Well, using the tactics of WW1-2, and modern navies and comparing them to Newtonian Aurora, you have:
1) Fleet-in-being: The fact that there is a fleet somewhere out there, even if in orbit around a planet, means you must also place a fleet in proximity, in case they move for something important. They don't ever have to move away from their planet, but just being there forces you to commit a fleet to counter their fleet.
NA: Because ships are so easily detectable with planetary sensors, and it would take the enemy quite a while to reach your planet, this doctrine is valid. It's actually more valid in space than it ever was in navy warfare. You would want a fleet of heavy cruisers, as you could build more, spreading them out and bog down the enemy over multiple systems.
Disagree in theory. If you concentrate a fleet to protect a point, you limits its engagement ability. Counter manuevers/fire will be effective against the entire fleet. Weapons the fleet can't stop will leave them with little abiltiy to deal with a threat without risking destruction of the fleet.
2) Battle Fleet Concentration: You create fleets so massive in firepower and numbers that a single fleet could wipe out any fleet of the opposing navy. For this you would need massive battleships, escorts and pickets. By applying the fleet against the enemies most valued planet, you would be able to disrupt their operations.
NA: Because fleets are going to be so slow (in comparison to aurora), this might not work as planned. You just won't be able to build enough ships to control an area. Plus, any ships you do manage to build will be used to support your fleets in operation. It does have the benefit of destroying any gunboat navies you encounter. A battle fleet would be the most capable of penetrating an enemy held system.
Tentatively agree. I think at least with what you are saying.
You will still need strength in numbers. But most likely dispersed. A single concentration will limit your options/abilities. A single big ship could be taken out by a single hit. Multiple small and cheap ships will be better able to control area and respond to/bracket enemies.
3) Wolfpacks: Small ships, using the best stealth technology available, will attack weaker enemies in overwhelming numbers. The small size allows them to evade most active detection methods, while reducing their costs and increasing the number you can field at once.
NA: This one is probably the best. While they are less effective because of the square-cube law, their main target would be civilian traffic and support ships. Their weapons are smaller, therefor exponentially lower range and damage, but 30+ could easily take down a lone battlecruiser. Their high speed would also allow them to dictate range and engagement, choosing instead to run from large fleets. This would of course mean that another form of doctrine is required to protect against fleet concentrations. You would also be able to spread them across a solar system, allowing for rapid response to incursion.
Don't have a clue how stealth will work in NA, so no idea.
I don't expect that hiding in space will be very effective. Now, firing/launching from far enough out that they can't do anything about it before you are gone - that is a different issue.
But with the high fuel needs for a battle of manuever, a ship capable of multiple turns at anything but slow speeds will have almost no room for weapons. As for 30+ to take down a battlecruiser, I would see that as overkill or poor tactical position.
But only time will tell on this.
4) Carrier Fleet: A large ship housing a bunch of small, independently powered vehicles for use well outside the motherships area of operations. The carrier would carry multiple types of craft, each specialized for it's intended purpose. These craft can be swapped out to allow for different configurations.
NA: The primary benefit is acceleration, with a fighter being able to change it's speed and vector with much less fuel than a capital ship. The disadvantage is that the guns that a fighter would carry would have lower damage and range than any capital ship weapon. The advantage of missile carrying fighters would depend on if fire control ranges were capped, if enemies could jam missiles in flight, or if ECM became exponentially stronger then farther away the target is.
The problem with a manueverable fighter is the same for a ship. If it can actually manuever much, it is almost all fuel. What it will need is parasites with endurance. They will need to be capable of reaching distant points on widely differing vectors and still rendevous for pick up (or not if you are a little more ruthless...).
Small weapons won't necessarily be a big problem if you can bracket a target. If it runs from some to reduce their damage, it will be closing with other turning them into one hit one kill wonders. Either that or it must hold still or to very low velocities to minimize damage. But I forsee stationary (or nearly so) targets to be tanamount to suicide in NA combat.
Bracketing a target with several vessels on widely divergent and random vectors/courses will be the best defense/offense as manuevering against one will make them vulnerable to the others.
I really forsee the most dangerous and difficult of the NA combats to resemble zero G furballs of WWII. Formations will just get you killed.
But I do agree with the smaller craft in multiples to be the way to go, at least when opposed to single or few larger vessels. At least in combat circumstances. Mostly fuel, a weapon (or better if possible, two differing weapon types - one guided and one unguided), and something to detect/engage targets. For a combat vessel where one railgun projectile/nuke will possibly destroy even the most massive ship - anything else is just money thrown away when your craft takes a hit. If you don't need it for a fight, put it on something that won't get in one.
My plan for any ship not designed as a combatant will be to always make sure it is capable to jump away at any given time. If in a system, try to make it so it can warm up and jump before a weapon could reach it. If it jumps into a system, land so far out that it will be able to reset before any weapon can respond. In NA, landing way out will take no more fuel to reach the inner system than landing closer. Coasting is just coasting, and distance will equal safety. If it takes me a while to reach the inner system, big deal. I would expect an exploration ship to be designed for extended ops. And if it will take me a month to get there, it will take a while for a weapon to reach me....
