Solomani Confederation (Military)

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

Q. A desperate fleet commander could stuff (a) Strike Division(s) with three heavyish cruisers, to make up the numbers for a battle fleet.

R. Normally, there would be one heavy unit as a flagship per Strike Division.

S. The concentration is to allow maximum coordination of the potential fire power of the cruisers.

T. Otherwise, the default would be more River Plate, where the cruisers jump a larger ship and try to catch it in a crossfire.

U. Even battlecruisers (and the occasional battleship) would be in separate divisions, with two escorts each.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

V. The Minotaur is tagged as a heavy gunship.

W. It's what we define as a (heavy) gun cruiser.

X. I wouldn't use this as a flagship for a Strike Squadron, but a composite part of a mixed group of cruiser range of starwarships, that would, or should, complement each other.

Y. Stick three of them together into a Strike Division, and they probably could chew up any Cylon ship that they caught on it's own.

Z. In Traveller terms, probably a fifty kilotonne (mediumish) cruiser, optimized for close combat.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

1. There's probably no equivalent for the Minotaur in the Confederation Navy.

2. It seems unlikely they'd waste their scarce technological level fifteen resources to build a modern cruiser, certainly not in quantity nor at fifty kilotonnes.

3. That leaves us with the technological level thirteen Yamamoto class strike cruiser.

4. Since the current rules set favour fifty kilotonne (star)warships, undoubtedly there's one or two newly designed technological level fourteen classes that fit into that category.

5. A presumably older design would be the Heracles at twelve and a half hundred points, compared to nine hundred of the Minotaur.

6. Which has it's own flak screen, and heavy guns compared to Minotaur's medium batteries.

7. I'd like to say this would a technological level twelve refitted starwarship, but there are no examples, but I'd be inclined to design them at a hundred kilotonnes.

8. Previously I would have said that heavy cruisers hovered around seventy to eighty kilotonnes, but current rule set made me reconsider.

9. Also, I wouldn't build any cruiser between fifty to a hundred kilotonnes, and would say that any that ended up in the Confederation Navy were either captured and repurposed, or assigned from an allied or member world.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

A. If the default size of a Fleet Squadron are six battleships or battlecruisers in upto three Fleet Divisions, plus escorts and support, Strike Squadrons would have to be less.

B. A Strike Squadron would range between one to three vessels each in one to six Strike Divisions.

C. That would cap six cruisers or carriers, usually in their own divisions with escorts and/or support.

D. With a Contra Admiral in command, compared to a Rear Admiral for a Fleet Squadron, points would cap at six kilopoints.

E. Fleet commanders could stuff three cruisers into a single Strike Division, in order to concentrate and coordinate fire power.

F. Or eighteen escorts in a large flotilla.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

G. Six Minotaurs would be fifty four hundred points, seventh could be a Manticore or Celestra, plus another Celestra or Defender.

H. In a pure Minotaur unit, you might want that extra armour, but with no munitions slot(s), the replenishments are pointless.

I. With medium guns, you'd want to close as fast as possible, while the other side just pelts you with missiles, and the Raiders have a field day with no fighter screen.

J. Four Heracles would be five kilopoints, which would leave another kilopoints worth of three escorts, plus support.

K. At least the Heracles have flak screens and heavy guns.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

L. Six kilopoints of Manticores would be twelve.

M. I think it would be two Strike Divisions of destroyers, plus a command ship, plus support.

N. Considering that would be a mix of guns and torpedoes, six Rangers at nine and a half hundred points each, fifty seven hundred points, three hundred points maybe some form of cut down missile collier, if not independent Raptor squadron; plus support, likely Celestra for those two replenishments.

O. That's twelve munitions slots, two replenishments, heavy forward guns, secondary medium guns.

P. Vulnerable to Raiders, but the point is to punch holes into the enemy hulls and retreat, possibly behind the line of battle.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

Q. The Janus armoured missile cruiser costs the same as the Ranger.

R. It has one more munitions slot, but rate of fire is half that of the Ranger.

S. Speaking of which, also about a quarter slower, though has heavier armour, lower number of guns.

T. A pure Janus Strike Squadron probably would try a running fight, to attrition the enemy, before duking it out with the guns.

U. Three munition slots would allow a greater range of warheads, but slow rate of fire leans towards trying a first strike.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

V. Any starwarship designated a battlestar in a Strike Squadron would be assigned to separate Strike Divisions.

W. At most, you might find (rarely) a Jupiter in a Strike Squadron, two Minervas or Artemisii (three would make them pretty much a reinforced Fleet Division), or two Valkyries (which without the heavy artillery, wouldn't seem to qualify them as battlestars).

X. The Strike Divisions might be separated on different missions; doctrine wouldn't call for them to concentrate firepower, more to cause a dilemma by crossfire if together.

Y. As opposed to non battlestars, where weaker their armament in a larger scaled engagement might make it more necessary to place two or three together in a Strike Division under direct command.

Z. I think Falklands is the only time where detached battlecruisers paired up; whether refitted Kongos are battlecruisers is arguable, in Guadalcanal it might have been better to keep them separate in the initial engagement. Beatty's forces were basically a fleet in and of itself, while Hipper's could be a Fleet Squadron with escorts.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Organization

Fleet Squadron - ideally, six modern fast dreadnoughts/battlestars in three Fleet Divisions, twelve modern five kilotonne super destroyers, four basestars (tanker/tender/carrier), six fleet couriers; minimum two battlecruisers, six kilotonne patrol ships, one basestar, four fleet couriers.

Carrier Squadron - spacecraft and/or ground forces, whether fighter, assault, light, troop or escort carrier, as well as battle tender; referred to as Carrion.

Strike Squadron - mix and match, usually, one to six Strike Divisions with upto three starwarships each; sometimes could be destroyer flotillas, or even commerce raider wolf packs.

Patrol Squadron - let's say subsector assigned patrol ships, with an occasional destroyer; PatRons.

Communications Squadron - responsibility for fleet couriers and other communications spacecraft and facilities within a subsector; CommRons, Commons.

Logistics Squadron - responsibility for subsector logistics; was tempted to dump it under Carrier; LogOn; logarithm being the flow of logistics, logjam being the lack thereof.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

1. The most powerful Strike Division would be a Jupiter/Two, with two Rangers, Celestra and supporting Defender at forty nine and a half hundred points.

2. The Jupiter would be the missile magnet, while shielding the two Rangers pelting out missiles, Celestra with ablative armour and two replenishments, while the Defender boosts ship systems.

3. You'd have a brevetted Commodore, with a refitted Prometheus, in our case three super destroyers, and possibly a logistics vessel, and anything else available, organized into a Strike Squadron.

4. Would likely be a show of force, without committing a Fleet Squadron, or possibly escorting a really important personage.

5. It would be to emphasize some point the Confederation wanted to make.

6. Easy to substitute an unrefitted Prometheus, if such still existed.

7. Or a battlecruiser, though, the effect of a fast dreadnought would be akin to a star destroyer turning up in orbit.

8. While a cruiser, even a battle one, would dilute that impression.

9. If they wanted to send a Mercury, likely an entire Fleet Squadron would be deployed.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

A. Confederation Navy Striker Squadrons probably have an ad hoc feel to them.

B. It's either they have a mission, and need to find suitable and/or available spacecraft that can fulfill that task.

C. Or, they have intermediate sized spacecraft that need to be sorted out, and given something to do.

D. A pure single type Strike Squadrons are rare, though most likely destroyer flotillas, and even they would likely have command ship(s), and support.

E. Everything else, couriers, patrol ships, support, battlecruisers, and carriers, can be drawn from their respective assigned regional squadrons.

F. Cruisers would automatically get assigned to Strike Squadrons, being likely less in number than fast dreadnoughts, due to the cruiser gap.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Carrier Squadron

Carrier Division - one to three; one to three carriers each, one to nine escorts, zero to one basestar, three to nine fleet couriers; any number of commando carriers?

Carrier Squadron - three to nine carriers, one to thirty escorts, zero to four basestars, three to fifteen fleet couriers.

[Fleet Squadron - one to three Fleet Divisions, one to three battleships or battlecruisers each; two to nine battleships/battlecruisers, six to fifteen escorts, one to four basestars, four to fifteen fleet couriers.]

Fleet/fighter carrier - fighter squadrons, lots.

Assault carrier - battalion to brigade sized for planetary assault.

Battle tender - one to six battle riders; one battle rider capacity tends to be a shuttle.

Troop transport - brigade to divisional sized.

Light carriers - more likely hybrid cruisers.

Escort carriers - commercial standard construction; combustible, vulnerable, expendable; squadrons, a many as you can stuff in; really does need escorts itself.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

G. You could mix and match.

H. Have a starwarship each specialized in one aspect, like a carrier/squadrons, guns, and missiles.

I. Excluding the battlestars, that would be an Atlas, a Minotaur, and a Ranger at twenty nine and a half hundred points.

J. At five kilopoints, you could have one Celestra, plus three Manticores, and a Defender.

K. At four kilopoints, a Celestra, a Manticore and a Defender.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Deadlock

G. Retro, it would be an Atlas, a Heracles and a Janus, at thirty three hundred points, plus escort(s), plus support.

H. These would be reserve units, and deployed in areas unlikely to see much action.

I. I tend to agree that you train (and keep) with what you want to fight in.

J. On the other hand, recent events indicate that as long as it can have an effect on the battlefield, you ought to keep it, just in case.

K. Compared to Coronel and Jutland, where the older armoured cruisers got chewed up.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

1. First off, their first and favoured choice would be meson.

2. Factor one would be the choice for heavyish cruisers and nominal planetary defence.

3. The particle accelerator has a longer range, but the meson ignores armour, and atmospheric resistance.

4. The mass driver can only hit the side of a barn, if it isn't moving; range applies more for combat, rather than bombardment.

5. It sort of parallel scales with the meson, though I'm not sure factor twenty would really be that effective, since apparently smart weapons are better, and the brute force aspect can still be undertaken by the meson.

6. In a high low distribution, what you want is a relatively cheap way to inflict damage, in an environment where the instrument is disposable.

7. It comes down to either particle accelerator or railgun, but who weigh the same.

8. The difference, besides the greater potential of the particle accelerator, is that for half the cost, the the railgun inflicts half the damage, at half the cost, at half the power input, and at half the range.

9. Also, a one fifth of a megastarbux twenty tonne slug with heavy armour piercing versus radiation with an additional fifty tonne early fusion reactor.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

A. The moment that the Confederation had made the technological level fifteen breakthrough, they probably had to decide which gadgets to prioritize.

B. Likely, a highly technologized upgrade of a factor ten meson gun, so sixty kilotonnes at twenty six gigastarbux, which they'll mass produce.

C. A spinal mount kiloplies damage, so even a factor one is significant.

D. However, while a factor ten could be housed in a quadrimegatonne could soak up quite a bit of battle damage, a factor one in a fifty six hundred tonne hull could probably be taken out by a bunch of destroyers.

E. The intent being a cheap weapon system that could wipe out small combatants, and annoy large ones.

F. While still being cheap enough to be attritionable.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

G. Trying to squeeze in a factor one meson into a small form gunstar would require doubling the volume.

H. It would simplify the technological tree.

I. The particle accelerator would allow a continuous engagement at most ranges.

J. The railgun is restricted to medium range, and would require a complementary weapon system to reach out and persuade the enemy to close.

K. Or have a hefty manoeuvre drive in order to do so itself.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

L. Another aspect to consider is the fact that writers are going to artificially constrict (starwar)ship numbers, so having a larger vessel with a factor one meson makes more sense.

M. Unlike the the Impies, I'm quite willing to believe that the Solomanis are quite prepared to have very large numbers of hollowed out planetoids, sacrificing engineering cost against hull.

N. In terms of manufacturing costs and logistics, even if their opponents start massively investing in meson screens, it is easier and cheaper to just build meson spinal mounts.

O. And this is where balancing it out with missiles and torpedoes comes in, negating meson screens, at a distance.

P. So I guess I'm going to drop alternative spinal mounts for the Confederation Navy.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

Q. What hollowed out planetoids do allow is the quick installation of spinal mounts.

R. Especially captured or donated ones extracted from enemy, allied, member world, or own starwarships.

S. Spare parts could be custom manufactured from onboard three dee printers.

T. That would be the surprise element when encountering Confederation Navy ironickelclads.

U. To a lesser degree, bay and turret weapon systems as well, though more attention would be paid to keeping them homogenous.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

V. Technological level twelve factor one meson is seventy five hundred tonnes at two gigastarbux.

W. Even highly technologized, you'd need a minimum twelve kilotonne hull, so it might be better to keep it at the original size and save ix hundred megastarbux, at the expense of three kilotonnes difference.

X. It would also enable technological level twelve yards and planets to build and maintain them.

Y. Presumably equivalent to eight inchers, so heavyish cruisers and somewhat important harbours installed.

Z. Would be interesting to see if you can scale it down to one dice, twelve and a half hundred tonnes, two hundred power points and four hundred megastarbux.