Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 40 guests

OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Sat May 14, 2022 10:20 pm

Loren Pechtel
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:24 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:As for the pod-launched ones... they received an order to launch. Therefore, there was a link active. If the enemy can jam the ship-pod link, then the jamming is active before the launch, so the ship simply shoots a laser at the platform and the jamming stops.


As I see it the most likely overall explanation is that launch orders include range and bearing. And, yes, it has to include range to ensure a missile doesn't go after part of your outer screen.

As Theemile said, if you fire 180° off course, it's never going to find the enemy. For some reason, before the Mk14, missiles could barely be launched off-bore at all. That's inconsistent with what we know a wedge can do and even more so considering those missiles could already evade pretty well the counter-missiles and laser defences.


I think the problem isn't with off-bore per se, but that earlier missiles had very little power storage and had to light their drives very quickly after launch or they wouldn't have the power to light them at all. An off-bore launch means the missile goes screaming off into space on the wrong vector. There was great, and to me unwarranted, reliance on the initial impulse from the launch tube and an off-bore wastes some of this, also.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Sun May 15, 2022 1:38 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Loren Pechtel wrote:I think the problem isn't with off-bore per se, but that earlier missiles had very little power storage and had to light their drives very quickly after launch or they wouldn't have the power to light them at all. An off-bore launch means the missile goes screaming off into space on the wrong vector. There was great, and to me unwarranted, reliance on the initial impulse from the launch tube and an off-bore wastes some of this, also.


They can turn much more quickly with the wedge than without. So even if it took 10 seconds to arc around the ship, it's not a big loss: there's still 170 seconds left of drive time. You'd time the launch of each broadside so that the off-target one happens first, 10 seconds before the on-target side.

Now that I think of it, I think it's not that it couldn't be done, it's that it wasn't worth doing it. First, as Theemile has just quoted from the Pearls, before the accuracy of the Manty & Peep missiles, missile duels were inconclusive. You could fire more and saturate defences, but your kill ratio wouldn't be that much higher, if higher at all. So you'd just be wasting ordnance.

And where this was useful, you had a solution: roll the ship so you fired a double broadside, like we saw Thunder of God do in HotQ..

You're also right that the Manty innovation must have been the ability to reorient before lighting up the wedges, so they also achieved surprise with this attack. We saw this at Saltash, when Vice Admiral Dubroskaya was completely surprised that 5 destroyers could launch 120 missiles at her (each Roland has 6 tubes per broadside; each destroyer's double double broadside is 24 missiles).
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Theemile   » Mon May 16, 2022 8:21 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5060
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:I think the problem isn't with off-bore per se, but that earlier missiles had very little power storage and had to light their drives very quickly after launch or they wouldn't have the power to light them at all. An off-bore launch means the missile goes screaming off into space on the wrong vector. There was great, and to me unwarranted, reliance on the initial impulse from the launch tube and an off-bore wastes some of this, also.


They can turn much more quickly with the wedge than without. So even if it took 10 seconds to arc around the ship, it's not a big loss: there's still 170 seconds left of drive time. You'd time the launch of each broadside so that the off-target one happens first, 10 seconds before the on-target side.

Now that I think of it, I think it's not that it couldn't be done, it's that it wasn't worth doing it. First, as Theemile has just quoted from the Pearls, before the accuracy of the Manty & Peep missiles, missile duels were inconclusive. You could fire more and saturate defences, but your kill ratio wouldn't be that much higher, if higher at all. So you'd just be wasting ordnance.

And where this was useful, you had a solution: roll the ship so you fired a double broadside, like we saw Thunder of God do in HotQ..

You're also right that the Manty innovation must have been the ability to reorient before lighting up the wedges, so they also achieved surprise with this attack. We saw this at Saltash, when Vice Admiral Dubroskaya was completely surprised that 5 destroyers could launch 120 missiles at her (each Roland has 6 tubes per broadside; each destroyer's double double broadside is 24 missiles).


It's also the extra drive time - You have to arrest the initial launcher kick that is pointing you in the wrong direction and then make it back up to have your off bore missiles integrate with the bore-sited salvo. if you don't have extra time on your drives, it will limit your salvo range. Another difficulty was the hand off from one control link to another across the wedge. (reliably). Spinning a ship or ducking behind your wedge always had the danger of cutting control links - the Manties found a way to seemlessly pass them from one side of the wedge to another with high reliability.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Mon May 16, 2022 11:49 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Theemile wrote:It's also the extra drive time - You have to arrest the initial launcher kick that is pointing you in the wrong direction and then make it back up to have your off bore missiles integrate with the bore-sited salvo. if you don't have extra time on your drives, it will limit your salvo range. Another difficulty was the hand off from one control link to another across the wedge. (reliably). Spinning a ship or ducking behind your wedge always had the danger of cutting control links - the Manties found a way to seemlessly pass them from one side of the wedge to another with high reliability.


I quite frankly don't think passing the control links would have been an issue. If RFC says it was, then sure... but otherwise it doesn't seem like a technological limitation that should exist. Those missiles are moving very slowly and are very close by. Their tails will become visible very quickly once they've completed the turn and thus can be reconnected.

They need to navigate around the ship's wedge, while their own wedges are up. It's not a trivial manoeuvre, but it shouldn't be too difficult either. Easiest would be if they could reorient up or down before lighting up the wedge, but that's not a deal breaker. If they can, then they perform a 90° turn using the wedge and come out in the correct attack plane, above or below the ship. If they can't, then it's 180° but not on the same plane, since you don't want those missiles to come back at the ship that has just launched them.

There's of course the limitation of the number of control links, but this is a consequence, not cause. Because no one performed this manoeuvre, there was little need to dedicate so much more extra hardware for links besides general redundancy.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Theemile   » Mon May 16, 2022 1:24 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5060
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Theemile wrote:It's also the extra drive time - You have to arrest the initial launcher kick that is pointing you in the wrong direction and then make it back up to have your off bore missiles integrate with the bore-sited salvo. if you don't have extra time on your drives, it will limit your salvo range. Another difficulty was the hand off from one control link to another across the wedge. (reliably). Spinning a ship or ducking behind your wedge always had the danger of cutting control links - the Manties found a way to seemlessly pass them from one side of the wedge to another with high reliability.


I quite frankly don't think passing the control links would have been an issue. If RFC says it was, then sure... but otherwise it doesn't seem like a technological limitation that should exist. Those missiles are moving very slowly and are very close by. Their tails will become visible very quickly once they've completed the turn and thus can be reconnected.

They need to navigate around the ship's wedge, while their own wedges are up. It's not a trivial manoeuvre, but it shouldn't be too difficult either. Easiest would be if they could reorient up or down before lighting up the wedge, but that's not a deal breaker. If they can, then they perform a 90° turn using the wedge and come out in the correct attack plane, above or below the ship. If they can't, then it's 180° but not on the same plane, since you don't want those missiles to come back at the ship that has just launched them.

There's of course the limitation of the number of control links, but this is a consequence, not cause. Because no one performed this manoeuvre, there was little need to dedicate so much more extra hardware for links besides general redundancy.


off-bore targeting
https://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/150/1/

Sensors/comms through a drive band
https://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/256/1/
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Mon May 16, 2022 7:53 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am



Thanks for the link. That confirms part of my theory and adds more reasoning to it. RFC is saying that even in these manoeuvres, the missile could get lost... which I found unlikely and still do. Maybe I didn't consider the launching ship is accelerating and possibly doing minor evasions, which the missile can't know and thus could end up in a position that it can't be reacquired.

He also says that it cuts into the missile's range... and while that's true, that's also the extreme range that is cut. The range at which effectiveness was already low, so it wasn't a great loss. Though he also says that the doctrine was established when the missile accelerations were much lower -- in Travis' time, 180 seconds at 3500 gravities would only get you 556,000 km. At less than 2 light-seconds, the missile is practically still in real-time control, and losing 10 seconds means losing 10.8% of your range (at any acceleration).
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by cthia   » Thu May 19, 2022 4:35 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Theemile, thanks for the kick-ass links. Whatta lotta stuff in those two posts.

But this post seems to indicate that a lot of communication is going on between the missile and either the ship or a tethered platform. It seems to indicate that the missile has to go through a lot of "preliminaries. After it is launched a missile needs to be able to communicate. Autonomy does not start immediately after launch ...

From an email posted to Baen's Bar BuShips dated November 12, 2004:

Off-bore missile targeting

Just exactly how does "off-bore" missile fire work? You originally specified a "120-degree" off-bore capability for the Shrike. These days, you seem to be specifying a greater capability. Would you care to explain?



OK. The original Shrike's capability to fire across a total 240-degree arc from its single bow-mounted tube was basically a hardware fix to the missile itself. The Shrike faced a particularly demanding requirement if it was going to use its bow-mounted launcher against targets in what would normally have been a broadside firing aspect. The problem was the width of its wedge, since the missile had to get clear of the wedge before it could bring its own drive up. For a target in the traditional field of fire of a bow chaser, that wasn't any particular problem, since the launcher kicked the missile out at a very high rate of acceleration and into the broadest aspect of the wedge. Because the throat of an impeller wedge is so much "deeper" then any other aspect of it, and because the Shrike's missiles were smaller than standard destroyer missiles (with correspondingly somewhat smaller wedges of their own) they could fire up their drives sooner, and then angle across the front of the wedge. To fire into the traditional broadside arcs, however, was a much trickier proposition, and the solution adopted was to build the Shrike's missiles with somewhat extended drive endurance (which cost both money and mass penalty on a per-missile basis) and to improve the fire control capability and the missile telemetry capability of the Shrike. The result was a missile which launched as if against a target directly in front of the LAC, accelerated well clear of the firing vessel's wedge, and then tracked back to find and engage the target which was "behind it."

This capability was available, initially, only to the Shrike, because it depended (at least in its initial incarnation) on the fact that the missile was being fired out of the throat of the wedge, where the wedge geometry worked for it. A missile fired out of a broadside tube, on the other hand, first had to clear the sidewall (10 km or so from the side of the ship), then clear the entire width of the impeller wedge (up to another 150 km, for a superdreadnought), and then reorient, kill its forward momentum away from its target, establish its telemetry link to its mothership when it was probably passing either above the roof or under the floor of the impeller wedge, and then acquire its target and attack normally.

The possibility of a missile doing this had been discussed as a theoretical consideration for a long, long time. At the time that it first came up for serious debate, however, the missiles available were much cruder, with far less capable drive systems and poorer fire control, driven by poorer shipboard fire control and communications ability, all of which equated to a considerably shorter effective missile range (remember the relatively short range at which Nike engaged in Edward Saganami's last battle). Frankly, the technology wasn't up to handling this sort of a maneuver without the loss of a significant percentage of the missile's total range and an unacceptably high rate of "lost" missiles which simply wandered away without ever "seeing" their target or being reacquired by the telemetry links of the ships which fired them.

As I'm sure you'll recall, I have referred several times to the fact that prior to Honor Harrington's time, naval technology and tactics had plateaued (or, if you prefer, stagnated) for several centuries. (This is what is so likely to turn around and invite the Solarian League on the butt, since they haven't UN-plateaued even now.) Increases in capability had been incremental (at best), and many of the limitations which might have been overcome by application of new technology had simply been accepted as "the way things were." What happened with the Manticorans was that once they had provided the Shrike with off-bore capability, the lightbulb suddenly went on, and they decided that there shouldn't be any inherent reason why they couldn't do sort of the same thing for other missile tubes. The real key to make it work, however, was yet another application of the Ghost Rider mindset. Essentially, what the RMN has done is to take the tethered decoys which have been part of the standard naval war-fighting toolbox for a long, long time, and enormously improve their capabilities. This is another offshoot of the miniaturization they've been pursuing for quite some time as part of the entire Ghost Rider approach. A Manty "tethered decoy" is considerably larger than the tethered decoys deployed by other navies, because it is also much more than a simple defensive EW platform. Instead, Manty "tethered decoys" are full spectrum communications platforms, sensor platforms, and defensive platforms (remember what the Jessica Epps did to the Andermani recon drone that had sneaked in on her, for example). When a broadside missile is launched even directly away from its eventual target, it is monitored and controlled on a continuous timesharing basis using the deployed "tethered decoys" as relays even while it is passing across the communications barrier of the firing ship's wedge. The improvements in missile drives -- in acceleration, endurance, numbers of drives, etc. -- and onboard seekers and improved maneuvering computers, coupled with the ability to keep the missiles under shipboard control throughout the rather complex maneuver required to fire them 180° away from their targets and still have them find those targets, is what permits the sort of fire Hexapuma turned out in Shadow of Saganami. It's also one reason that the Roland-class ships have their missile tubes arranged the way they do. It's much simpler to execute this type of maneuver out of the bow or stern aspects of an impeller wedge than it is out of a broadside firing arc, and destroyers' "tethered decoys" tend to be smaller and less capable than those of cruisers and capital ships. The Roland could have been designed around this type of firing technique, but since there were already some pretty compelling reasons to group the missile tubes the way they had, BuShips made a virtue out of necessity and was able to provide full broadside fire for all missile tubes with considerably less onboard and captive platform mass and volume.

One big reason why it took so long for anyone to develop this sort of an approach was that, first, the technique for firing double broadsides by spinning the ship on its long axis was developed long ago, to permit a similar weight of fire (if at a lower rate of fire) within the limitations of the then available technology and missile drives. That technique had been around so long and was so well established, that it really didn't occur to anyone that they needed to find a better way to do something they could already do. Secondly, there was the problem of adequately controlling the numbers of missiles which double broadsides implied. Prior to the development of missile pods, ships simply didn't have the control links to allow them to control outsized broadsides' worth of missiles. Once the sheer numbers of missiles which had to be controlled in a pod environment became apparent to the RMN's designers and the analysts in BuWeaps, it was obvious that a massive upgrade in fire control ability was necessary. And once that upgrade was made available -- not an easy task, and yet one more of the huge number of projects bundled under the "Ghost Rider" label -- it was also available for controlling off-bore double broadsides. So what we actually have here in the case of a ship like Hexapuma is the convergence of several different technological projects and capabilities, coupled with a mindset which has acquired the habit of asking that incredibly irritating question "Why not?" about restrictions which "everybody knows" simply can't be worked around.


Do forgive me for posting this wonderful link.

But am I missing something? It appears to stress the need to immediately communicate with the missile after launch. I was trying to manhandle a post for days that has gotten way too long, but decided on a short version instead, for now.

In that long post I am harping on the fact that, at least in my mind's eye, all missiles are fired off bore, inasmuch as they aren't launched on a beeline to the target. As per the links, a salvo has to clear the wedge (and it seems the launching ship's geometry; heading and accel would have to be imparted to the missile), and it also has to clear the sidewalls per the author's post. I didn't realize that, but I did figure that a missile has to be mindful of other ships in the formation as well. Firing on an enemy should have very different logistics for a single ship.

That is why I assume that there simply must be immediate communication with the mothership if a missile is going to 1. Avoid all wedges in the formation 2. Avoid its own sidewall 3. Find the enemy.

Even the "autonomous" salvo against the SL, I think, had early "initial" communication.

The GA launches massive salvos, if massive salvos are going to avoid friendlies, shouldn't they be controlled early on?

It suddenly becomes obvious to me why it becomes imperative that a new Navy or ships drill together, because improper maneuvers can impede targeting, and may even result in death and destruction.



How is a formation stacked to allow firing without shooting a friendly in the formation? Are all ships located on the same plane, and no ships stacked below or above? In abwet Navy, the guns are shooting over each ship in the formation.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu May 19, 2022 5:14 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

cthia wrote:That is why I assume that there simply must be immediate communication with the mothership if a missile is going to 1. Avoid all wedges in the formation 2. Avoid its own sidewall 3. Find the enemy.


I don't know if there must be as much as it's a pretty good idea for there to be communication. The missiles are not THAT dumb and probably do have some smarts about not attacking a target that is just 1.5 seconds away. However, the manoeuvring may not be easy, especially if lots of ships are launching and this missile doesn't know where all those others are coming from and going to.

Even the "autonomous" salvo against the SL, I think, had early "initial" communication.


Yes.

The GA launches massive salvos, if massive salvos are going to avoid friendlies, shouldn't they be controlled early on?


Yes.

It suddenly becomes obvious to me why it becomes imperative that a new Navy or ships drill together, because improper maneuvers can impede targeting, and may even result in death and destruction.


Well, yeah. I hadn't thought of this particular aspect, but indeed it's yet one more reason to drill together.

I assume that ships from the same navy would follow the same protocols and would have an SOP for fleet launch. But when you add ships from a different Navy, with different SOPs, all hell could break loose.

How is a formation stacked to allow firing without shooting a friendly in the formation? Are all ships located on the same plane, and no ships stacked below or above? In abwet Navy, the guns are shooting over each ship in the formation.


In a wall formation, with all broadsides pointing to the enemy. That way, no waller will be in another's broadside angle. The escort ships, on the other hand, might be, because their function is to stay ahead of the wall, between the enemy and that wall. So those missiles need to evade the escorts and LACs. Those would be between 1 and 2 light-seconds further out, so collision while disoriented is negligible. It takes 18 seconds for a missile to cross 1 LS, so that's plenty of time for links to be acquired.

One thing David never described but is implied by the fact that they're launching from broadsides and that off-bore launching wasn't possible is that the waller ships must cease acceleration, turn sideways, and only then launch. If they're launching multiple times, they're also likely continuing ballistically towards the enemy. It's possible they accelerate now on this plane perpendicular to the enemy direction, but I don't think there's a lot of it.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by cthia   » Thu May 19, 2022 7:43 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
cthia wrote:That is why I assume that there simply must be immediate communication with the mothership if a missile is going to 1. Avoid all wedges in the formation 2. Avoid its own sidewall 3. Find the enemy.


I don't know if there must be as much as it's a pretty good idea for there to be communication. The missiles are not THAT dumb and probably do have some smarts about not attacking a target that is just 1.5 seconds away. However, the manoeuvring may not be easy, especially if lots of ships are launching and this missile doesn't know where all those others are coming from and going to.


I think there must be. There is simply no way to program precognition into a missile so why rely on it. There are too many ever-changing variables. There is no way a missile can foresee a ship or ships suddenly suffering impeller damage which hinders the ship's accel, and an off-bore launch could fly into another ship's path (especially a wounded ship) when it loops back around across the wedge trying to establish its link.

You misunderstood me when I said a launch could go after a friendly. What I mean is an accidental collision. When a missile's drive lights up, immediate acceleration is at hand, and 1.5 seconds is not enough time for a missile to avoid a collision with a surprise ship whose course is unavoidably altered. It is akin to a dragster at full throttle in rush hour traffic.

So I think this early initial communication is taken for granted and can be jammed. Traditionally, battles didn't have to worry about anything getting in close enough to jam telemetry. To be honest, the Manties opened that can of worms.

At any rate, if an LD can impede or throw a monkey wrench into GA launches that are targeting an opponent that isn't totally localized, well, game on.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu May 19, 2022 9:13 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

cthia wrote:I think there must be. There is simply no way to program precognition into a missile so why rely on it. There are too many ever-changing variables. There is no way a missile can foresee a ship or ships suddenly suffering impeller damage which hinders the ship's accel, and an off-bore launch could fly into another ship's path (especially a wounded ship) when it loops back around across the wedge trying to establish its link.


I disagree. There are no changing variables. The fleet knows what it's doing and what it's going to do, so it could program the missiles to go where ships won't be. At 451 km/s², they'll be far enough from the ships in one second (225.5 km, to be precise). But nearby ships are actually further than that. They have to be, otherwise they'd risk colliding because both evaded toward each other. If there's a need for coming much closer, then their navigation is synchronised, so each ship would still know where the other is going to be for several seconds.

Of course, this is assuming that the ship isn't doing extreme evasion or taking fire while this happens. It's highly unlikely the ship would be firing anti-shipping missiles while taking fire. It's possible to use them in defensive mode, but it's unlikely. But for that case, then I agree that an immediate link is necessary.

And if it is taking fire, you also don't want them too close to one another. One ship going boom could damage the others, and it would also get in the way of getting CMs out.

You misunderstood me when I said a launch could go after a friendly. What I mean is an accidental collision. When a missile's drive lights up, immediate acceleration is at hand, and 1.5 seconds is not enough time for a missile to avoid a collision with a surprise ship whose course is unavoidably altered. It is akin to a dragster at full throttle in rush hour traffic.


See arguments above for why I don't think that's the case.

So I think this early initial communication is taken for granted and can be jammed. Traditionally, battles didn't have to worry about anything getting in close enough to jam telemetry. To be honest, the Manties opened that can of worms.


I agree that initial communication is there. My arguments were that even if it isn't there, the risk is minimised, but I think it's a sensible precaution to always keep the link on.

However, I strongly disagree with being able to jam short-range communications like this. That means getting a platform to knife-fighting range, much, much closer than anything that we've seen survive stealth. And besides, it can't ramp up power in microseconds -- unless it wants to explode, like a Dazzler -- which means that it would either be too late to do any good (the missiles are away from danger) or it would give away that it is powering up and would be fried by a close-range graser.

Plus, the missile launch is a well-choreographed dance, but it's also not perfect. The ships further out launch first, to make a time-on-target attack easier. But there will be minute delays that can easily be corrected prior to bringing up the wedge or during flight, by taking a slightly longer path. This is to say that jamming the launch will not work because it won't catch all the missiles at the same vulnerable spot.

I also don't see how it would know when to do that. Unless such a platform was programmed with precognition, it can't know that the ships it is (passively!) observing are going to launch. It's necessarily reacting to the launch.

Finally, I don't think the link is jammable in the first place, because it is probably a laser comm. And yes, I am talking about the light-speed traditional link. Because for this tactic to be effective, you'd need to jam both. And I don't think the FTL link would be used for initial manoeuvring and tasking anyway.
Top

Return to Honorverse