Best Missile Defense Approach?

[Starmantle (OP)]

I'm a huge fan of anti-missiles, but I'm been experimenting and comparing approaches to final-fire gauss defenses for fleets - and I'm wondering what approach you all think would be most effective.   

The big flack cruisers with fast-tracking turrets:

Moblin class Flak Cruiser    14,400 tons     1113 Crew     2969 BP      TCS 288  TH 1440  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 6-52     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 18     PPV 130. 56
Maint Life 5. 5 Years     MSP 2320    AFR 92%    IFR 1. 3%    1YR 129    5YR 1931    Max Repair 270 MSP

Magneto-plasma Drive E5 (18)    Power 80    Fuel Use 50%    Signature 80    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 240,000 Litres    Range 60. 0 billion km   (138 days at full power)

Quad Gauss Cannon R4-100 Turret (4x16)    Range 40,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S06 72-25000 (2)    Max Range: 144,000 km   TS: 25000 km/s     93 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 31

Missile Sensor MR19-R1 (1)     GPS 108     Range 19. 4m km    Resolution 1

ECM 30

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Or the slightly smaller escort carrier packed with gauss fighters:

Praetorian-B class Escort Carrier    11,200 tons     678 Crew     1711 BP      TCS 224  TH 1120  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 6-44     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 11     PPV 0
Maint Life 7. 47 Years     MSP 1050    AFR 91%    IFR 1. 3%    1YR 33    5YR 496    Max Repair 108 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 5250 tons     

Magneto-plasma Drive E5 (14)    Power 80    Fuel Use 50%    Signature 80    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 220,000 Litres    Range 70. 7 billion km   (163 days at full power)

Missile Sensor MR19-R1 (1)     GPS 108     Range 19. 4m km    Resolution 1

ECM 30

Strike Group
26x Starfury Fighter-Interceptor   Speed: 14500 km/s    Size: 4

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Starfury class Fighter-Interceptor    200 tons     5 Crew     56. 5 BP      TCS 4  TH 58  EM 0
14500 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 40%    IFR 0. 6%    1YR 3    5YR 48    Max Repair 22 MSP

FTR Magneto-plasma Drive E700 (1)    Power 57. 6    Fuel Use 7000%    Signature 57. 6    Armour 0    Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1. 3 billion km   (24 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R4-17 (2x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 14500 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00. 5 24-6250 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 25000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

For these specific designs, the carrier with fighter wing is slightly more expensive, but doesn't need as large of a shipyard.   And it's a more strategically flexible approach because it could be converted to a strike or utility carrier in a pinch.

My gut tells me that the escort carrier approach would be far more effective against larger masses of less advanced missiles, but that the flack cruiser miiiight come out on top if faced with a limited number of very advanced missiles.   

But overall, it feels like the carrier approach is better.

What do others think?  Either about these specific designs or the broad approaches?

[Starmantle (OP)]

Hrm.   After a little math, I'm second guessing some of my original thoughts.   

Carrier: 26 fighters x 8 shots per round  x . 17 accuracy modifier x. 79 hit chance = 27. 93

Flack Cruiser: 64 shots per round x . 93 hit chance = 59. 52

And that doesn't take into account the tracking speed difference in favor of the flack cruiser, which is substantial.   

Meh.   But there's still a lot of the math that I'm unsure of.   I don't know what variables I might be missing.   

[MarcAFK]

The only thing i can think of is that the cruiser has only 2 fire controls, but your fighters have 20, so they could target more smaller salvos, it seems per 5 seconds your cruiser could take out 58ish missiles, but only if there was 2 salvos of 29 missiles, however your fighters could take out 1 missile each in 20 different salvos.
The fighters would be very useful for mopping up stray missiles that survive the cruiser, also for targeting fighters, and sandpapering smaller targets.
Also in a Cruiser VS carrier scenario the cruiser could shred the fighters to bits, but once again can only target 2 per round, and might find itself seriously crippled before finishing them all off.
Might be an interesting test to run.

[Narmio]

Perhaps a middle ground?  You could build some gauss FACs (FDCs?) with quite impressive gauss output, and carry 4-6 of them per carrier. 

That said, if shipyard size is your significant restriction, just split the escort cruiser into two escort destroyers?

[bean]

I think your best bet would be to revise the cruiser.  The fighters will not have sufficient tracking speed to be able to match the cruiser, which could be a big problem.  Also, if the carrier is going to be multi-purpose, then it really needs magazines, which will eat into the design.  I'd go for 8 twin turrets instead of 4 quads (which is cheaper to research and lets you use the turrets on other ships more easily.)  Then go for either 4 or 8 FCs.  I normally make my gauss FCs with x.25 range, x4 tracking speed (so they're cheap and easy to research), and have them either one per turret or one per two turrets.  This gives you much greater flexibility in terms of salvo size you can handle.  If you go to 4 size 3 FCs, you'll lose 7% in accuracy, but be able to deal with 4 salvoes.  I would say this is still not enough, and go for the twin turrets, with maybe 6 size 2 firecons.  Now you're down 14% in accuracy, but with a lot more flexibility.

[Erik L]

You do realize that neither the flak escort or the fighters will actually be able to see the missiles you want them to shoot at?

[Starmantle (OP)]

You do realize that neither the flak escort or the fighters will actually be able to see the missiles you want them to shoot at?

Well, in both cases the primary ships carry a missile sensor as a backup to a larger fleet sensor.   But actually, yes, I'd assumed that a res 1 sensor with a maximum range of 19. 4 million KM would be able to detect missiles at a more than reasonable range for gauss final fire.   Is that not correct?  If so, what should their sensor look like?

Because it's just a straight fleet missile defense role, the fighters wouldn't have any need to roam far from the carrier.   

Byron - good call on the need for magazines if the carrier is going to be mufti-purpose.   I'll take a look at more, smaller turrets and more fire controls.     

Of course the other role that both of these designs would automatically get assigned to is jump point defense.   Though I don't think that radically changes the analysis here.

Thanks everyone for the input.   

[Erik L]

My bad, I'd overlooked the sensor in the ship specs.

[Hawkeye]

   

Of course the other role that both of these designs would automatically get assigned to is jump point defense.   Though I don't think that radically changes the analysis here.

This could backfire big-time with the cruiser (any warship, the carrier´s fighters can´t close with will probably tear you apart anyway).
While with the basic jump tech (jump radius 50.000 km), chances are good an enemy would land inside the range of your gauss guns, even with only the first additional level researched (250k radius), chances will be darn high, the enemy will appear outside your range.
Asuming equal tech, they could stay out of your range until their jump blindness is gone and then rip your ships to shreds with impunity.

Now, I don´t think the AI uses this technology, but personally, I try not to "play" the AI

[Starmantle (OP)]

This could backfire big-time with the cruiser (any warship, the carrier´s fighters can´t close with will probably tear you apart anyway).
While with the basic jump tech (jump radius 50.000 km), chances are good an enemy would land inside the range of your gauss guns, even with only the first additional level researched (250k radius), chances will be darn high, the enemy will appear outside your range.
Asuming equal tech, they could stay out of your range until their jump blindness is gone and then rip your ships to shreds with impunity.

Now, I don´t think the AI uses this technology, but personally, I try not to "play" the AI

*Nods*

Agreed all-around.

To clarify, though, I'm not suggesting either get assigned to jump point defense alone.  I'm really big on missile ships and have a much smaller number of 250-300 mm railgun artillery cruisers around too.  But if you're really putting resources into blocking a jump point, I'm just saying that having your point defense elements around there is nice too. 

It's practically the only other role I can think of for these ships, so it's worth noting.

Well, except maybe interception of unarmed commercial vessels.  And there the little fighter wing has an advantage.   

[alex_brunius]

Well the fighters do have the mobility advantage.

They give you the ability/flexibility to move the PD around 3 times as fast if you need to give cover to for example your FACs or Smaller ships giving chase to a faster enemy.

And as already said fighters provide much more redundancy and are harder to actually knock out (especially by the bigger ASMs I'm guessing they are designed to counter). For the Cruiser one unlucky hit to FC and your out of business.

But if it comes down to pure PD firepower the Cruiser will probably crush them, and it's easy to give it more FCs.


In my fleet design I also prefer smaller Destroyer/Corvette sized craft for PD duty (500-4000 ton).

The Cruiser I use well protected AEGIS style ones loaded with AMMs with decent range to keep the fleet safe of missiles and fighters.

[bean]

Byron - good call on the need for magazines if the carrier is going to be mufti-purpose.   I'll take a look at more, smaller turrets and more fire controls. 

You're welcome.  I'm in the habit of building big, complex fleets, which leads to lots of work on specialized vessels.
I thought I'd share my latest equivalent to your gauss cruiser:

Code: [Select]

Farragut class Destroyer    16,000 tons     453 Crew     7214.08 BP      TCS 320  TH 2112  EM 300
6600 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 3-56     Shields 10-300     Sensors 80/80/0/0     Damage Control Rating 8     PPV 159.6
Maint Life 2.31 Years     MSP 2254    AFR 256%    IFR 3.6%    1YR 575    5YR 8632    Max Repair 750 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 80    Cryogenic Berths 200   

Radiant Dynamics K336-50     Max Ship Size 16800 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Rocketdyne AMS-1056 (2)    Power 1056    Fuel Use 19.29%    Signature 1056    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 765,000 Litres    Range 44.6 billion km   (78 days at full power)
DefTech Protector-5 (2)   Total Fuel Cost  20 Litres per hour  (480 per day)

Turret, Twin, Gauss Cannon, Mk1 Mod0 (10x10)    Range 50,000km     TS: 50000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
GE CIWS Mk1 Mod0 (1x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Sperry OWG-3 (8)    Max Range: 50,000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     80 60 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ford OWG-14 (2)    Max Range: 200,000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50

GMLS Mk1 Mod0 (4)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 5
Sperry OPG-1 (1)     Range 115.2m km    Resolution 1
SVM-1 Striker (24)  Speed: 144,000 km/s   End: 3.6m    Range: 31.1m km   WH: 4    Size: 1    TH: 480/288/144
SIM-2 Phalanx (96)  Speed: 144,000 km/s   End: 3.6m    Range: 31.1m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 2592/1555/777

Lockheed Martin OPS-2 (1)     GPS 280     Range 112.0m km    Resolution 1
Lockheed Martin OPS-1 (1)     GPS 5600     Range 500.9m km    Resolution 20
TI OAR-2 (1)     Sensitivity 80     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  80m km
TI OPR-2 (1)     Sensitivity 80     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  80m km

Compact ECCM-4 (2)         ECM 50

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is a very high-tech game, and 16,000 tons is a standard destroyer, so duplicating this is probably a bad idea.  One thing I would point out is the choice of FCs on this.  8 are my standard Size 1 .25 range 4 speed units, while the other two are Size 4 1 range 4 speed.  I did this to improve its antiship capabilities, because with only the standard FCs, it's mostly useless at extreme gauss range, while with these, it's frighteningly lethal (75 hits/turn).

[Starmantle (OP)]

Wow.  High technology is one thing, but that's a bit beyond the pale.  You have size 1 anti-ship missiles with 4 points of warhead that travel at half the speed of light.  That is just magic.

And as far as I can tell you have more missiles than magazine space too. :/

With that much technology, how much engine space does it take to hit 6,600km/s?  10%?

Really, these tech levels border on the unbelievable, so it's hard to have much of an analysis, but if it was me, I'd knock off the CIWS and peel back the sensors - unless this is a destroyer-leader meant to provide defense, sensors, and jump capability to a squadron of long range anti-ship missile destroyers who lack all of those things.  I'd also consider upping the standard fleet speed.  

But I do love your gauss fire control setup overall.  It's tricky because even light fire controls can cost a lot of resources when you have a lot of them, but this totally works.  


Edit:  Er.  Unless there's a lot I don't know about the more recent versions of the game that allow for things like more powerful missiles.  I suppose that's pretty possible. 

[bean]

Wow.  High technology is one thing, but that's a bit beyond the pale.  You have size 1 anti-ship missiles with 4 points of warhead that travel at half the speed of light.  That is just magic.

It's great fun. Try it some time.  Set up a population of ~10 billion, and go crazy.

And as far as I can tell you have more missiles than magazine space too. :/

Actually, you're right.  I had revised the design, cut magazine space and added the long-range fire controls, and forgotten to take the extra missiles out.

With that much technology, how much engine space does it take to hit 6,600km/s?  10%?

15%, actually.  It's a bit low, but it gives me a lot of room to play.  I do have ships that go much faster.

Really, these tech levels border on the unbelievable, so it's hard to have much of an analysis, but if it was me, I'd knock off the CIWS and peel back the sensors - unless this is a destroyer-leader meant to provide defense, sensors, and jump capability to a squadron of long range anti-ship missile destroyers who lack all of those things.  I'd also consider upping the standard fleet speed. 

I tend to equip all ships to a much higher standard than most people would.  This includes CIWS, decent sensors (this thing only has half the senors of my standard destroyers), jump drive, multiple engines, and so on.  Fleet speed is something I'm sill a bit torn about, but it seems to be working well so far, and upping it across the board would be more trouble than it's worth.

But I do love your gauss fire control setup overall.  It's tricky because even light fire controls can cost a lot of resources when you have a lot of them, but this totally works. 

Yes, but one advantage of the far future is that you have a lot of resources.

Edit:  Er.  Unless there's a lot I don't know about the more recent versions of the game that allow for things like more powerful missiles.  I suppose that's pretty possible. 

Yes, there are significant changes to the way engines work in more recent versions of the game, which is how I got such fast missiles.  They're .6 engine, IIRC.