From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:43:19 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Your fleets can't move until the sensor platforms are down or the whole   
   point of shooting them down is lost.  Any fleets that happen to be under   
   way when your KKVs are spotted get KKVs of their own launched at them.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   He clarified to to be stuff like "chunks of regolith".   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   There are a limited number of places you can launch from, most of the   
   sensor platforms are going to require that kind of time in flight from   
   any of them.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   New platforms means that you haven't gotten stealth by killing the   
   sensors.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Yes completely different.   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   So now we're up to _trillions_ of evenly distributed pellets, all to   
   probably _fail_ at getting any kind of mission kill.  100Mm radius at 1   
   pellet/ha equals 3 trillion pellets, one pellet per hectare means you   
   probably do no more than a few micrometeorite holes in the sail.   
      
   If you want to have a good chance at a mission kill, you are going to   
   need something like one pellet per 10 m^2 or 1000 per hectare.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   It doesn't take many platforms for there to be no holes.  This is   
   especially true if the platforms are on highly inclined solar orbits.   
      
   >> The moving goalposts are also noted.   
   >   
   > A consequence of ALL strategic planning. There is no such thing as a   
   > fixed goal poast.   
      
   This discussion isn't about "how to fight a space war" in general, it's   
   about the standard Nicoll's law efforts to find a way to get stealth in   
   space.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   You can't shoot at them until after they launch, unless you are going to   
   start obsessively shooting at every potential launch window.   
      
   >> Hmmm, two people assuming espionage successes on a scale that the   
   >> Bircher's would expect.   
   >   
   > Espionage happens. So do hackers.   
      
   Successes on this scale are incredibly rare, there's a reason I was   
   alluding to the idea of the President of the United States being a Soviet   
   agent.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   You still aren't getting stealth out of it.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   IOW:  You don't have stealth.   
      
   >> 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...   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)