Future Point Defense Options

Duckk wrote:That's basically what the Katana does in fleet combat. Magazines are packed full of CMs and Vipers, and it has 3 SD point defense laser clusters.

Something I've been wondering about -
In fleet combat at least, the role of the LAC has become primarily a forward fleet missile screen. Secondary roles there may be eliminating their enemy counterparts and enemy recon drones.

For any of that, the Katana is the best current bet. The Ferrets' anti-shipping missiles and EW missiles won't get used much, or at any rate, they're worse than the Katana's dual-purpose anti-LAC, anti-missile Vipers. The Shrikes big ol' grasers aren't useless for point defense or shooting LAC's, but they're still desperately inferior for that duty.

So - what are the recent proportions of Shrikes to Ferrets to Katanas in RMN and GSN CLAC groups? And is there much reason to keep many Shrikes or Ferrets in the CLAC groups that are being used mostly for missile defense for the wall?

It's not a suggestion that Shrikes and Ferrets are useless, by the way. LAC groups are still a major part of system defenses, and pirates and raiders are going to suffer a lot worse meeting them than meeting a Katana. But it would be an argument for moving the Shrikes and Ferrets there and biasing the CLAC groups accompanying wallers heavily toward Katanas instead. (Not entirely - some occasions where the Shrikes and Ferrets will still shine will come up. I just think they've got only that niche role with the wall.)

captinjoehenry wrote:So you are saying that the Katanas are already fully optimized for carrying huge numbers of CM and that there is no real way to cram even more CMs into a LAC sized ship to make that type of design worthwhile? If that is the case I would suggest that they work on a new larger lac that is developed from the ground up as a fleet missile defense platform or make a new class of destroyer sized ships which are dedicated to the fleet missile defense role. I know that if it is at all possible the SEM would want to make a multi role ship but I would say that the current state of warfare would justify making some sort of dedicated missile defense platform for fleet engagements as the current technology makes it impossible to make a capital ship be capable of defending itself against the amount of missiles that are used in current fleet battles. Now I am not sure if this should be some sort of supersized LAC that is carried in a CLAC or if it should be hyper capable but other than something like that or Hamphill coming up with some sort of fancy new missile defense technology the only answer I can see right now is some sort of anti missile platform that you can deploy between your fleet and the enemy.

David has already shut down HACs.

As for dedicated escort designs, David has shot them down several times before, such as here and here.

JeffEngel wrote:So - what are the recent proportions of Shrikes to Ferrets to Katanas in RMN and GSN CLAC groups? And is there much reason to keep many Shrikes or Ferrets in the CLAC groups that are being used mostly for missile defense for the wall?

I'd imagine it'd depend on how the fleet is configured for its assigned mission, and if they had time to switch out squadrons and/or wings. For example, the Lovat raid had TF 8.1's CLACs carry nothing but Katanas. I imagine that wouldn't be the case normally, since Honor had the time to plan her force structure to match her mission plan.

I know RFC plus the forums have already completely trashed the idea of "CM pods", with the possible exception of a Mark 23 size missile tube being large enough to do something interesting with a currently non-existent "long range CM combo".

Given that the Katana LACs are already great for close in fleet defense, but have limited CM shot capacity. They're also fast enough that even with a 20% degradation in speed, they could still be placed into position in front of their big ships.

Here's a thought: Could an ammo ship put out a mass of "LAC CM size box launch cell pods", which the LACs would then take on tow, giving each LAC three or four zones of CM fire before they even go to the internal magazine? Both the ammo ship(s) and CLAC(s) then withdraw of course, and then the fleet goes into maneuver (using Lorelei(s), decoys, etc. to further deplete and misdirect the incoming storm).

Thoughts?

SharkHunter wrote:I know RFC plus the forums have already completely trashed the idea of "CM pods", with the possible exception of a Mark 23 size missile tube being large enough to do something interesting with a currently non-existent "long range CM combo".

Given that the Katana LACs are already great for close in fleet defense, but have limited CM shot capacity. They're also fast enough that even with a 20% degradation in speed, they could still be placed into position in front of their big ships.

Here's a thought: Could an ammo ship put out a mass of "LAC CM size box launch cell pods", which the LACs would then take on tow, giving each LAC three or four zones of CM fire before they even go to the internal magazine? Both the ammo ship(s) and CLAC(s) then withdraw of course, and then the fleet goes into maneuver (using Lorelei(s), decoys, etc. to further deplete and misdirect the incoming storm).

Thoughts?

Read the Pearl LACs towing counter-missile pods

JeffEngel wrote:

Duckk wrote:That's basically what the Katana does in fleet combat. Magazines are packed full of CMs and Vipers, and it has 3 SD point defense laser clusters.

Something I've been wondering about -
In fleet combat at least, the role of the LAC has become primarily a forward fleet missile screen. Secondary roles there may be eliminating their enemy counterparts and enemy recon drones.

For any of that, the Katana is the best current bet. The Ferrets' anti-shipping missiles and EW missiles won't get used much, or at any rate, they're worse than the Katana's dual-purpose anti-LAC, anti-missile Vipers. The Shrikes big ol' grasers aren't useless for point defense or shooting LAC's, but they're still desperately inferior for that duty.

So - what are the recent proportions of Shrikes to Ferrets to Katanas in RMN and GSN CLAC groups? And is there much reason to keep many Shrikes or Ferrets in the CLAC groups that are being used mostly for missile defense for the wall?

It's not a suggestion that Shrikes and Ferrets are useless, by the way. LAC groups are still a major part of system defenses, and pirates and raiders are going to suffer a lot worse meeting them than meeting a Katana. But it would be an argument for moving the Shrikes and Ferrets there and biasing the CLAC groups accompanying wallers heavily toward Katanas instead. (Not entirely - some occasions where the Shrikes and Ferrets will still shine will come up. I just think they've got only that niche role with the wall.)

That lead to the question of whether CALCs and LAC wings should be multi-role or specilaized.

Today, all carriers are multirole - they carry different types of airract for their different roles or dedicated, multi-role craft.

In WW2 and after, some carriers, especially smaller ones, had limited roles, some of the merchant conversions carried only ground attack craft and smaller fighters, and no anti-shipping craft.

In the Honorverse, does it make sense to have specialized wing roles? You are correct, an "Escort" CLAC assigned to a SD(p) squadron probably should carry mostly Katanas, with little use for Shrikes and Ferrets. An "Attack" CLAC, assigned to independant Strike roles would need a more balanced mix, focused on Shrikes with a robust Ferret contingent for ECM and some Katanas for dealing with local LACS. A "System Defense" CLAC (or deployed LAC wing) would probably be heavy on Shrikes for patroling with a squadron of Katanas or 2 for Orbital Defenses.

* As noted Previously, I think there is a need for a Modded Shrike A or similiar as a "Boarding & Customs" LAC for defensive LAC wings. The Cutter on the Shrike A would be useful in boarding operations, customs, SAR etc. Also nice would be added lifesupport for a small marine contingent and provisions for extended operations. It would probably have to mount a smaller main weapon (a CA sized Graser, maybe)to acomplish the larger crew and could patrol in conjunction with several Shrike Bs.

SWM wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:I know RFC plus the forums have already completely trashed the idea of "CM pods", with the possible exception of a Mark 23 size missile tube being large enough to do something interesting with a currently non-existent "long range CM combo".

Given that the Katana LACs are already great for close in fleet defense, but have limited CM shot capacity. They're also fast enough that even with a 20% degradation in speed, they could still be placed into position in front of their big ships.

Here's a thought: Could an ammo ship put out a mass of "LAC CM size box launch cell pods", which the LACs would then take on tow, giving each LAC three or four zones of CM fire before they even go to the internal magazine? Both the ammo ship(s) and CLAC(s) then withdraw of course, and then the fleet goes into maneuver (using Lorelei(s), decoys, etc. to further deplete and misdirect the incoming storm).

Thoughts?

Read the Pearl LACs towing counter-missile pods

And Sharkhunter, LACs use normal shipborn CMs. Nothing fancy there. Shrikes/Ferrets used Mk29/30 CMs and Katanas use the newer (and smaller) Mk 31/32 extended range CMs and vipers.

SWM wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:I know RFC plus the forums have already completely trashed the idea of "CM pods", with the possible exception of a Mark 23 size missile tube being large enough to do something interesting with a currently non-existent "long range CM combo".

Given that the Katana LACs are already great for close in fleet defense, but have limited CM shot capacity. They're also fast enough that even with a 20% degradation in speed, they could still be placed into position in front of their big ships.

Here's a thought: Could an ammo ship put out a mass of "LAC CM size box launch cell pods", which the LACs would then take on tow, giving each LAC three or four zones of CM fire before they even go to the internal magazine? Both the ammo ship(s) and CLAC(s) then withdraw of course, and then the fleet goes into maneuver (using Lorelei(s), decoys, etc. to further deplete and misdirect the incoming storm).

Thoughts?

Read the Pearl LACs towing counter-missile pods

Yep, I read that first before posting, and that they're the same size as shipboard CMs. I thought of this as like a "Patriot missile battery" that can control four different launches of missiles, but not simultaneously, they do one blast launch at a time". It's a rapid reload, basically.

The "CM pods" in my thought are nothing more than the 'LAC box CM launchers, on tow', Patriot style, maybe a "Foraker solution" as mentioned in the third paragraph of the Pearl, just tuned to be "LAC optimized". A Katana couldn't fire and control the "next set" of CMs until the first have done their job in "outer zone 1", LAC fires and control next in zone 2, third zone 3, then onboard magazine zone 4, then spin and fire at remaining missiles that got past (zone 5).

SharkHunter wrote:I know RFC plus the forums have already completely trashed the idea of "CM pods", with the possible exception of a Mark 23 size missile tube being large enough to do something interesting with a currently non-existent "long range CM combo".

Given that the Katana LACs are already great for close in fleet defense, but have limited CM shot capacity. They're also fast enough that even with a 20% degradation in speed, they could still be placed into position in front of their big ships.

Here's a thought: Could an ammo ship put out a mass of "LAC CM size box launch cell pods", which the LACs would then take on tow, giving each LAC three or four zones of CM fire before they even go to the internal magazine? Both the ammo ship(s) and CLAC(s) then withdraw of course, and then the fleet goes into maneuver (using Lorelei(s), decoys, etc. to further deplete and misdirect the incoming storm).

Thoughts?

Katanas will likely run dry of Vipers before an enemy wall runs dry of missile pods, but depending on what is coming in, they may do well enough to husband their ammunition and thin the incoming missile volley less - if the remainder is enough that the closer defenses can handle it adequately.

Even running dry, they may be able to make runs to and from a wall defense CLAC for reloads in longer battles, especially if they aren't deployed too far forward. And if things get desperate, they can always get in among the incoming missiles, roll, and take the missiles on their own wedges. If the missiles are programmed to accept them as targets in that case, they are setting themselves up to be attacked painfully well, but if one LAC is going to eat a number of missiles targeted on a SD(P), even that may be a win in the harsh calculus that applies.

The PDLC's at least won't run dry, so a Viper-emptied Katana can still contribute those (and its wedge and decoy value). I suspect that's going to be a better bet that trying to reload off a CLAC in the middle of combat, but if they can pull off that rapid reloading, more power to them. If they find they absolutely can't, and that being able to remain out there longer is better than being able to destroy a whole lot more missiles for a shorter period, a new model Katana could replace some Viper launchers with more PDLC's.

Better decoys may be another avenue to pursue too. Keyhole II platforms go the route of a small number of very powerful ones with self-defense capability. More along that line is one option, but another - not necessarily incompatible one - is a deeper supply of more disposable decoys. The smaller fusion plants should open the door to smaller decoys of comparable power, so a ship could carry more of them. For that matter, if some sort of decoy could be built the size and approximate shape of a missile pod, some of them could be included in SD(P)'s as that additional organic (well, independent of another starship anyway) missile defense capability.

Better decoys may be another avenue to pursue too. Keyhole II platforms go the route of a small number of very powerful ones with self-defense capability. More along that line is one option, but another - not necessarily incompatible one - is a deeper supply of more disposable decoys. The smaller fusion plants should open the door to smaller decoys of comparable power, so a ship could carry more of them. For that matter, if some sort of decoy could be built the size and approximate shape of a missile pod, some of them could be included in SD(P)'s as that additional organic (well, independent of another starship anyway) missile defense capability.

That's given me some thoughts too.

It seems that an increasingly important piece of technology in Manticoran missile fire control and point defense is the Keyhole range of tethered platforms. These go far beyond the original tethered decoys that the system originated in, and provide a big boost in range and accuracy both for long range fire and point defense. Keyhole II is part of what makes Apollo possible and so deadly.

Now we have been told about Mycroft (basically a system defense variant not tethered to a ship), Keyhole II platforms used for the role Tarantula was created for (system wide missile fire control). As the GA becomes better experienced in manufacturing this technology could we begin to see smaller and more portable versions of this type of technology? After all one advantage of Missile Pods (effectively clusters of tethered missile tubes) was to allow smaller ships to carry big ship armaments.

RFC has in the past stomped down on the idea of specialist ship types for the RMN and emphasized that they prefer multi-role capabilities in all their ships. This is understandable, but to me a future option (and one Foraker might have explored) is a dedicated EW or control link carrying ship. Not specifically an AWAC platform but a non-armed ship that dedicates almost all of its weight to this purpose, (effectively a more mobile Keyhole platform with two impeller rings and a service crew).

Adding Keyhole is shown to dramatically consume space even on battle-cruiser sized vessels due to the need for a dedicated cradle (see MaxxQBuNine's wonderful work on deviantart for this). If dedicated Keyhole type ships are nonviable, could another future avenue be smaller "cruiser grade" platforms (call it "Keyhole-Light") that provide all the capabilities of Keyhole but at a slightly reduced capacity that works well enough, and can be carried easily enough, on lighter ship types. These could even be carried pod-like limpet-ed to a hull, or even in a missile core (or pod carrier of some type) and rolled out when needed.

Thoughts?