to use specially-configured BCs as screens for their juggernaut of SDs which would make a beeline straight for the enemy planet. The SLN has never had a habit of being cute and subtle when it attacks. A new ship type for the SL could be a BC(S), designated for screen. If it manages to build its BCs as large as the RMN's bigassed ships, and hollow them out as well adding their own automation reducing crew size, then the fact that it can afford to use BCs as screens may work well. I guess that would make it a BC(PS).

SDs are not dead if they can be built in enormous numbers and are actually SD(P), and can shit out an enormous avalanche of missiles and more effective CMs.

cthia wrote:Like I said, I'm not sure about GA tactics, but I am under the impression that LACs accelerate ahead of the Fleet to engage the enemy. I do recall that they are hard targets to acquire, but is that in general? Or when they are still with the Fleet during salvos? Certainly smaller targets are ignored then. And I think during their final run towards the wall, point defense may find them harder targets??? At any rate, I was thinking escorts can carry bigger missiles as specialized anti-LAC weapons. And LACs shouldn't be so hard a target when their formation is the only thing being targeted.

Depends on their mission. When it's anti-missile patrol I believe the RMN/GSN LACs normally try to position themselves around 3-5 million km down the threat axis towards the enemy. That gives the wall and it's close escorts time to see which incoming missiles the LACs killed and avoid wasting CMs on missiles that'll die before the new CMs reach them.

So if the SLN was looking to clear that screen out they could come up with a longer ranged missile. Katanas' Vipers can only reach 3.6 million km from rest, while the Shrike and Ferret missiles can reach the full SDM range of 7.3 million km. And actually the SLN's old Javalin SDM could (thanks to its superior acceleration) reach 7.9 million. (And if they used the drive off the latest Cataphract's 1st stage I believe it'd be 13.6 million.
So the SLN has the missile range to snipe at LACs from beyond their own missile range.

However there's still a few problems with that.
1) RMN/GSN LACs are very difficult missile targets - thanks to their stealth, ECM, decoys, and point defense. So you'd need a lot of missiles to kill them.
2) The LACs don't have to sit there and take it - they'll have higher acceleration; maybe around twice as much acceleration, and so they could close to their own missile range fairly quickly if necessary.
3) The RMN/GSN LACs are screening a wall. Which between it's modern close escorts and the wallers themselves carry missiles with powered ranges of 16.4 (ERM/LERM), 29.2 (Mk16), and 65.7 (Mk23) million km -- so while the attacking SLN ships/LACs outrange the screening LACs they're in turn sufficiently outranged by the GA wall that they'll be coming under fire before they enter their own missile range of the LACs.
(Well, unless you use BCs carrying Cataphracts - which if they use a ballistic segment can theoretically be fired from as far out as a Mk23; just with a lot long time of flight)


Now if the RMN/GSN LACs are on an attack mission then of course they'll leave the wall far behind, as they need to close to at least their own missile range (if not energy range) of their target to be effective.

If the SLN was foolish enough to detach LACs or escorts for an attack mission of their own I tend to strongly favor the RMN/GSN LACs in a deep space engagement (too far for either wall's long range missiles to be very effective against targets that small -- though if the RMN/GSN was willing to "waste" Apollo smiting LACs or escorts that'd be a very bad day for the SLN). The RMN/GSN LACs' missile might be somewhat shorter ranged; but their ECM, decoy, and strong point defenses will stand them in good stead. We saw during Buttercup, and even during the BoM, what RMN/GSN LACs could do against anything less survivable than a battleship or waller.

But if the SLN held its LAC or escorts closer, around the edge of CM range of its wall, then the advantages shift somewhat against the RMN/GSN LACs. Now the SLN heavies can (unless distracted by their GA counterparts) expend heavy missiles against the LACs (once detected). The LACs are still hard targets, but at less then 15 million km their ECM and decoys are going to struggle to fool all of the waller's sensors and tac departments all of the time -- and they will take heavier losses. I doubt they'd take heavy enough losses to keep them from gutting a forward anti-missile screen but it could well be very painful to do so. (Possible painful enough that they wouldn't be ordered to / allowed to try)

And finally if the SLN kept the LACs and escorts tucked right close in to the wall then going after them with LACs, even RMN/GSN LACs is untenable. OTOH that sacrifices much of the advantage of anti-missile escorts because while they can still thicken your terminal point defense they fail to buy you any additional defensive depth so you get less time to adjust to each salvo's ECM / decoys and fewer chances to attack each inbound missile.



That said, even though SLN anti-missile forward escorts are at risk of getting punched out I still feel that even with their current hardware the SLN is better off building lots of them (whether LACs or based around somewhat larger ships)
Yes they might get swept away by a LAC strike -- but that won't be without losses to the LACs. And the LACs that are doing that won't be in position to provide an anti-missile screen to their own wall.
So best case the SLN gets greatly increased missile defenses for much of the engagement - and worst case it forces the GA wall to weaken its missile defenses in turn or.
(Of if one side went after the other's screen with their long range missiles -- well dying to keep missiles off your heavy hitters is one of the jobs of the screen. So again worst case the existence of the forward anti-missile screen means taking much of the heat off the wall until long range fire is able to suppress (or exhaust the CMs of) said screen.




And frankly - odd are the SLN isn't going to fight a rematch against the GA anytime soon. But they still need to evolve their anti-missile doctrine and have units they can use to test it out in [hopefully realistic] exercises. Because if they wait for the perfect technology to come first they'll never make any progress.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Like I said, I'm not sure about GA tactics, but I am under the impression that LACs accelerate ahead of the Fleet to engage the enemy. I do recall that they are hard targets to acquire, but is that in general? Or when they are still with the Fleet during salvos? Certainly smaller targets are ignored then. And I think during their final run towards the wall, point defense may find them harder targets??? At any rate, I was thinking escorts can carry bigger missiles as specialized anti-LAC weapons. And LACs shouldn't be so hard a target when their formation is the only thing being targeted.

Depends on their mission. When it's anti-missile patrol I believe the RMN/GSN LACs normally try to position themselves around 3-5 million km down the threat axis towards the enemy. That gives the wall and it's close escorts time to see which incoming missiles the LACs killed and avoid wasting CMs on missiles that'll die before the new CMs reach them.

So if the SLN was looking to clear that screen out they could come up with a longer ranged missile. Katanas' Vipers can only reach 3.6 million km from rest, while the Shrike and Ferret missiles can reach the full SDM range of 7.3 million km. And actually the SLN's old Javalin SDM could (thanks to its superior acceleration) reach 7.9 million. (And if they used the drive off the latest Cataphract's 1st stage I believe it'd be 13.6 million.
So the SLN has the missile range to snipe at LACs from beyond their own missile range.

However there's still a few problems with that.
1) RMN/GSN LACs are very difficult missile targets - thanks to their stealth, ECM, decoys, and point defense. So you'd need a lot of missiles to kill them.
2) The LACs don't have to sit there and take it - they'll have higher acceleration; maybe around twice as much acceleration, and so they could close to their own missile range fairly quickly if necessary.
3) The RMN/GSN LACs are screening a wall. Which between it's modern close escorts and the wallers themselves carry missiles with powered ranges of 16.4 (ERM/LERM), 29.2 (Mk16), and 65.7 (Mk23) million km -- so while the attacking SLN ships/LACs outrange the screening LACs they're in turn sufficiently outranged by the GA wall that they'll be coming under fire before they enter their own missile range of the LACs.
(Well, unless you use BCs carrying Cataphracts - which if they use a ballistic segment can theoretically be fired from as far out as a Mk23; just with a lot long time of flight)


Now if the RMN/GSN LACs are on an attack mission then of course they'll leave the wall far behind, as they need to close to at least their own missile range (if not energy range) of their target to be effective.

If the SLN was foolish enough to detach LACs or escorts for an attack mission of their own I tend to strongly favor the RMN/GSN LACs in a deep space engagement (too far for either wall's long range missiles to be very effective against targets that small -- though if the RMN/GSN was willing to "waste" Apollo smiting LACs or escorts that'd be a very bad day for the SLN). The RMN/GSN LACs' missile might be somewhat shorter ranged; but their ECM, decoy, and strong point defenses will stand them in good stead. We saw during Buttercup, and even during the BoM, what RMN/GSN LACs could do against anything less survivable than a battleship or waller.

But if the SLN held its LAC or escorts closer, around the edge of CM range of its wall, then the advantages shift somewhat against the RMN/GSN LACs. Now the SLN heavies can (unless distracted by their GA counterparts) expend heavy missiles against the LACs (once detected). The LACs are still hard targets, but at less then 15 million km their ECM and decoys are going to struggle to fool all of the waller's sensors and tac departments all of the time -- and they will take heavier losses. I doubt they'd take heavy enough losses to keep them from gutting a forward anti-missile screen but it could well be very painful to do so. (Possible painful enough that they wouldn't be ordered to / allowed to try)

And finally if the SLN kept the LACs and escorts tucked right close in to the wall then going after them with LACs, even RMN/GSN LACs is untenable. OTOH that sacrifices much of the advantage of anti-missile escorts because while they can still thicken your terminal point defense they fail to buy you any additional defensive depth so you get less time to adjust to each salvo's ECM / decoys and fewer chances to attack each inbound missile.



That said, even though SLN anti-missile forward escorts are at risk of getting punched out I still feel that even with their current hardware the SLN is better off building lots of them (whether LACs or based around somewhat larger ships)
Yes they might get swept away by a LAC strike -- but that won't be without losses to the LACs. And the LACs that are doing that won't be in position to provide an anti-missile screen to their own wall.
So best case the SLN gets greatly increased missile defenses for much of the engagement - and worst case it forces the GA wall to weaken its missile defenses in turn or.
(Of if one side went after the other's screen with their long range missiles -- well dying to keep missiles off your heavy hitters is one of the jobs of the screen. So again worst case the existence of the forward anti-missile screen means taking much of the heat off the wall until long range fire is able to suppress (or exhaust the CMs of) said screen.




And frankly - odd are the SLN isn't going to fight a rematch against the GA anytime soon. But they still need to evolve their anti-missile doctrine and have units they can use to test it out in [hopefully realistic] exercises. Because if they wait for the perfect technology to come first they'll never make any progress.

Couldn't specialized ships of the wall configured as screening elements accomplish most of that? It could be wasteful in any particular battle but not in the long run if it works. In enormous numbers that tactic could be effective if the lion's share of the SL wall is left intact against a severely winnowed GA force. Resulting in a short victorious war.

But, something I didn't consider, ships of the wall normally maneuver to actually form a wall. If BCs are produced as BC(S) then how would that affect their forming up on the wall?

But of course, in enormous numbers of ships of the wall, it shouldn't matter if some don't/can't form up with the wall.

Late edit:
An effective anti-missile defense would be an overwhelming quantity. Quantity is its own quality. if the SLN makes significant improvements in all areas, and develops effective doctrine to coexist along with it, and pair it all with an enormous number of ships, that could work. I am under the impression that the big bad gorilla always used size as a hammer. But it begs the question. What is the limit to that?

How many ships may represent the limit of a Fleet to which it can still enjoy an effective mutual defensive formation? Separating forces may allow them to be defeated in detail, but there must be a limit to how many ships can be effective in one axis of threat. There is a limit to the range of CMs, so a huge Fleet may have ships on the outer edge whose CMs will not help.

At what point should a huge number of ships be separated into other prongs of attack?

cthia wrote:Couldn't specialized ships of the wall configured as screening elements accomplish most of that? It could be wasteful in any particular battle but not in the long run if it works. In enormous numbers that tactic could be effective if the lion's share of the SL wall is left intact against a severely winnowed GA force. Resulting in a short victorious war.

But, something I didn't consider, ships of the wall normally maneuver to actually form a wall. If BCs are produced as BC(S) then how would that affect their forming up on the wall?

Everyone knows that BCs don't form walls. That's how Honor tricked the PN into thinking there was no wall when she brought the 6 SDs from the GSN First Battle Fleet forward to defend Grayson during Fourth Yeltsin. It was also our first exposure to The Tac Witch (Shannon) who spotted the fact that the "BCs" were moving in weird ways and slowly forming a wall.

But they can be part of walls formed by DNs and SDs, sure. So yes, the SLN could use lots and lots of BCs and even bigger ships as defensive screening units for their walls. Deployed slightly forward of the SDs, the screen could be made up of units designed to fire lots and lots of CMs, but little in terms of offensive weaponry. And those may be survivable against GA LACs.

Late edit:
An effective anti-missile defense would be an overwhelming quantity. Quantity is its own quality. if the SLN makes significant improvements in all areas, and develops effective doctrine to coexist along with it, and pair it all with an enormous number of ships, that could work. I am under the impression that the big bad gorilla always used size as a hammer. But it begs the question. What is the limit to that?

How many ships may represent the limit of a Fleet to which it can still enjoy an effective mutual defensive formation? Separating forces may allow them to be defeated in detail, but there must be a limit to how many ships can be effective in one axis of threat. There is a limit to the range of CMs, so a huge Fleet may have ships on the outer edge whose CMs will not help.

At what point should a huge number of ships be separated into other prongs of attack?

The biggest problem that the SLN faced during the war wasn't quantity, but range (a quality). The MDMs that the GA had even before Apollo had a 65-million km range. The SLN Javelins were limited to 8 million km and the Cataphracts, even the latest versions, to about 16 million km. That leaves roughly 40 million km when the SLN wall has to "run the gauntlet," meaning they are taking fire but not being able to fire back and that gets worse if you consider Apollos are effective up to 80 or 90 million km. So they will lose some portion of their ships due to attrition. And the more ships they lose, the less effective their defences are, so the rate of ship loss will increase.

So it's a "simple" equation: how many ships do you start with so that you reach the range of your own weapons with sufficient firepower to win or at least force the enemy to retreat?

Right now, even up to the end of UH, that's an extremely lopsided equation. How many SLN SDs can a single GA SD(P) squadron equipped with Keyholes II and firing Apollos destroy? Let's say that it takes 250 missiles per SD, in average, to mission-kill it, including decoys, pen-aids and the ACM. An Invictus can carry 1074 pods, so 9666 missiles. That makes each Invictus equivalent to 38 SDs. A squadron of 8 of those can wipe 310 SDs. If they can control the range, they will have the time to fire everything.

It gets worse: the GA SD(P)s are limited by their ammo stores and the rate they can roll pods. So if this is a GA system with pre-deployed pods, you can reduce the number of SD(P)s and even increase the number of defeated units.

Right now, with no tech advances, the SLN couldn't get the job done with anything less than 40:1 advantage. That's an unacceptably high loss ratio.

The tech advances should reduce that. The question is to how much. I'd say that anything above 5:1 means you shouldn't fight at all.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Everyone knows that BCs don't form walls. That's how Honor tricked the PN into thinking there was no wall when she brought the 6 SDs from the GSN First Battle Fleet forward to defend Grayson during Fourth Yeltsin. It was also our first exposure to The Tac Witch (Shannon) who spotted the fact that the "BCs" were moving in weird ways and slowly forming a wall.

Well they don't form walls against heavier ships. But if a couple of BC squadrons squared off I suspect they would form into walls; for the well known combat benefits that provides when involved in combat between roughly equal weight ships in roughly equivalent numbers.

cthia wrote:Separating forces may allow them to be defeated in detail, but there must be a limit to how many ships can be effective in one axis of threat. There is a limit to the range of CMs, so a huge Fleet may have ships on the outer edge whose CMs will not help.

My rough estimate is that to provide useful CM cover a ship at the end of the wall formation needs to be no more than about 75% of CM range behind the lead ships in the formation.

Thanks to geometry against missiles approaching from the broadside it can still intercept missiles aimed at the head of the formation at about 2/3rds the distance out as that lead ship's own CMs - and even in the worst case of the formation getting its 'T' crossed and taking fire from nearly directly ahead the rear ship's CMs can still reach out 1/4 of normal CM distance beyond the lead ships and thus engage missiles beyond their laserhead standoff range. [Though as a practical matter the intervening ships' wedges will block your fire control links so the rear ships won't be able to engage missiles coming from directly ahead of the formation]

So let's put some numbers to that. I believe the SLN still has about 1.5 million km CM range. Using my assumption that'd put the longest practical mutually protective wall at 1.1 million km. From 1.1 million km back a CM launched from that trailing ship could still intercept a missile targeting the lead ship from the broadside at 1.02 million km away from that targeted ship.

However that's pretty much a nonsense number. Walls are normally at tall as they are long, and so we'd be talking about a wall of a million SDs (1000x1000) mostly being in mutual support range of each other. (The outer corners would have poor coverage - but even so the majority of the million SDs would be able to cover them). And even for the SLN a wall of a million ships is pure nonsense. So, really, all this shows is that its effectively impossible to build a wall so large as to place parts of it out of mutual CM support range.



Now if we want to look at mutual PDLC support range that'd give us a more practical number. IIRC PDLCs only become effective at 100,000 km - and they need to kill the target before it gets to 50,000 km. So let's call 80,000 km the minimum acceptable standoff range from target for mutual support. That same geometry tells me that the trailing ship would need to be no more than 60,000 km behind the leading one in order to engage broadside missiles engaging it while they're still 80,000 km away from that leading ship. That gives us a wall a more reasonable 60 - 100 ships long (depending on how tight you can make your formation; that's 500 km wedge separation down to 100 km); or 3,600 SDs - 10,000 SDs. Still very large numbers for a single wall; but potentially possible for the League.

Jonathan_S wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Everyone knows that BCs don't form walls. That's how Honor tricked the PN into thinking there was no wall when she brought the 6 SDs from the GSN First Battle Fleet forward to defend Grayson during Fourth Yeltsin. It was also our first exposure to The Tac Witch (Shannon) who spotted the fact that the "BCs" were moving in weird ways and slowly forming a wall.

Well they don't form walls against heavier ships. But if a couple of BC squadrons squared off I suspect they would form into walls; for the well known combat benefits that provides when involved in combat between roughly equal weight ships in roughly equivalent numbers.

cthia wrote:Separating forces may allow them to be defeated in detail, but there must be a limit to how many ships can be effective in one axis of threat. There is a limit to the range of CMs, so a huge Fleet may have ships on the outer edge whose CMs will not help.

My rough estimate is that to provide useful CM cover a ship at the end of the wall formation needs to be no more than about 75% of CM range behind the lead ships in the formation.

Thanks to geometry against missiles approaching from the broadside it can still intercept missiles aimed at the head of the formation at about 2/3rds the distance out as that lead ship's own CMs - and even in the worst case of the formation getting its 'T' crossed and taking fire from nearly directly ahead the rear ship's CMs can still reach out 1/4 of normal CM distance beyond the lead ships and thus engage missiles beyond their laserhead standoff range. [Though as a practical matter the intervening ships' wedges will block your fire control links so the rear ships won't be able to engage missiles coming from directly ahead of the formation]

So let's put some numbers to that. I believe the SLN still has about 1.5 million km CM range. Using my assumption that'd put the longest practical mutually protective wall at 1.1 million km. From 1.1 million km back a CM launched from that trailing ship could still intercept a missile targeting the lead ship from the broadside at 1.02 million km away from that targeted ship.

However that's pretty much a nonsense number. Walls are normally at tall as they are long, and so we'd be talking about a wall of a million SDs (1000x1000) mostly being in mutual support range of each other. (The outer corners would have poor coverage - but even so the majority of the million SDs would be able to cover them). And even for the SLN a wall of a million ships is pure nonsense. So, really, all this shows is that its effectively impossible to build a wall so large as to place parts of it out of mutual CM support range.



Now if we want to look at mutual PDLC support range that'd give us a more practical number. IIRC PDLCs only become effective at 100,000 km - and they need to kill the target before it gets to 50,000 km. So let's call 80,000 km the minimum acceptable standoff range from target for mutual support. That same geometry tells me that the trailing ship would need to be no more than 60,000 km behind the leading one in order to engage broadside missiles engaging it while they're still 80,000 km away from that leading ship. That gives us a wall a more reasonable 60 - 100 ships long (depending on how tight you can make your formation; that's 500 km wedge separation down to 100 km); or 3,600 SDs - 10,000 SDs. Still very large numbers for a single wall; but potentially possible for the League.

Honestly, I forgot about that scene with the BCs which was caught by Shannon too late. Nice work with the slide-rule Jonathan. I wouldn't have guessed or bet on those numbers. Of course I should have added that mutual CM support is only part of the equation. An enormous missile launch is the positive side of it. But thanks for juggling the numbers!

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Couldn't specialized ships of the wall configured as screening elements accomplish most of that? It could be wasteful in any particular battle but not in the long run if it works. In enormous numbers that tactic could be effective if the lion's share of the SL wall is left intact against a severely winnowed GA force. Resulting in a short victorious war.

But, something I didn't consider, ships of the wall normally maneuver to actually form a wall. If BCs are produced as BC(S) then how would that affect their forming up on the wall?

Everyone knows that BCs don't form walls. That's how Honor tricked the PN into thinking there was no wall when she brought the 6 SDs from the GSN First Battle Fleet forward to defend Grayson during Fourth Yeltsin. It was also our first exposure to The Tac Witch (Shannon) who spotted the fact that the "BCs" were moving in weird ways and slowly forming a wall.

But they can be part of walls formed by DNs and SDs, sure. So yes, the SLN could use lots and lots of BCs and even bigger ships as defensive screening units for their walls. Deployed slightly forward of the SDs, the screen could be made up of units designed to fire lots and lots of CMs, but little in terms of offensive weaponry. And those may be survivable against GA LACs.

Late edit:
An effective anti-missile defense would be an overwhelming quantity. Quantity is its own quality. if the SLN makes significant improvements in all areas, and develops effective doctrine to coexist along with it, and pair it all with an enormous number of ships, that could work. I am under the impression that the big bad gorilla always used size as a hammer. But it begs the question. What is the limit to that?

How many ships may represent the limit of a Fleet to which it can still enjoy an effective mutual defensive formation? Separating forces may allow them to be defeated in detail, but there must be a limit to how many ships can be effective in one axis of threat. There is a limit to the range of CMs, so a huge Fleet may have ships on the outer edge whose CMs will not help.

At what point should a huge number of ships be separated into other prongs of attack?

The biggest problem that the SLN faced during the war wasn't quantity, but range (a quality). The MDMs that the GA had even before Apollo had a 65-million km range. The SLN Javelins were limited to 8 million km and the Cataphracts, even the latest versions, to about 16 million km. That leaves roughly 40 million km when the SLN wall has to "run the gauntlet," meaning they are taking fire but not being able to fire back and that gets worse if you consider Apollos are effective up to 80 or 90 million km. So they will lose some portion of their ships due to attrition. And the more ships they lose, the less effective their defences are, so the rate of ship loss will increase.

So it's a "simple" equation: how many ships do you start with so that you reach the range of your own weapons with sufficient firepower to win or at least force the enemy to retreat?

Right now, even up to the end of UH, that's an extremely lopsided equation. How many SLN SDs can a single GA SD(P) squadron equipped with Keyholes II and firing Apollos destroy? Let's say that it takes 250 missiles per SD, in average, to mission-kill it, including decoys, pen-aids and the ACM. An Invictus can carry 1074 pods, so 9666 missiles. That makes each Invictus equivalent to 38 SDs. A squadron of 8 of those can wipe 310 SDs. If they can control the range, they will have the time to fire everything.

It gets worse: the GA SD(P)s are limited by their ammo stores and the rate they can roll pods. So if this is a GA system with pre-deployed pods, you can reduce the number of SD(P)s and even increase the number of defeated units.

Right now, with no tech advances, the SLN couldn't get the job done with anything less than 40:1 advantage. That's an unacceptably high loss ratio.

The tech advances should reduce that. The question is to how much. I'd say that anything above 5:1 means you shouldn't fight at all.

Worse, closer to 60:1 - RMN Large SDs (Sphinx, Gryphon, Medusa, Invictus) can limpet >500 pods externally, effectively increasing the capability of each Invicus by 50% (or nearly 100% for Medusas)

I like all the technical, strategic, and tactical discussion but what about the crews, their morale and their level of competence.

With all the facts and rumors floating about the SLN, how would a current SLN battlegroup react when found in the same system as a half-dozen GA ships? The SLN doesn't have the range to engage, the GA LACs can lay doggo, in stealth, and allow the SLN to advance into a trap.

To reference the Napoleonic wars, the French and Spanish fleets had similar weapons, at times numerical superiority, and continued to be defeated. Leadership and the common sailor.

The SLN is more likely to have lost the cream of their crews in the actions against the GA. Even with equal weapons and ships, they are in a very uphill struggle.