Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster Bay

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by kzt   » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:41 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10022
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

There is a huge difference between craft and mass production. If you have contracts for hundreds of vessels there all sorts of things you can do to speed up and reduce manpower needs that would be completely insane if you are building one at a time.

And as your crews and design/production engineers get more experienced the process gets faster.

And if the priority is speed there other things you can do that have other tradeoffs to increase production speed. Some of these just raise costs, some impact capability, some reliability/quality.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Sigs   » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:31 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:09 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:



That's why I was focusing on 12-15k missiles: we know that a handful of Saganami-C can control that many Apollo. The premise of the discussion was that someone could throw 50 SD(P)s and 20 CLACs at minor Talbott systems to make the RMN scramble and disperse its forces and to inflict psychological tension between the member planets and Manticore. I was arguing that with a handful of picket ships and a shoal of Apollo missile pods in each system (Mycroft optional, but welcome) is able to effectively defend them against any conceivable threat that anyone in known space is able to throw at them.

Depending on fixed defences and light combatants to defend your territory is asking for trouble in the long run. Having fixed defences with a small system picket perfectly acceptable as long as there is a reserve of some kind that can be used to reinforce any threatened system. What you are suggesting is that the 15 systems in Talbott and ~30 systems in Silesia each get 10-20 CA's with a lot of Pods and call it their defence. What happens when someone outside of the GA has the same or similar technology as the GA? You are looking at it from the point of view that the RMN has massive technological advantage against any of their rivals so lighter ships can face off against capital ships and hope to win, but that doesn't last. Sooner or later someone will have a navy technologically equal to the RMN so the handful of cruisers will not be enough. What happens with you hypothetical system defence force if enemy force consisted of 50 Invictus Class SD(P)'s supported by 24 CLAC's and lighter combatants? What is the outcome when a rival with equal technology comes into your system, crushes your system defences and you have nothing to reinforce the rest of your systems with. I can go from system to system with my 50 SD(P)'s and 24 CLAC's crushing your defences and industry and there is precisely nothing you can do about it without weakening your important systems. What happens if someone were to capture the Lynx Terminus? You have nothing in Talbott that can retake it and nothing from Manticore can retake it.

SD(P)'s are a versatile platform because they can be used to bolster a systems defences and they can be used to form an offensive fleet and retaliate. CAs on the other hand in your scenario are purely defensive assets because in an offensive action I wouldn't want to send 200 Sag-C's against a prepared defence of 50 Invictus Class SD(P)'s and system defence missile pods.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Sigs   » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:38 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:09 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Completely agreed, but the RMN having a dozen CAs available to deploy at each of the two dozen Talbott systems is completely within its capabilities. That's just 2 gross (288) ships. On the other hand, anyone having 50 SD(P)s is not realistic before 1930 PD.

Why is 50 SD(P)'s out of the question? We have already seen that someone can make design and build SD(P)'s in a less then 5 years once, so why not again? Was Haven just more capable and motivated then the rest of the galaxy which is now defenceless?



Yep, but I guess each Mycroft pair is cheaper to build and operate than a dozen Saganami-C.
And each Mycroft platform would be significantly more vulnerable then mobile assets.

You still need a picket in the system, possibly a reinforced one (CL minimum) to avoid the technology falling into someone else's hands through deception.

So what you are suggesting is that there would be 15 individual systems that cannot render aid to each other in times of need and a central government that cannot reinforce them without stripping their vital systems of important defences.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Sigs   » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:06 pm

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:09 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Right now, no one but the IAN, RMN, RHN, GSN, ESN and the SLN even has 50 SDs, with all but one of those are part of the Alliance or very tied to it. Even Beowulf had only 36 or so and was viewed by the SL members as wasteful expenditure.
Except after the thrashing that the League got from the RMN AND the SLN more systems will be happy with the wasteful expenditures of SD(P)'s for their SDF's even if they remain in the League, if they don't remain in the League it will become a must. Many core/shell systems can easily maintain 50 to 100 SD(P)'s without breaking a sweat.

What's more the whole planning your defences is not for right now, at this minute and for the next 12 months but its ground work for an ever evolving threat environment that will require amendments as more and more nations acquire SD(P)'s and proper LAC's of their own. Right now the RMN doesn't need anything but 120 SD(P)'s for defence as 2 SD(P)'s would more then a match for pretty much anything but a major force, while 15 years down the road it might not be the case.



Even accepting someone is going to be dumb enough (or mad enough) to attack with two dozen pre-pod SD, we know that their point defence, counter missiles and ECM are woefully inadequate. The numbers we discussed before were for someone catching up with 1919 Haven technology, which shouldn't happen until 1930 and that's granting that they aren't likely to be getting battle experience and sensor data that Haven had from the PRH.

Are you suggesting that the RMN should subscribe to the 10 year rule? So would they worry about real defences only when an enemy has SD(P)'s and not a moment before? So basically they will start building their SD(P)'s along with the rest of the galaxy.





Even 1930 is very optimistic, unless you get a leg up. More likely:
1923.5 (now)
+ 18 months of R&D to design the class and develop pod-launching systems
+ 36 months to build the first prototype
+ 30 months to build the next 10 in parallel

This gives you only 10 SD(P)s by mid-1930.

The build times are an optimistic guesstimate based on the time it takes Manticore to build (22 months) and how long it took Carlucci to build SD(P)s for Maya, based on the expected commissioning of 1923. And that's with Erewhon already having experience building those.

And given the experience the Mayans had at the Battle of Torch with inferior missiles and sensors, I don't think they'll be at 1919 RHN levels.

Disbanding the majority of your SD(P)'s and releasing the crew's in 1923 on the assumption that no one will have SD(P)'s earlier then 1930 if not 1935 is risky and after that what's the plan? Build up your SD(P)'s along with everyone else?


And If I am not mistaken the MA has 50 SD(P)'s of their own under construction… 50 SD(P)'s that the GA knows nothing about. There is a system (Darius) that they know nothing about, they don't know it's location, industrial capabilities, if it is a single system or there are 50 of them or what the defences are.


The League killed a few thousand people from the SEM while the MA killed 70+ million people from the GA and after the SLN is beat everyone calls it a day?

The bigger threat is still alive and kicking, the unknown threat is still out there.

The MA could be in their little conference room discussing how they cannot face the GA in open combat because they don't have the necessary fleet for at least a decade aannnnnd the GA disarms themselves to make it easier for the MA to accomplish their goals.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by drothgery   » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:56 pm

drothgery
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:07 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Sigs wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Completely agreed, but the RMN having a dozen CAs available to deploy at each of the two dozen Talbott systems is completely within its capabilities. That's just 2 gross (288) ships. On the other hand, anyone having 50 SD(P)s is not realistic before 1930 PD.

Why is 50 SD(P)'s out of the question? We have already seen that someone can make design and build SD(P)'s in a less then 5 years once, so why not again? Was Haven just more capable and motivated then the rest of the galaxy which is now defenceless?

Well, kind of? Haven had a lot of advantages that no one else is likely to have...
- a huge stockpile of SD components
- direct observational data on RMN systems
- captured RMN hardware
- the motivation of an actual likely enemy who does have SD(P)s
- an experienced and highly motivated workforce
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:45 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Commander

Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Not replying to each individual point, as I think my position bears summarising.

My position is not that the RMN and the GA should focus on current threats only, and not foresee what potential threats could come. Far from it and they only need to look at the SLN to see what that kind of thinking can lead to.

I was trying to point out that the SEM has enough time to build up its defences. I don't remember now why someone brought the idea of throwing 50 SD(P)s at a minor Talbott system up. If any polity could do that, then yes, the SEM would be in trouble. But right now, no one can: all the known SD(P)s belong to the Alliance or to Erewhon & Maya. It will take time for anyone else to have an SD(P) and even more time for two squadrons.

My argument was for a gradual and rational build up of defences, in whatever form that is required. The technological gap allows the RMN to start small and still defend against any credible, known threat. Even if they conclude that they will need two squadrons of Invictus+ in each of those 50 systems. By the time anyone can throw a force that would require that defence, the RMN should have had time to build even more ships, train crews from Silesia and Talbott, and come up with even more technology. Sonja & Shannon ftw.

I don't know if a 10-year horizon is a good idea. I can see why that could be both good and bad: it allows for strategic thinking within reasonable boundaries, but it could lead to a false sense of security.

And then there's the MA. The problem with the rational planning like I described is the unknown. The planners don't know how many ships the MA has and what other tech they have up their sleeves. They know that they have very good stealth technology, but also guess (correctly) that they don't have a lot of it. You can spend a trillion Manticore dollars setting up defences around all those systems that won't stop a Lenny Det coming into range and deploying up Silver Bullets against your fixed defences and picket forces. The only way to defend against that is to find them and defeat them before they can have a force that can threaten the Alliance.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Galactic Sapper   » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:29 am

Galactic Sapper
Commander

Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:11 pm

Sigs wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:Depending on fixed defences and light combatants to defend your territory is asking for trouble in the long run. Having fixed defences with a small system picket perfectly acceptable as long as there is a reserve of some kind that can be used to reinforce any threatened system. What you are suggesting is that the 15 systems in Talbott and ~30 systems in Silesia each get 10-20 CA's with a lot of Pods and call it their defence. What happens when someone outside of the GA has the same or similar technology as the GA? You are looking at it from the point of view that the RMN has massive technological advantage against any of their rivals so lighter ships can face off against capital ships and hope to win, but that doesn't last. Sooner or later someone will have a navy technologically equal to the RMN so the handful of cruisers will not be enough. What happens with you hypothetical system defence force if enemy force consisted of 50 Invictus Class SD(P)'s supported by 24 CLAC's and lighter combatants? What is the outcome when a rival with equal technology comes into your system, crushes your system defences and you have nothing to reinforce the rest of your systems with. I can go from system to system with my 50 SD(P)'s and 24 CLAC's crushing your defences and industry and there is precisely nothing you can do about it without weakening your important systems. What happens if someone were to capture the Lynx Terminus? You have nothing in Talbott that can retake it and nothing from Manticore can retake it.

SD(P)'s are a versatile platform because they can be used to bolster a systems defences and they can be used to form an offensive fleet and retaliate. CAs on the other hand in your scenario are purely defensive assets because in an offensive action I wouldn't want to send 200 Sag-C's against a prepared defence of 50 Invictus Class SD(P)'s and system defence missile pods.

Then Mycroft would become necessary. The same missile pod density controlled by Mycroft would rip the ass off of 50 Invictus ships as easily as it would any other ships. That's pretty much what it's designed for. Short of doing exactly what happened in Beowulf, even GA ships can't penetrate a Mycroft defended system. The best they could hope for would be the sort of mutual destruction we saw in Hypatia.

Your 50 SD(P)s might succeed in the first system but not enough of them will survive to hit the second.

And IIRC the forts at the Lynx terminus are designed to hold off a substantial fleet of RMN SP(P)s without outside support.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by noblehunter   » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:58 am

noblehunter
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:49 pm

Galactic Sapper wrote:Then Mycroft would become necessary. The same missile pod density controlled by Mycroft would rip the ass off of 50 Invictus ships as easily as it would any other ships. That's pretty much what it's designed for. Short of doing exactly what happened in Beowulf, even GA ships can't penetrate a Mycroft defended system. The best they could hope for would be the sort of mutual destruction we saw in Hypatia.

Your 50 SD(P)s might succeed in the first system but not enough of them will survive to hit the second.

And IIRC the forts at the Lynx terminus are designed to hold off a substantial fleet of RMN SP(P)s without outside support.


Unless the SD(P) were far enough out they could get back into hyper before the missiles showed up. Given how many of the battles in UH went, it seems like the balance is firmly weighted towards attackers. With the current missile ranges, attackers can shoot at defenders with impunity.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Sigs   » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:54 am

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:09 pm

drothgery wrote:Well, kind of? Haven had a lot of advantages that no one else is likely to have...
- a huge stockpile of SD components
- direct observational data on RMN systems
- captured RMN hardware
- the motivation of an actual likely enemy who does have SD(P)s
- an experienced and highly motivated workforce

So you are saying that a heavily industrialized core/shell system that leaves the League and no longer has protection from the League wont have any motivation?

When core/shell systems leave the League they will have experienced, well educated workforce, equal civilian technology compared to the SKM and one hell of a motivation to get warships in service. They no longer have the security of the SLN and in fact many of them will be gearing up their fleet to protect against the SLN because they now have a very real and very legitimate threat. When 10 or more Core/shell systems get together they can throw insane amounts of money at the problem and their population will be highly motivated to build up a fleet before the SLN comes back to blow their industry back to the stone age. Then there is the SLN, in absolute terms even if they lose half of their core/shell systems they will still be able to raise insane amounts of money through taxation and throw that money at each and every problem with thousands of research firms.

In Reality what is an SD(P)? Everyone talks about how hard it is to figure out SD(P)'s and build SD(P)'s but its hard to build SD(P)'s to the level of the RMN but it wouldn't be hard to design and build an SD(P) at the SLN's level. The SLN could put SD(P)'s in service in 4-5 years but they wouldn't be that much more capable then their SD's until they have the technology that makes the SD(P)'s capable to stand up to GA SD(P)'s.


As for observational data? The Havenite Navy had about the same observational data as the SLN, the RMN comes into their system and crushes their picket and moves on, nobody captured an SD(P), nobody gave them the designs in 1915 they had to figure it out for themselves. If they were so motivated to figure it out in 1915 why cant someone else?
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:07 am

ThinksMarkedly
Commander

Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

noblehunter wrote:Unless the SD(P) were far enough out they could get back into hyper before the missiles showed up. Given how many of the battles in UH went, it seems like the balance is firmly weighted towards attackers. With the current missile ranges, attackers can shoot at defenders with impunity.


Not exactly impunity.

If you translate back into hyper, you're not controlling your missile swarm, any of the waves, for several minutes (you can't translate back down immediately). And it's pretty easy for the defenders to make sure you can't translate back at the same spot, so you'll also incur navigational errors due to short jumps.

But it doesn't look like FTL links are directional, so even if the attacking force is translating to n-space at a very different position, they should be able to get a respite of tens of minutes in which they can reacquire their waves and steer them.

Apollo is quite capable by itself, but it's only deadly to equivalent technology with the FTL communication with the motherships. And it might be irresponsible to fire-and-forget, in case some missiles veer off course and target civilian infrastructure or a planet.

Against a well-defended system, you can expect the system to have more missiles than the attackers, even if the latter brought missile colliers and freighters full of them for rearming.

My conclusion is that this means either a stalemate or a slight edge towards the attackers.
Top

Return to Honorverse