Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

Relax wrote:Uh guys, did you not read to End in Fire?

DW essentially said(mea culpa), everything he wrote about CM missile pods(the brain dead obvious counter to alpha pod strike especially after self tractored pods were available), No CM only drone LAC's, 2 stage CM drives, etc was bunk.

In other words, since the series is effectively ~over(maybe 1 or 2 more books), all the arbitrary tech restrictions for plot reasons he has talked about for 20 years, have been removed.

Yes, which is why we are now talking about some of the things you mention.

Everything is in some sense plot driven. But the difference is that the technology has advanced with multi-state missiles and FTL control links, so it is a disservice to his writing to say "all the arbitrary tech restrictions for plot reasons he has talked about for 20 years, have been removed". When the series began with single-stage missiles and light-speed control links, then the restrictions were not "bunk". I seriously doubt he would ever say mea culpa over putting them into the stories.

Relax wrote:PS: Destroyers in WWII made VERY poor AA platforms. Mark 1 eyeball AA directors tied to hands trying to spin wheels or push powered peddles to rotate etc--> Stink. They shot a lot of ammo, did not achieve much other than asking the Japanese pilots if they feared death.

Um, depends on whose destroyers you're talking about and at what time in the war.

But the modern US destroyers started the war with fully director controlled tachometric Mark 37 fire control directors for their 5" dual purpose guns. Same system as carried on cruiser and battleships; the destroyers simply carried fewer of them). But yes, the light AA 1.1 inch, 20mm, 40mm weapons they carried were hand aimed at the beginning of the war; as were those same weapons on any ship. By the end of the war both destroyers and larger ships carried multiple Mark 51 fire control systems to calculate the correct aim for 40mm mounts; which made them far more effective.

Still, even with the best fire control systems WWII era AA guns missed a lot. (Less so once the 5" guns got proximity fuses).

And many nations didn't have as good AA fits on their destroyers (in terms of guns, or fire control, or both) as the USN.

But at least the USN's destroyers had about the same AA capability per gun as their bigger brothers -- they just carried a lot fewer guns (and weren't as stable a gun platform in rough seas)

tlb wrote:

Relax wrote:Uh guys, did you not read to End in Fire?

DW essentially said(mea culpa), everything he wrote about CM missile pods(the brain dead obvious counter to alpha pod strike especially after self tractored pods were available), No CM only drone LAC's, 2 stage CM drives, etc was bunk.

In other words, since the series is effectively ~over(maybe 1 or 2 more books), all the arbitrary tech restrictions for plot reasons he has talked about for 20 years, have been removed.

Yes, which is why we are now talking about some of the things you mention.

Everything is in some sense plot driven. But the difference is that the technology has advanced with multi-state missiles and FTL control links, so it is a disservice to his writing to say "all the arbitrary tech restrictions for plot reasons he has talked about for 20 years, have been removed". When the series began with single-stage missiles and light-speed control links, then the restrictions were not "bunk". I seriously doubt he would ever say mea culpa over putting them into the stories.

Sorry, Missile interception as described has been bunk from the beginning of the series due to a thing called MATH. LONG LONG ago(over 20 years ago), I closed off my mind to this math foopah as the series wouldn't work, and the series was amazing! I don't whine about this aspect and instead generally have poked fun at the<<palm in face>> HV does not know what an electrical cord is yet can beam Terra-->Gigawatts of power to Keyholes, drones, tractored pods, yet if attached to their hull cannot...

I have posted the math before, but even his layered CM defense as described with SDM is bunk. The math does not work as described. Why I did not bother to retype and repost the math. It is even worse at MDM velocities.

At least against MDM's when using MK31 + FTL RD's, technically at least missed CM's at the EXTREME edge of MK31 CM's(assumed 30 degree bearing without wedge blinding or loss of CM control link--> HIGHLY problematical due to stated wedge geometry as this angle should eliminate ability to get updated info) + FTL RD's can technically have follow on launched CM's retarget as described in the books using light speed links to already launched CM's. Due to poor interception percentages at range it is a guarantee any defender would fire 2nd wave CM's anyways and assume they missed. That is not retargetted fire by the way, just assumed you missed to begin with. But the absurdity of we saw a missed MDM/CM interception and launch another CM is pure bunk to anyone who bothered to do the simple math.

In fact, I believe about a decade ago, I did write up a proposal for vastly superior CM interception capabilities since by MATH as described in books CANNOT possibly work, so solution was by LAUNCHING your CM's and DO NOT activate their wedges other than the initial 2 or 3 salvos at extreme range and since you could NOT vector your CM's reliably may as well keep all remaining CM's close as possible to known area they will try detonating at attack range of ~30,000km for vastly superior interception probability and as ALL CM's for Control link update only need a FRACTION of a second at close in ranges, your control links would be used for FAR FAR more CM's. Any activated CM wedge keep them about ~+100,000km from your ship just swanning around making circles or figure 8's as interception ranges beyond this suck wind anyways, as SDM/MDM can maneuver beyond this point but under this they can't, and you can't vector the CM's with updates worth sucking wind let alone anything real at extended ranges due to --> MATH, and then use last salvo flight + PDLC under 100,000km. DO remember at 100,000km range a CM at 130,000G requires ~13s drive + wedge activation time + ballistic phase before leaving sidewall and between ships own wedge so ~20s or thereabouts depending on what assumptions one makes just to get here to begin with.

Of course if Keyholes have wedges... They should always just be sideways to the ship ~completely blocking off or at minimum forcing offensive missiles to dodge its giant close in wedge to get at the ship making MUCH more predictable and superior PDLC interception probability.

tlb wrote:Yes, which is why we are now talking about some of the things you mention.

Everything is in some sense plot driven. But the difference is that the technology has advanced with multi-state missiles and FTL control links, so it is a disservice to his writing to say "all the arbitrary tech restrictions for plot reasons he has talked about for 20 years, have been removed". When the series began with single-stage missiles and light-speed control links, then the restrictions were not "bunk". I seriously doubt he would ever say mea culpa over putting them into the stories.

He also gave a proviso in his statement that it would remain true "unless something changed drastically" and he wasn't seeing that at the time. DW has plotted the war to the end and, while he may not know the specifics, he probably knows the tech progression that will lead to that. He may corner himself in some ways and have to come up with magic answers for it (like why no one had noticed the resonance zone around the MBS prior to the discovery of the Junction). In fact, he may have done just that with the MAlign's technology, because he says he'll need a couple of books to remove said advantage, or so I understood, though I disagree on the premise and my interpretation is that the MAlign has created eggshells.

Therefore, even if he has to apply revisions, he doesn't have to mea culpa. All he has to do is have a breakthrough somewhere that implies a revision here.

Jonathan_S wrote:Um, depends on whose destroyers you're talking about and at what time in the war.

But the modern US destroyers started the war with fully director controlled tachometric Mark 37 fire control directors for their 5" dual purpose guns. Same system as carried on cruiser and battleships; the destroyers simply carried fewer of them). But yes, the light AA 1.1 inch, 20mm, 40mm weapons they carried were hand aimed at the beginning of the war; as were those same weapons on any ship. By the end of the war both destroyers and larger ships carried multiple Mark 51 fire control systems to calculate the correct aim for 40mm mounts; which made them far more effective.

Still, even with the best fire control systems WWII era AA guns missed a lot. (Less so once the 5" guns got proximity fuses).

And many nations didn't have as good AA fits on their destroyers (in terms of guns, or fire control, or both) as the USN.

But at least the USN's destroyers had about the same AA capability per gun as their bigger brothers -- they just carried a lot fewer guns (and weren't as stable a gun platform in rough seas)

The USS Liffey was a Sumner Class DD commissioned in Feb 1944. She was a fire support ship at Normandy with her fire-directors taking request for artillery relayed from controllers with infantry ashore and could (depending where she was in the circle of orbiting destroyers off the beaches) bring all three twin 5' tuorrents to fire at the same targets.
There was a -if memory serves- a quad 40.mm forward of the #3 turret. She also had some 20mm but don't recall the layout. This was the ship that survived being hammered by Japanese kamikaze attack on 16April 1945 off Okinawa while on radar-picket duty. I think she was credited with 9 planes killed (if you count two that hit her of the 6 that actually hit or touched her with themselves,, but that was all in a day. Yes, she had a lot of help from Marine and Navy fighters also joining the fight and shooting down Japanese plains that were attacking her. Ok, this is a mid war build but they were getting better at aircraft defense.

What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:Instead of having one set of SD(P) carrying CM pods and another carrying shipkillers, just distribute them over the two groups. The pods are ejected in rails (four, IIC) from the pod bay, so if you dedicate two for CMs and two for shipkillers in the bay or one and three, each SD can perform both roles.

Jonathan_S wrote:I believe four rails is BC(P)s; while full up SD(P)s have 6

Another carrying shipkillers? Since I'm not sure what you're suggesting, just to be ciear. I'm not advocating for a ship carrying missiles only.

I am also not advocating for changing the load out of CMs and shipkillers from its current distribution. Of course warships carrying both missiles and CMs should be retained pending recept of the memo that says warships can currently fire CMs and ship killers from the same tubes. … No? Then I'm advocating for a purpose-built CM-ship to augment the protection. A ship that can kick out CMs at the rate of them being pre-rolled. The advantage of towing pods is having the gun cocked and locked for an Alpha launch when you hyper in. But Alpha launches have to be pre-rolled. I am advocating for a pair of CM ships that can eject an alpha launch of CM protection at a moments notice!!!

The sound of this baby belching out CMs is comforting to a fleet. This ship proves there really are sounds made in space.

Jonsthan_S wrote:One issue with a CM-only ship is that the number of CMs you can control is a function of surface area to mount control links and sightlines around the "gunsmoke" of their wedges. (Though you can avoid the latter if you're big enough to carry a Keyhole -- but then you're at least the size of a BC -- quite big to waste on a ship with no offensive power).

I have always imagined something as close to a purpose built freighter as big as possible ensuring that it can keep up with the fleet.

I don't understand why there should be a problem with gunsmoke when ejecting pods that literally clear the launch zone before firing.

Jonathan_S wrote:So for a given cost or tonnage more small platforms give you more surface area and more sightlines than one big platform. Plus while a hit on one of 10 small platforms will likely wipe it out the other 9 remain fully effective; while a hit on a big CM-only platform might not kill it but probably knocks out more than 1/10th of its effectiveness (while making it an easier target for follow-up hits)

A ship the size of a freighter should have tons of surface area. Can't get more surface area than a specced out freighter. And at the rate these things belch out CMs nothing gets through. Nary a single ship will be hit let alone damaged.

Anyway you slice it, it's going to have to be a biiig ship. I'm not sure it would assume the shape of a spindle design. I'd expect that a ship designed to kick out an alpha launch of CMs at a moment’s notice would look more like a freighter. (Thus, my mention of a freighter here and elsewhere). But it would be optimized to squat and dump CMs.

CMS R US

What rubs you old-timers the wrong way is the idea of a single purpose ship. I get it. It seems like a waste to sink so much into a design that can only fill one roll, and traditionally navies just didn't do that. It comes back to the almighty dollar, really. But times have changed now and I’m trying to tell you White Haven(ites) that the time has come for a single purpose ship. When you get right down to it CLACs are single purpose ships as well. Sure, they have other utility but that is besides the point because are ultimately wasted in major confrontations. A single purpose CM ship is worth its weight in gold.

CMs when you need them are like GOLD!

Again, the problem with utilizing LACs to thicken the CM envelope is that they don't! Not significantly anyway … enough to logically count on it. That's silly! LACs only manage to piss on a raging fire. And this, Jonathan.

Jonathan_S wrote:But a LAC can't fire its CMs quickly enough to run out against just a couple of salvos -- so rearming their CMs only matters in a prolonged slugging match. And in a prolonged slugging match you do have time to cycle a few LACs at a time back to the fleet.

That is nothing to brag about. It is actually a weakness of using LACs to thicken the CM screen. LACs already don't carry many CMs, but it should at least be able to dump its load in a single shot. What's it saving a second shot for? The Alpha launch is the most important!

I know. I know. ‘Every little bit helps.’ But I'll have you know I don't like that attitude either. With current technology a lot more can be accomplished than settling with ‘every little bit helps.’

A LAC’s contribution isn't trivial.

No. But it is trivial considering the deluge of fire it is up against. And it is trivial compared to the deluge a CM platform could be made to kick out. Again. And again. And again … at a moments notice. I enjoy seeing AirForceOne kicking out chaff and flares when missiles are chasing it. You know it can't keep that fire up forever, but in a pinch it sure does do the job well. Make sure you live to fight another day.

Yes. It is a single purpose ship.

Get over it.

The threat environment has changed.

When you need a pinch hitter to come in in baseball. You only need him to perform in this short period of time. When you choose your best free throw shooter when the other team gets a technical foul, you need that shooter to perform now! Single purpose ships can come off the bench and perform when they need to. When there are a lot of missiles you need a ship that can cut to the chase.

Another weakness of the tactic of utilizing LACs to thicken the CM envelope is that the tactic itself is vulnerable to LACs becoming targets. Against a stealthed enemy like the MA, the LAC screen will be wiped out of existence. A salvo to kill the enemy screen would be my first launch out of the gate, even if I wore a Peep uniform. Then there's nothing left to blunt my alpha launch.

Another problem with a LAC CM defense is that the RMN has not come up against a navy with alpha launches as thick as their own. I've a feeling that will change. And LACs aren't up to snuff.

I hope I don't get sent to the Principal's office for not continuing to keep this notion to myself. But when I first realized what the role Manticoran super LACs were going to play, I thought, well, “glorified clock blockers” is all I could think of. I was sad. Honestly, I think the Manticoran LACs are being wasted. Squandered. I think LAC attacks should be launched as a separate prong of attack. When an enemy's launch rolls in, it makes the defenders roll ship. Is it possible for a LAC to be on a bearing that takes advantage of a rolled ship? LACs should save their CMs for themselves.

GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF THE BIG BOYS.

The problem is also the fact that if navies take out those LACs that are pushed further out, then what? Like I said upstream, I would wipe that LAC screen out immediately. That plows the field for my alpha launch. My alpha launch is already in flight. I will assume the LAC screen has been dealt with. So, the argument that the enemy is destroying my capital ships while I am targeting their screen doesn't cut the mustard.

Another thing. I don't understand why it is so difficult to target a LAC at those ranges. Am I to believe that a missile cannot be programmed to attack enemy wedges? At any rate, against a navy with unprecedented stealth, screening elements are going to go POOF!


I apologize again for a long post and the piecemeal copy/pasted responses from the "?" thread. I'm rather busy these days and this method seems more convenient at times.

penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.

Well, the CLACs have evolved towards a tactical usage where they don't usually stay in a position to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet. They mostly drop their LACs and peel off to wait in safety.

Plus the LACs that they carry can do many other useful jobs beyond thickening a fleet's anti-missile defense -- they're still death on anything smaller than a waller; able to spread out and rip up a system's infrastructure with far more precision (reduced collateral damage) than missile strikes. They can spread wide to provide an outer shell of sensor coverage against things like stealth weapons (though obviously this is shared by recon drones; but the LACs can also shoot the stealthy objects trying to sneak past. They can also help capture enemy shipping that tries to flee by spreading out so multiple LACs can run down each evading ship -- giving you better option to force the ships to heave to and surrender, or to shoot to cripple, in a way that long range missile fire from your relatively small number of heavy ships can't.

penny wrote:

Thinksmarkedly wrote:Instead of having one set of SD(P) carrying CM pods and another carrying shipkillers, just distribute them over the two groups. The pods are ejected in rails (four, IIC) from the pod bay, so if you dedicate two for CMs and two for shipkillers in the bay or one and three, each SD can perform both roles.

Jonathan_S wrote:I believe four rails is BC(P)s; while full up SD(P)s have 6

Another carrying shipkillers? Since I'm not sure what you're suggesting, just to be ciear. I'm not advocating for a ship carrying missiles only.

I am also not advocating for changing the load out of CMs and shipkillers from its current distribution. Of course warships carrying both missiles and CMs should be retained pending recept of the memo that says warships can currently fire CMs and ship killers from the same tubes. … No? Then I'm advocating for a purpose-built CM-ship to augment the protection. A ship that can kick out CMs at the rate of them being pre-rolled. The advantage of towing pods is having the gun cocked and locked for an Alpha launch when you hyper in. But Alpha launches have to be pre-rolled. I am advocating for a pair of CM ships that can eject an alpha launch of CM protection at a moments notice!!!

The sound of this baby belching out CMs is comforting to a fleet. This ship proves there are sounds in space.

No ships don't fire CMs and Missiles from the same tubes. (Well, not normally. Some older ships contained basically sabots to allow a CM to be fired from an SDM tube in case they'd lost too many CM tubes and wanted to sacrifice offensive firepower for extra defense -- say if they were trying to survive to flee). But then wallers barely fire (anti-ship) missiles from tubes anymore anyway -- The Invictus class literally gave up every single missile tube to carry more CM launchers and PDLCs. The Grayson Harrington II didn't go that far, but still mainly uses their broadside tubes to customize the number of jammers and decoys in each salvo; rather than as a significant part of their offensive firepower (and in tradeoff they carry almost 25% fewer CM launchers than the Invictus.

So I'm not sure what your point was. But also you'd been talking about CM pods, and we only have one size of pod rail; so a ship carrying CM pods would necessarily be carrying fewer MDM pods - and any time they rolled a CM pod was a time they could have rolled an MDM pod instead. It sounded like you wanted a new ship type that carried 100% CM pods and Thinksmarkedly was pointing out you'd have better survivability and flexibility if you instead simply built more existing pod layers and swapped out part of each one's missile load for CMs. You'd end up with just as many MDM and CM pods in the fleet; but now they'd have more redundancy as the CMs pods would be scattered across all the pod layers instead of concentrated into a few "SD(CM-P)"s which if lost would radically reduce the defenses of the fleet.

Penny wrote:

Jonsthan_S wrote:One issue with a CM-only ship is that the number of CMs you can control is a function of surface area to mount control links and sightlines around the "gunsmoke" of their wedges. (Though you can avoid the latter if you're big enough to carry a Keyhole -- but then you're at least the size of a BC -- quite big to waste on a ship with no offensive power).

I have always imagined something as close to a purpose built freighter as big as possible ensuring that it can keep up with the fleet.

I don't understand why there should be a problem with gunsmoke when ejecting pods that literally clear the launch zone before firing.

Jonathan_S wrote:So for a given cost or tonnage more small platforms give you more surface area and more sightlines than one big platform. Plus while a hit on one of 10 small platforms will likely wipe it out the other 9 remain fully effective; while a hit on a big CM-only platform might not kill it but probably knocks out more than 1/10th of its effectiveness (while making it an easier target for follow-up hits)

A ship the size of a freighter should have tons of surface area. Can't get more surface area than a specced out freighter. And at the rate these things belch out CMs nothing gets through. Mary a single ship will be hit let alone damaged.

Anyway you slice it, it's going to have to be a biiig ship. I'm not sure it would assume the shape of a spindle design. I'd expect that a ship designed to kick out an alpha launch of CMs at a moment’s notice would look more like a freighter. (Thus, my mention of a freighter here and elsewhere). But it would be optimized to squat and dump CMs.

CMS R US

What rubs you old-timers the wrong way is the idea of a single purpose ship. I get it. It seems like a waste to sink so much in a design that can only fill only one roll, and traditionally navies just didn't do that. It comes back to the almighty dollar, really. But times have changed now and I’m trying to tell you White Haven(ites) that the time has come for a single purpose ship. When you get right down to it CLACs are single purpose ships as well. Sure, they have other utility but that is besides the point because are ultimately wasted in major confrontations. A single purpose CM ship is worth its weight in gold.

CMs when you need them are like GOLD!

If it's bigger than an SD(P), in any dimension, then it is necessarily slower (lower acceleration) than an SD(P) because it would require a larger and/or less efficiently shaped compensation field to cover it. A CM-only ship of SD size could carry more CM fire control than an SD(P) as it wouldn't need surface area to fit grasers, MDM tubes (if the SD carried those either), or MDM fire control. But that would probably allow it to fit no more than 3x the control links of an SD(P) - not a massive win for giving up all your offensive firepower.

Penny wrote:Again, the problem with utilizing LACs to thicken the CM envelope is that they don't! Not significantly anyway … enough to logically count on it. That's silly! LACs only manage to piss on a raging fire. And this, Jonathan.

Jonathan_S wrote:But a LAC can't fire its CMs quickly enough to run out against just a couple of salvos -- so rearming their CMs only matters in a prolonged slugging match. And in a prolonged slugging match you do have time to cycle a few LACs at a time back to the fleet.

That is nothing to brag about. It is actually a weakness of using LACs to thicken the CM screen. LACs already don't carry many CMs, but it should at least be able to dump its load in a single shot. What's it saving a second shot for? The Alpha launch is the most important!

I know. I know. ‘Every little bit helps.’ But I'll have you know I don't like that attitude either. With current technology a lot more can be accomplished than settling with ‘every little bit helps.’

A LAC’s contribution isn't trivial.

No. But it is trivial considering the deluge of fire it is up against. And it is trivial compared to the deluge a CM platform could be made to kick out. Again. And again. And again … at a moments notice. I enjoy seeing AirForceOne kicks out chaff and flares when missiles are chasing it. You know it can't keep that fire up forever, but in a pinch it sure does do the job well. Make sure you live to fight another day.

Yes. True. it is a single purpose ship.
Get over it.
The threat environment has changed.

When you need a pinch hitter to come in in baseball. You only need him to perform in this short period of time. When you choose your best free throw shooter when the other team gets a technical foul, you need that shooter to perform now! Single purpose ships can come off the bench and perform when they need to. When there are a lot of missiles you need a ship that can cut to the chase.

Another weakness of the tactic of utilizing LACs to thicken the CM envelope is that the tactic itself is vulnerable to LACs becoming targets. Against a stealthed enemy like the MA, the LAC screen will be wiped out of existence. A salvo to kill the enemy screen would be my first launch out of the gate, even if I wore a Peep uniform. Then there's nothing left to blunt my alpha launch.

Another problem with a LAC CM defense is that the RMN has not come up against a navy with alpha launches as thick as their own. I've a feeling that will change. And LACa aren't up to snuff.

I hope I don't get sent to the Principal's office for not continue to keep this notion to myself. But when I first realized what the role Manticoran super LACs were going to play, I thought, well, “glorified clock blockers” is all I could think of. I was sad. Honestly, I think the Manticoran LACs are being wasted. Squandered. I think LAC attacks should be launched as a separate prong of attack. When an enemy's launch rolls in, it makes the defenders roll ship. Is it possible for a LAC to be on a bearing that takes advantage of a rolled ship? LACs should save their CMs for themselves.

GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF THE BIG BOYS.

The problem is also the fact that if navies take out those LACs that are pushed further out, then what? Like I said upstream, I would wipe that LAC screen out immediately. That plows the field for my alpha launch. My alpha launch is already in flight. I will assume the LAC screen has been dealt with. So, the argument that the enemy is destroying my capital ships while I am targeting their screen doesn't cut the mustard.

Another thing. I don't understand why it is so difficult to target a LAC at those ranges. Am I to believe that a missile cannot be programmed to attack enemy wedges? At any rate, against a navy with unprecedented stealth, screening elements are going to go POOF!


I apologize again for a long post and the piecemeal copy/pasted responses from the "?" thread. I'm rather busy these days and this method seems more convenient at times.

The Alpha strike hasn't been the most lethal since the advent of pod layers. It mattered vastly when all pods were towed and so you had to fire them all off before any enemy fire arrives. But now a fleet of podlayers can usually manage to repeatedly stack up salvos as large as their opening one by rolling fresh pods. So you don't want a CM defense that is mostly expended on the first salvo because the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc are going to be just as large. They're each limited by how many missiles can be controlled per salvo - unless you face a GOTH scenario where a system defense's pods are nearly blind-fired at you -- in which case most are going to miss anyway.

LACs being unable to fire off all their CMs at a single salvo would have been a problem if they'd been around prior to Buttercup; but by the 2nd war you wanted them to be able to engage multiple salvos of enemy missiles.

And LACs are far more survivable first because we're explicitly told that they are, but second because they're so physically small. Yes the enemy can see their wedge - but shooting the wedge does nothing; you need to hit the ship. But a ship doesn't have to sit in the perfect geometric center of their wedge -- so knowing, even perfectly, where the wedge is still leaves a relatively large area the ship itself might be; and the side/bow wall, ECM, etc. make it hard for a laserhead to see the actual ship hiding within that wedge area. That's one reason laserheads carry multiple lasing rods -- they try their best to narrow down where the ship is and then do a bit of a shotgun effect into that area in hopes of hitting it.

For a missile coming in from the broadside an SD-sized target presents a silhouette of around 190,000 m^2. A LAC in missile defense is going to be bow on to the target, because that's where their weapons and sensors are, and so present a silhouette of only around 320 m^2. Under 0.2% of the target area -- so a laserhead is far, far, more likely to just flat out miss a LAC. (The bow wall also needs to generate less beam deflection to cause a miss even if the laser was pointed at the center of the LAC than an SD's sidewall would against a laser aimed at the middle of the SD). A hit would be catestrophic, but it's so much less likely that the LAC is pretty darn survivable - at least against a missile's onboard sensors.

Remember even if the LACs are 2 million km closer to the enemy, they're still likely 50+ million km from them -- that's hardly close and the enemy isn't going to have very good targeting data on them. And if the enemy wants to spend much of their first salvo targeting the LACs, with low likelihood of wiping them out that means they're going to do quite light damage to your fleet -- while all your missiles are targeting the enemy's SD(P)s and starting to damage or kill them. So on the next salvo the enemy can throw fewer missiles and can also stop fewer missiles, while you can still throw basically as large a salvo -- that rapidly puts them on the losing side of the N^2 power imbalance. A fleet commander would love an enemy to spend their early salvos trying to pick off LACs and giving the commander's own SD(P)s free shots on the enemy wallers.

A stealthed enemy might be able to pick off the screening LACs. But they're dispersed enough that they're unlike to get them all and the surviving LACs are in the best position to see where the fire came from and retaliate. And frankly if an enemy can sneak that close better that they reveal themselves killing LACs than in killing wallers.

Just realized I missed a couple of points in trying to deal with that massive multi-quote response.

If you build a CM freighter then it's going to be far more fragile than an SD(P). A freighter, even one SD sized with pod rails full of CM pods and plenty of CM fire control, is only going to be able to take a handful of laserhead hits before being completely out of commission. Whereas, baring extremely bad luck, an SD(P) is still relatively combat effective after taking 50+ hits. A freighter base "SD(CM-P)" is an extreme glass cannon.

And if you build a proper SD sized warship for your "SD(CM-P)" then its going to cost about as much as a proper SD(P) but lack the flexibility of one -- and it's still going to be overconcentrating the fleet's extra defensive fire into a handful of hulls instead of distributing it across all the SD(P)s so that no matter which ships get hit you won't lose a disproportionate amount of that fire.

As for "gunsmoke" -- that's what they're calling it when the multi-km wedge of a missile passes between the controlling ship and another missile that's further downrange. The fire control signals can't pass through the intervening wedge and so cut the link, at least until the wedge gets out of the way again and you can attempt to resume the connection.
Even launching CMs from pods that have been dropped astern since those CMs are going after MDMs targeting your entire fleet they're going to end up putting previous launches in their wedge shadows and cutting links. That's very hard to avoid when you've got all your CM control links concentrated onto the hull of a single ship.
Keyhole works around that by having a pair of relays one way above (hundreds of km) the plane of engagement and one way below -- and the ship's tactical computers can pick at any given moment whether to send a CM fire control command from one of the keyholes or from the hull mounted link; depending on which won't be having their line of sight cut shortly by another CM. With just hull mounted emitters you don't have enough distance between them to effectively do that.
And even with Keyhole that effect maxes out -- which is what when it was first used defensively Honor's ships could "only" control 8 salvos (not the 11 they could have launched); though each salvo was far larger as it was both broadsides of each of her ships) - for a total of over 7x as many CMs as expected from her starships.

So any SD(CM-P) would need keyholes -- but even so a normal SD(P) is capable of already firing off more CMs than it can control -- and firing from trailing pods wouldn't, as noted, help increase that total much. So you'd be building a defense only ship that's less flexible, but can barely control any more CMs than an SD(P); if it's to be as quick as an SD(P) can't be any bigger, if it's to be as survivable as an SD(P) can't be significantly cheaper, and by concentrating that defensive fire makes the fleet less resilient and effective than simply bringing along that number of additional SD(P)s.

Jonathan_S wrote:And even with Keyhole that effect maxes out -- which is what when it was first used defensively Honor's ships could "only" control 8 salvos (not the 11 they could have launched);

So any SD(CM-P) would need keyholes -- but even so a normal SD(P) is capable of already firing off more CMs than it can control .

NIT: Not true as your quote was ONLY for chase control links using their keyholes which have an impeller wedge Therefore the CHASE control links on a Keyhole, not its broadside control links have enough links for not only the offensive missiles they fired but also 8 salvos of CM's = ~1600CM's per Invictus +++ All the other CM's being fired by the CA's/BC's etc who could also not control via their chase control links their entire salvo capability, so...??? How many is that? We do not know.

As for the rest, lets just say Invictus design is not a good design IMO for an SD'P. 1 hit can destroy its ENTIRE offensive capability. Should never have been approved by BuShips to begin with.

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:And even with Keyhole that effect maxes out -- which is what when it was first used defensively Honor's ships could "only" control 8 salvos (not the 11 they could have launched);

So any SD(CM-P) would need keyholes -- but even so a normal SD(P) is capable of already firing off more CMs than it can control .

NIT: Not true as your quote was ONLY for chase control links using their keyholes which have an impeller wedge Therefore the CHASE control links on a Keyhole, not its broadside control links have enough links for not only the offensive missiles they fired but also 8 salvos of CM's = ~1600CM's per Invictus +++ All the other CM's being fired by the CA's/BC's etc who could also not control via their chase control links their entire salvo capability, so...??? How many is that? We do not know.

As for the rest, lets just say Invictus design is not a good design IMO for an SD'P. 1 hit can destroy its ENTIRE offensive capability. Should never have been approved by BuShips to begin with.

I just skimmed back through that fight in AAC and I'm not seeing anything that indicated that Honor's ships were fighting bow (or stern) on -- though clearly their base course was away from the Republic fleet.

Giscard's "pursuing Republican superdreadnoughts" were initially in a chase configuration, bow on to Honor's ships --

And "missile defense Plan Romeo rolled Honor's ships up on their sides"; which seems kind of a weird thing to do if they were still stern on to the enemy. That wouldn't let them hide behind their wedge; but would instead keep their vulnerable stern pointe at it (and dramatically reduce the number of PDLCs they can use against incoming fire). Yes they'll have stern-walls; but with those fully up they can't accelerate so might as well pivot to present your wedge.

After Keyhole helped let Honor tank the opening salvo "Javier Giscard's task group abruptly altered heading by ninety degrees, bringing its broadsides to bear on Task Force 82. The maneuver cut their acceleration towards the Manticoran ships to zero. But their relative velocity was losing ground steadily, anyway, and the turn also brought all of their broadside fire control to bear."


And, yes, ultimately Intolerant took a hit up her ass - but since other missiles in that salvo were hitting the wedge and sidewalls (something they'd have to be extra stupid to do if closing from the rear). So I'd visualized this fight with Task Force 82 broadside on but rolled up onto their side, so the belly of their wedge towards the enemy -- making the Peep missiles have to crest the rim of the wedge around any of its four sides before racing the PDLCs to make a snap shot. And that lucky missile just happened to pass behind Intolerant and take a snap shot at her stern to punch up into her pod bay.