Fleet Tender/"Jump-Rider" Tactics

[whulorigan]

The Rider/Tender vs. Dreadnought issue was brought up on another thread with someone making the suggestion of giving some specialized Riders a J-1 capability. This got me thinking about the following naval tactics:

​

What if Fleet Tenders carried a squadron of Riders with J-1 capability (and fuel for either 1 Jump or 2 successive jumps)? This would still leave much more free displacement-volume within the rider than a comparably sized J-4 Battleship or Dreadnought to be allocated to weapon systems. ​

The tactic would be as follows:

1. J-4 Fleet Tender Jumps into an EMPTY HEX adjacent to the target system
2. "Jump-Riders" jump into the target system and engage in operations (recon, battle, etc)
3. Depending on the fuel load (1 or 2 jump capacity), they jump out during or after operations or battle back to the adjacent hex location of their Tender.

The Riders would still have more offensive capability than a full Battleship (though not quite as much as a pure non-Jump Rider), and would have the additional advantage that their Tender is safe from harm during the battle (and effectively hidden as to location). The Jump-Riders would still be able to retreat if necessary. Further, since an empty hex is a cubic parsec of space (which is a HUGE volume in which the Tender is located "somewhere"), the Tender is highly unlikely to be accidentally found, and even if the rules are interpreted to mean that a jumping ship's general direction and destination (outbound or inbound) can be determined from "Jump-flash", it will not help anyone trying to track the intruder as there would be no way to know where within that huge volume of space the Tender is actually located. Nor would anyone be able to detect signals or signatures from it for months or years due to light-lag.

What are peoples thoughts on the implications of the tactic?
Viable?
Misguided?
Possible, but with details needing modification?

 

[Condottiere]

It's viable, but you need to have the doctrine figured out and construct the supporting ships.

Consider Midway and Coral Sea.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Useful but logistically tricky.
The Tender would need to have sufficient fuel fraction to return to origin if the battle goes badly. So instead of needing fuel for only 1 jump to the destination, it needs fuel for 2 jumps. Likewise, the Riders need to have sufficient fuel for 2 jumps.

The hazard with the tactic from a logistics standpoint, relative to the "more direct" starship option, is that the Tender and the Riders need to be prepared for a "no refueling" circumstance after jumping while preserving the option to retreat through jump (because if they don't, they're "committed" to the objective, win or lose).

The downside to the tactic from an operational tempo standpoint, relative to the "more direct" starship option, is that it takes 2 jumps to deploy the Riders, not just 1. That extra jump can make worlds of difference to initiative in battle confrontations, since it means that your Riders are "slower to get to the fight" than the starships are.

With plenty of lead time and an opponent who isn't going anywhere any time soon (so the Riders can show up "whenever they get there") that's not a problem. Against a mobile enemy who isn't necessarily staying put for months at a time (presumably conducting a siege of some kind) the staged jump option is more trouble than it's worth. So good against a stationary enemy but bad against a mobile one.

 

[McPerth]

Aside from the problems shown by Spinward Flow (the main of them, IMHO is the need to refuel the tenders at empty space,), I see some others, some of which are not represented on HG combat system, but would no doubt be there:

1 - the raiders will not have other supports (aside from jump) the tenders might give:

I assume the tenders give more support tha njust jump capacity, mostly in form of coordination (despite not being represented in HG comat system), repairs, other facilities for the BRs crews (fro mrecreation to hospitals), fighter cover...

2 - the tenders will not know the result of the battle (not even if there was one) until quite latter,

This will reduce the pace of any offensive (this tactics are not for defense) even quite less than Spinward Flow told, as you'd need one week for Tenders jump, another for BRs jump, the battle (if any), another week to reach the Tenders with the news, another for the Tenders to rejoin the BRs (if those were victorious). This means 4 weeks for what would ned only one if the Tenders jump directly to the attacked system before the squadorn may move again, leaving 3 more weeks for the enemy to react. If you're attacking and victorious, you would probably be unable to exploit it.

OTOH, if you lose the battle, the enemy can exploit it to attack your base while your BRs are jumping to the Tenders, and then to the base (only to find it occupied by the victorious enemy fleet)

3 - Those BRs would have advantage against a BB of the same size, but would be a disadvantage against a BR of the same size without JD (as they have about 12% (22 if fuel for 2 jumps) used for jump drives and fuel,,,

 

[Spinward Flow]

Right.
It "works" as a strategy against an immobile opponent who doesn't know you're coming.
Against a mobile opponent, or one who is prepared and ready for your arrival (and thus waiting for you), the strategy comes up short.

Bottom line, too many moving parts (Tender, Riders) that can get tripped up pretty quickly on their own need to coordinate (battles tend to be chaotic I hear). So the strategy fails the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) test.

In a war where "the enemy gets a vote" ... the complexity of the Tender a parsec away move is going to be "disqualifying" except in the most favorable of circumstances (when you would have won anyway). The relative inflexibility imposed by the strategy (once you commit, you're committed for longer than the opponent will be committed to their own strategy) is inherently dangerous to the survival and relevance of your own forces.

Not recommended.

CAN it be done?
Sure ... if you design everything around enabling the Tender Two Step.

SHOULD it be done?
Except in the most favorable of circumstances, probably not. Too many risks of something going wrong with the logistics and/or communications, neither of which is helpful for prosecuting a wartime offensive successfully (let alone defensively). Also, the strategy isn't even that good for garrison operations.

 

[Condottiere]

Interpolating current literature, I'd make a pretty good guess that the Confederation Navy is going to do that, though not necessarily with onboard jump drives, at least in the early stages of liberating the Occupied Territories.

 

[mike wightman]

Drop tanks...

 

[whartung]

Fuel is the killer for Jump in terms of impact on ship design, not the drive. So, have 20% dedicated to jump fuel you're losing your BR advantage.

Having the ability to jump out in case of trouble is a sketchy thing. For the most part, this is a problem only for systems without gas giants or even asteroid belts with ice available.

In a system with GG or ice asteroids, the fleet can fuel in time.

Can the defender defend the gas giant? Yes, yes it can. But it has to do so at the cost of defending the main world (or whatever rich prize the attacker is after). That divides up the defensive forces. With proper intelligence, which I don't think is that hard to get, odds are an attacking fleet can crush the defense at the gas giant. Worlds are harder because of ground emplacements, GGs don't have that problem.

Having a large defensive force at the gas giant is very expensive, and if it's big enough, then, yea, the invader just won't show up...maybe.

If you have ice asteroids to facilitate refueling, the fleet can arrive and have plenty of time (at least a week) to refuel in the fields. Whether the defender decides to fly out to engage the invader in deep space is a tough, tough problem.

If they try, then the invader can just run past them. There's a brief meeting engagement as the attackers just fly on by with a high vector. This is why engagement rarely happen in deep space, and better at the anchors that keeps the ships in the neighborhood so you can kill them.

If you have more than one GG, well, you're doomed. Just spreads the forces too thin.

Once the fleet is in your system, that pins your defenders. They can't leave.

There's nothing starting a committed invader from stashing fuel caches one jump away from juicy targets. This can be done long before an invasion, and no one would be the wiser. This lets Jump 3 fleets arrive on the doorstep, refuel, jump in, assault something, and jump back out.

It take dedicated cache fueler to do it, but at the scale of the Imperium, it's not a huge amount of ships. At TL-15, you can make a dedicated cache fueler with 20% extra fuel (for the caches) at J6. This is across hull sizes. The efficiency goes to just over 10% at TL-11.

In the end, it's a game of intelligence. With "Russian Trawlers", fleet intelligence at a system level is dated, but current. Any Free Trader popping in to drop off some Grain can get a solid snapshot of ship traffic in the system. Send one the main world and to each GG. Look like any other Free Trader.

The defenders can do nothing about the attackers except simply hope they have enough to stop them.

A decisive force can show up, and 30+ hours later they're in your face, mesoning your ships and platforms. You can't react within 30 hours. You can just watch them form up as they come in from jump. If they form up 30 hours from where your forces are stationed, they'll all have arrived before you can get there, assuming you decide to pursue. Otherwise, you just wait and let them come to you, grit your teeth, and hope that they don't spill your coffee.

I think it's a true "offense is the best defense" strategy. Have to keep the fleets at home, outside of your space. I think defending gas giants, as a general rule, is likely not worth the trouble. Let them come.

I've always thought that FFW should have a box for each GG as well as the main planet to locate defensive forces. Always felt that was more realistic.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Drop tanks...

When the drop tanks for a million ton tender are the size of a Battle Rider (or few) per parsec and can only be obtained (at short notice) from Naval Bases ... that puts a pretty severe crimp into your freedom to maneuver.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The tactic would be as follows:

1. J-4 Fleet Tender Jumps into an EMPTY HEX adjacent to the target system
2. "Jump-Riders" jump into the target system and engage in operations (recon, battle, etc)
3. Depending on the fuel load (1 or 2 jump capacity), they jump out during or after operations or battle back to the adjacent hex location of their Tender.

What's the point?

If you are using CT HG the tenders can be kept secure in the reserve, pick up the riders and jump in the same round. Cover the retreat with a few hard to hit fighters...

If the enemy can target the tenders, more reasonable would be:
1: Jump into the target system using fuel in drop tanks, to arrive with full tanks, both in the tenders and the riders.
2: Scout to see if you have favourable odds; if not jump out with the riders.
3: Launch the riders, jump one parsec to empty space (towards your base so you can jump back).
4: Fight the battle, the riders can retreat to the tenders if necessary.


Note that a jump-capable rider would be much bigger hence more expensive than a pure rider. If you have to take a budget into consideration (i.e. always), that will give the pure riders a vast advantage. Expect them to win every battle...

 

[Condottiere]

With a tender, you tend to arrive at the same time adjacent.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When the drop tanks for a million ton tender are the size of a Battle Rider (or few) per parsec and can only be obtained (at short notice) from Naval Bases ... that puts a pretty severe crimp into your freedom to maneuver.

Always carry the tanks, only drop them when making an attack (jump into defended enemy system). You have that tanks with you from your original base, and you only have to replace them after an attack.

You can probably get 2×J-3 performance with a J-4 tender, only drop the tanks when making a J-4 attack.
If you do a J-3 attack you can keep the tanks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To illustrate the cost involved:

Edit: Oh, joy, the code block does not preserve white-space anymore, so we can't post ship designs except as images...

Take a simpe rider:

BR-K106KJ3-F49900-232N9-0 MCr 12 878 11 000 Dton bearing L LLL11 Crew=200 batteries L LLL11 TL=15 Cargo=234 Fuel=2100 EP=2100 Agility=6 Dual Occupancy 235 12 878 USP # Dton Cost Hull, Streamlined Custom K 11 000 Configuration Needle/Wedge 1 1 320 Scoops Streamlined 11 Armour 15 F 1 760 3 168 Manoeuvre D 6 1 1 870 935 Power Plant 19 1 2 100 6 300 Fuel, #J, #weeks J-0, 4 weeks 2 100 Purifier 1 32 0 Bridge 1 220 55 Computer m/9fib J 1 26 200 Staterooms 4 16 2 Staterooms, Half 196 392 49 Cargo 235 Spinal Meson N N 1 2 000 600 Bay Missile, 50 t 9 1 50 13 Single Turret Particle 2 20 60 60 Single Turret Pulse 2 20 20 10 Single Turret Plasma 3 20 40 30 Triple Turret Sand 4 20 20 15 Nuclear Damper 9 1 20 50 Meson Screen 9 1 40 60 Nominal Cost MCr 12 877,82 Sum: 235 12 878 Class Cost MCr 2 704,34 Valid ≥0 ≥0 Ship Cost MCr 10 302,26 Add J-1 capability: BR-K116GJ3-F49900-232N9-0 MCr 16 611 14 500 Dton bearing L LLL11 Crew=223 batteries L LLL11 TL=15 Cargo=151 Fuel=3823 EP=2373 Agility=6 Dual Occupancy 152 16 611 USP # Dton Cost Hull, Streamlined Custom K 14 500 Configuration Needle/Wedge 1 1 740 Scoops Streamlined 15 Armour 15 F 2 320 4 176 Jump Drive 1 1 290 1 160 Manoeuvre D 6 1 2 465 1 233 Power Plant 16 1 2 373 7 119 Fuel, #J, #weeks J-1, 4 weeks 1 2 373 Purifier 1 57 1 Bridge 1 290 73 Computer m/9fib J 1 26 200 Staterooms 4 16 2 Staterooms, Half 219 438 55 Cargo 152 Demountable Tanks J-1 1 1 450 1 Spinal Meson N N 1 2 000 600 Bay Missile, 50 t 9 1 50 13 Single Turret Particle 2 20 60 60 Single Turret Pulse 2 20 20 10 Single Turret Plasma 3 20 40 30 Triple Turret Sand 4 20 20 15 Nuclear Damper 9 1 20 50 Meson Screen 9 1 40 60 Nominal Cost MCr 16 610,77 Sum: 152 16 611 Class Cost MCr 3 488,26 Valid ≥0 ≥0 Ship Cost MCr 13 288,62 Note that since the rider increased from 11 kDt to 14.5 kDt the tender has to be 30% bigger and more expensive too.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, try again...

To illustrate the cost involved:

Take a simpe rider (Meson, 11 kDt, GCr 12.9):


Add J-1 capability (Meson, J-1, 14.5 kDt, GCr 16.6):


Note that since the rider increased from 11 kDt to 14.5 kDt the tender has to be 30% bigger and more expensive too.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Note that since the rider increased from 11 kDt to 14.5 kDt the tender has to be 30% bigger and more expensive too.

In other words, more expensive than the effort is worth, in aggregate total.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In other words, more expensive than the effort is worth, in aggregate total.

Quite.

 

[Condottiere]

Military acquisitions never tend to be black and white affairs.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Cash rules everything around me.