From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le vendredi 22 juillet 2016 00:38:17 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
      
   >    
   > The instant your shot corrects to maintain an intercept you have just    
   > fired the opening shot of the war and everyone knows it.   
      
   Quite correct. That is not going to save the platforms, and once the first   
   couple platforms are lost, everyone is going to know it anyway.   
      
      
      
   >    
   > Also remember that the initial suggestion I was responding to was the use    
   > of KKVs that would run cold.  That means even a small manoeuvre by the    
   > target and they miss.   
      
      
   I just doublechecked: running cold was an option, and even that was qualified   
   to "a vast majority of the time", not an absolute. However, even if we limit   
   it to purely cold running, you are assuming single KKVs. Not a wise assumption.   
      
      
      
   >    
   >   
   > Slower, easier, intercepts means much much longer times in flight.  As in    
   > multiple years.   
      
   Perhaps, but not necessarily. You don't know where the KKVs are going to be   
   launched from.   
      
      
      
   >    
   > At that point, your attack fails simply because of the new launches that    
   > have occurred while you were waiting for your shots to hit.  (Two dozen    
   > stations with a service life of 20 years means a launch about every 10    
   > months.)   
      
   No... the attack doesn't fail. Remember that strategists are always keeping   
   track of current activities. 2 or 3 platform launches is not going to hamper   
   overall strategy that much, and planners tend to have contingencies in place   
   for just such events.   
      
      
      
   > So if you assume something completely different from what I suggested....   
      
   Not completely different. I am just stating that evasive manoeuvres, as   
   opposed to the slow changes from the sails (which will be largely   
   ineffective), will keep the platforms occupied, and unable to perform.   
   If they don't do MAJOR evasive course corrections, they are dead.   
      
   >    
   > > Do not assume that there will be a single warhead, and do not assume    
   > > that someone is going to just use a sniper rifle... this is going to be   
   > > a fleet of kill drones.   
   >    
   > Well, there goes any thought of "surprise, your sensor net is down."   
      
   No. Drones do not have to be big. In fact, they cn be extremely small.   
   However, if you prefer, there is also the "buckshot" approach. Sniper rifles   
   will not be used... those will be for targets that actually CAN'T manoeuvre.   
   Shot is always still an    
   option. If you REALLY want, these can be the size of small pebbles or even   
   grains of sand, if you want the high relative speed approach. They will be   
   virtually undetectable, and even if you DO detect them, they can be scattered   
   across thousands, or even    
   hundreds of thousands, of km. There is going to be no question of avoiding   
   them.   
      
      
   > >    
   >    
   > You have given up strategic surprise and your fleets can still be tracked.   
      
   Strategic surprise is always relative... at the strategic level, it is just to   
   limit the amount of advance warning, and the inforamtion that advanced warning   
   can offer, thereby limiting possible response options. Tactical surprise is   
   much more important.   
   When you reduce the number of sensor platforms, you are reducing the amount of   
   information that can be collected. From here, it is a matter of either working   
   your way through the ensor holes, or everwhelming the sensor input. You might   
   be able to track    
   fleets, but you will not be able to track all the elements within that fleet   
   if your intelligence resources are overwhelmed.   
      
      
   >    
   > The moving goalposts are also noted.   
      
   A consequence of ALL strategic planning. There is no such thing as a fixed   
   goal poast.   
      
      
   >    
   >   
   > You can't take out new sensors fast enough, your shots simply can't hit    
   > them for months, if not years.   
      
   It is not how long the shots take to hit. It is how quickly they hit and how   
   many hit, in succession. Remember: planning. Careful planning. Planning based   
   on long periods of observation.   
      
      
      
   > Hmmm, two people assuming espionage successes on a scale that the    
   > Bircher's would expect.   
      
   Espionage happens. So do hackers. OTOH, you can't prevent both by preventing   
   access, in which case it is up to other means... like the buckshot, the   
   drones, coordinated battle forces, long range missiles, etc.   
      
      
   >    
   > And in the time period between taking out a sensor net and being able to    
   > actually do anything with that fact you are faced with a new net forming.   
      
   Planning. You do not wait for the net to go down. You move in coordination   
   with the forces taking down the net.   
      
      
   >    
   > A new net that is going to start by focusing on all the places your fleet    
   > could have gone in the brief period of sensor blindness you got.  That's    
   > assuming you even got any.   
      
   It is not so easy to simply put up a new net. Platforms are expensive. The   
   means to deploy them are expensive. It takes as much tim getting them into   
   position as it takes shooting them down... the SLOW way. That, and launch   
   facilities are often the    
   easiest to track. BTW: planetary launch facilities will be the sniper targets.   
      
      
      
   > There is something on an intercept course for a sensor platform that's in    
   > a polar orbit of the sun, we didn't send it and it's adjusting course to    
   > maintain the intercept.  I wonder what it could possibly be?   
   >    
   > Remember that these platforms are going to be way out in the middle of    
   > nowhere, (orbitally speaking).  Things aren't going to 'just happen' to    
   > be passing by them.   
      
   Depends on how obvious you want your platforms. If you want EVERYONE to know   
   where your platform is, sure, it is going to be difficult to hide your intent   
   to kill these. OTOH, polar orbits intersect regular orbits, so a couple of   
   these might be in the    
   wrong place at the wrong time. The rest will be easily dispatched by shot.   
   Most likely scenario: the shot will be so small and so thinned out that they   
   are never detected. If they are detected? Well... it was a boring conversation   
   anyway.   
      
   >    
   > --    
   > Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)