baithammer said:
Missiles aren't a good fit for a static defense as a.) too damn slow to take effect b.) vulnerable to Point Defense / Ewar. ( Missiles are great for dealing with mines though.)
Umm, mines of any sort are a static defense. And it's been mentioned previously, EVERYTHING is subject to electronic warfare. Missiles have a longer range than energy weapons (they can coast, energy beams cannot).
baithammer said:
Single point of failure, only can stay on target for 8 weeks, requires personnel and due to systems being used more often - more maintenance.
You forgot to mention you can project power with a cruiser and you can't with a weapons platform. And go between star systems. And do LOTS of things that you can't with static 100 Dton satellites.
baithammer said:
Mines themselves have a limited use and as outlined the design accomplishes this with the constraints of the system.
What does that even mean??? That logic is universally applicable to a pen and and a starship.
baithammer said:
Too slow, vulnerable to Ewar and Point Defense.
Missiles are very poor defensive weapons, they are more for offensive action.
Missiles also don't have the processing power to initiate attacks, they require a launching platform.[/quote]
Your weapon platforms have a speed of zero, are vulnerable to electronic warfare, cannot hit 10 ton fighters and cannot protect themselves from the aforementioned fighters. A flight of missiles targeting your enemy makes for a great defense (for the defender). Missiles can be deployed via IFF, or command-controlled. They require no launching platform, they just need to use a gyroscope to orient their launch trajectory and activate their engine. All of this is easily done today with current tech. It's far within the realm of a TL14 missile (or TL9 for that matter).
baithammer said:
Also need to be effective across a variety of targets, missiles don't fair well in this regard.
What can you target with an energy weapon you can't target with a missile?
baithammer said:
Too slow, vulnerable to Ewar and Point Defense.
They don't, as you place them in places that are likely going to be jumped into.
And when deployed as part of kettling, there is already a defensive force in place.
Mine fields don't have a primary mission to kill targets, the field is to force the opposing forces to either expend resources removing the field or avoiding the location which has strategic value.
[/quote]
Space is vast. It is impractical, and nearly fiscally impossible, to place mines or weapon platforms at the 100D limit of a planet with any sort of realistic density to make the useful. You do realize that there are no jump points in Traveller, right? An enemy can jump in at 100D, 101D, 101.25D, etc and all outside the range of any minefield. And unless you mined in a sphere around whatever it is you are defending, ships can maneuver and your mines become expensive testaments to the futility of their deployment.
Same idea goes towards your corralling (i.e kettling - had to look that one up). You can't corral in space, it's too vast. That's why battles are almost never fought in deep space. There's no point unless you are intercepting a force that you cannot allow to hit a target in your system.
If you know minefield exists you can clear it. If you don't stop the vessels doing the clearing then your minefield is a useless deterrent. Usually the amount of resources expended to clear a path (you need not clear the entire field) are far less than the resources expended to create the field. Mines have a dual purpose - deterrence AND killing the enemy. Without the combination of the two they aren't really much use.
Space mines aren't a 1-1 equivalent of naval mines (or even landmines). Once the surprise is lost they become a nuisance unless you can actively defend the field. This holds true in today's landmines and for space ones. The real risk usually is for civilians who have neither the tech nor the experience to know how what to do or how to react to a minefield. Though in this case your weapon platforms are at least easier to keep track of once deployed, and therefore a much lower risk for post-conflict danger.
The basic point is that any defense worth a damn is one of layers. Intercepting or harrying the invader at a distance is preferable to letting them close with that which you must defend. If you have a mobile force and strong defenses you have more options than just a strong defense. Mines or weapon platforms or any form of static defense will suffer without mobile forces. Static defenses are typically vulnerable to fast-moving forces that can avoid them. Energy platforms can't fire through a planet, but missiles can attack targets because they move. Ask the French how their Maginot forts did in the last war. They were so strong the Germans went around their flanks and ignored them. You are probably better off investing in underground meson sites instead of mines or orbital weapon platforms. Any enemy ship in orbit is vulnerable and can't return fire. They are only vulnerable to the destruction of their targeting arrays (hard, but not impossible), or their power sources (same). Or spies who can provide the location of the sites so you can at least return fire with your own meson weaponry, or dig them out using ortillery strikes.