How To Abandon Ship?

Speaking of how to abandon ship. Can anyone tell me where the scene with Ajax is? I perused War of Honor several times but caught no joy. It is when I finally found the elusive tidbit on EMP.

I'm wanting to reread the trap that was set up for the Peeps. IINM, Ajax dropped her wedge indicating surrender? Yet fired on the Peeps? I thought that was dirty and sneaky and it could have opened a can of wormy tits for tat.

cthia wrote:Albeit, I wonder why/if AF-1 does not also carry missiles.

Possibly because AF-1 is not (usually) a fighter?

Also because "AF-1" is a diplomatic transport and it isn't very diplomatic to arrive armed. If "AF-1" needs missiles (or chaff and flares) there's usually a fighter escort nearby.

cthia wrote:I can't shake the notion that the Royal Yacht should be CM intensive, like AF-1. Defensive capabilities due to the football you are carrying becomes just as important as offensive capability. Perhaps more so. It is poor consolation knowing you destroyed what was shooting at you if your Queen is killed. Is there a such thing as CM pods? If so, tow them phuckers! No Queen should leave home without them. There should be enough CMs to light up the sky like the 4th of July.

drothgery wrote:Probably worth noting is that all previous Manticoran Royal Yachts (and the current Haven One) were essentially civilian craft; HMS Duke of Cromarty is undoubtedly the most heavily armed -- both offensively and defensively -- vessel explicitly set aside as a head of state / government transport in the Honorverse.

cthia wrote:Why was that exactly? I mean like, why was she ever placed in an eggshell screaming "Wait! Don't shoot! This is the hive that holds our Queen!?"

Vince wrote:While the royal yacht Queen Adrienne was essentially a civilian design, it did mount an extensive ECM suite:

Ashes of Victory, Chapter 44 wrote:They were closer, and her mouth dried as the time to attack range counter spun downward on her HUD. Some of the LACs were firing their own point defense clusters, though the range was long for those weapons, and even their grasers at their best-guess positions on the missiles, but they had virtually no chance of hitting them. Grayson One and Queen Adrienne were also responding, turning away from the threat and rolling ship in an effort to interpose their wedges. Neither yacht carried any armament, but both were equipped with comprehensive EW fits, and their electronic defenses sprang to life. Yet there was little for those defenses to defend against, for the silently pursuing killers radiated no active targeting systems to be jammed, and they seemed utterly oblivious to the efforts to confuse them with decoys.

Italics are the author's, boldface, and underlined text is my emphasis.

And you are mistaken about what defenses Air Force One mounts. While it carries ECM, I know of NO air launched missile designed to to shoot down any kind of missile that is targeted on an aircraft and which is carried by and fired from the aircraft being targeted, which would be the real life equivalent of what you think AF1 carries. A counter-missile is the Honorverse equivalent of a navy ship mounted anti-anti-ship missile, which do currently exist today.

cthia wrote:For the sake of the authenticity of clarity, thanks Vince. I'll consider myself reprimanded.

Actual anti-missiles are not the defenses I think AF-1 carries. (Albeit I wouldn't put it past its classified nature. Although admittedly, if the tech were available seems it'd be on our fighter jets -- lest the system is too costly and/or bulky). I was simply "loosely" characterizing our present capability of flares as CMs -- which technically is what the tech is about... to counter missiles. Hence the impetus of my statement "...to light up the sky like the 4th of July."

Vince wrote:Flares, chaff and one-use airdropped active jammers are considered expendable electronic counter-measures (ECM), as are permanently or semi-permanently mounted infrared, and radio frequency & microwave jammers. ECM also covers 'stealth' technologies to reduce radar and infrared signatures.

cthia wrote:I know! Again Vince, I simply "loosely" categorized our ECM as uncontrolled flare missiles just to make an Honorverse point. And I attempted a real life comparison to make that point.

In the Honorverse, for the situation I have up for discussion, I wasn't saying that I think the Royal Yacht should be able to light up the sky with ECM - dragon's teeth and dazzlers, which is basically what flares are -- but with counter missiles (improved with Apollo if possible).

Simultaneously making the point, that if AF-1 had the same capability, its MO shows that it wouldn't like up the sky with flares but with CMs. Or both.

IOW, AF-1 would be CM heavy if the tech currently exists. I was simply wondering why the Royal Yacht didn't employ the same mentality. Defensive platform first.

Albeit, I wonder why/if AF-1 does not also carry missiles.

Regarding the part of your post I bolded: Think about the aerodynamic difficulty (drag, turbulence) of carrying and launching (blast turbulence) an air-to-air missile pointed to the rear of the aircraft launching that missile would cause. Add to that the resulting degradation of performance (speed, maneuverability, range) of the aircraft launch platform if such missiles could be carried, simply because of the drag & weight penalties that carrying those missiles would impose.

And that completely leaves out the sensors and supporting computing equipment (weight, power requirements--which would reduce engine thrust [thereby impacting speed, maneuverability and range]--and cooling requirements for the electronics) necessary to identify, localize and compute an intercept for an incoming threat, assuming that an intercept could be made at all (is the incoming missile approaching from a direction that the aircraft can see, and is there a missile available that can be launched at the incoming threat without hitting the aircraft launch platform--as well as intercepting far enough out that the explosion an intercept would cause would not damage the aircraft launch platform, or at least reduce the damage--the minimum safe distance).

Everything is a compromise, and even if it could be done, could an aircraft carry such a system and still accept the penalties and still meet all the other requirements of its mission? Remember, unlike the Honorverse, aircraft today have to deal with gravity, and except for helicopters, can't hover. Fixed wing aircraft have to contend with a minimum flying speed to avoid stalling, as well as drag imposed by the aircraft's speed and coefficient of drag.

And even in the Honorverse, we've seen what happens to (hovering) aircraft that use counter-grav when they suddenly lose that counter-grav and Newton's Law of Gravity takes over:

On Basilisk Station, Chapter 17 wrote:Ensign Tremaine swallowed the rest of the phrase as a towering plume of smoke and dust spewed up from the base. An entire NPA skimmer cartwheeled away from it almost lazily, bouncing end-over-end across the ground for fifty meters before it disintegrated in a fireball all its own. One of the hovering skimmers vanished, plunging straight down into the inferno as some flying projectile smashed into its counter-grav coils and it lost lift. A fresh explosion roared up out of the chaos, and the last of the six skimmers staggered drunkenly across the sky. It careened downward, barely under control, and its port engine ripped away as it hit. The pilot lost it—dead, unconscious, or simply overpowered by the uneven thrust that spun his crippled mount in a wreckage-shredding ground loop over the rough terrain—but at least it neither exploded nor caught fire.

Boldface is my emphasis.

[quote=“drothgery”]

cthia wrote:Probably worth noting is that all previous Manticoran Royal Yachts (and the current Haven One) were essentially civilian craft; HMS Duke of Cromarty is undoubtedly the most heavily armed -- both offensively and defensively -- vessel explicitly set aside as a head of state / government transport in the Honorverse.

Why was that exactly? I mean like, why was she ever placed in an eggshell screaming "Wait! Don't shoot! This is the hive that holds our Queen!?"[/quote]
I don’t know. Why does the US President fly on a modified civilian airliner - and one originally designed about 50 years ago - instead of a much more survivable modified stealth bomber?

Why, during wartime even, was President Roosevelt’s yacht an unarmed ship rather than at least a heavy cruiser?

And heck, even the Presidential limos, while armored, are civilian designs and not based on a heavy tank, mine resistant APC, or other highly survivable military vehicle.

By and large people just don’t do that. It often sends the wrong diplomatic message, you’re not supposed to send the head of state anywhere anticipated to be dangerous, and in unusual situations they can always catch a ride on a real warship (see Churchill taking HMS Prince of Whales to Newfoundland to meet Roosevelt, who’d taken the CA USS Augusta, and sign the Atlantic Charter.

cthia wrote:I can't shake the notion that the Royal Yacht should be CM intensive, like AF-1. Defensive capabilities due to the football you are carrying becomes just as important as offensive capability. Perhaps more so. It is poor consolation knowing you destroyed what was shooting at you if your Queen is killed. Is there a such thing as CM pods? If so, tow them phuckers! No Queen should leave home without them. There should be enough CMs to light up the sky like the 4th of July.

drothgery wrote:Probably worth noting is that all previous Manticoran Royal Yachts (and the current Haven One) were essentially civilian craft; HMS Duke of Cromarty is undoubtedly the most heavily armed -- both offensively and defensively -- vessel explicitly set aside as a head of state / government transport in the Honorverse.

cthia wrote:Why was that exactly? I mean like, why was she ever placed in an eggshell screaming "Wait! Don't shoot! This is the hive that holds our Queen!?"

Vince wrote:While the royal yacht Queen Adrienne was essentially a civilian design, it did mount an extensive ECM suite:

Ashes of Victory, Chapter 44 wrote:They were closer, and her mouth dried as the time to attack range counter spun downward on her HUD. Some of the LACs were firing their own point defense clusters, though the range was long for those weapons, and even their grasers at their best-guess positions on the missiles, but they had virtually no chance of hitting them. Grayson One and Queen Adrienne were also responding, turning away from the threat and rolling ship in an effort to interpose their wedges. Neither yacht carried any armament, but both were equipped with comprehensive EW fits, and their electronic defenses sprang to life. Yet there was little for those defenses to defend against, for the silently pursuing killers radiated no active targeting systems to be jammed, and they seemed utterly oblivious to the efforts to confuse them with decoys.

Italics are the author's, boldface, and underlined text is my emphasis.

And you are mistaken about what defenses Air Force One mounts. While it carries ECM, I know of NO air launched missile designed to to shoot down any kind of missile that is targeted on an aircraft and which is carried by and fired from the aircraft being targeted, which would be the real life equivalent of what you think AF1 carries. A counter-missile is the Honorverse equivalent of a navy ship mounted anti-anti-ship missile, which do currently exist today.

cthia wrote:For the sake of the authenticity of clarity, thanks Vince. I'll consider myself reprimanded.

Actual anti-missiles are not the defenses I think AF-1 carries. (Albeit I wouldn't put it past its classified nature. Although admittedly, if the tech were available seems it'd be on our fighter jets -- lest the system is too costly and/or bulky). I was simply "loosely" characterizing our present capability of flares as CMs -- which technically is what the tech is about... to counter missiles. Hence the impetus of my statement "...to light up the sky like the 4th of July."

Vince wrote:Flares, chaff and one-use airdropped active jammers are considered expendable electronic counter-measures (ECM), as are permanently or semi-permanently mounted infrared, and radio frequency & microwave jammers. ECM also covers 'stealth' technologies to reduce radar and infrared signatures.

cthia wrote:I know! Again Vince, I simply "loosely" categorized our ECM as uncontrolled flare missiles just to make an Honorverse point. And I attempted a real life comparison to make that point.

In the Honorverse, for the situation I have up for discussion, I wasn't saying that I think the Royal Yacht should be able to light up the sky with ECM - dragon's teeth and dazzlers, which is basically what flares are -- but with counter missiles (improved with Apollo if possible).

Simultaneously making the point, that if AF-1 had the same capability, its MO shows that it wouldn't like up the sky with flares but with CMs. Or both.

IOW, AF-1 would be CM heavy if the tech currently exists. I was simply wondering why the Royal Yacht didn't employ the same mentality. Defensive platform first.

Albeit, I wonder why/if AF-1 does not also carry missiles.

Vince wrote:Regarding the part of your post I bolded: Think about the aerodynamic difficulty (drag, turbulence) of carrying and launching (blast turbulence) an air-to-air missile pointed to the rear of the aircraft launching that missile would cause. Add to that the resulting degradation of performance (speed, maneuverability, range) of the aircraft launch platform if such missiles could be carried, simply because of the drag & weight penalties that carrying those missiles would impose.

And that completely leaves out the sensors and supporting computing equipment (weight, power requirements--which would reduce engine thrust [thereby impacting speed, maneuverability and range]--and cooling requirements for the electronics) necessary to identify, localize and compute an intercept for an incoming threat, assuming that an intercept could be made at all (is the incoming missile approaching from a direction that the aircraft can see, and is there a missile available that can be launched at the incoming threat without hitting the aircraft launch platform--as well as intercepting far enough out that the explosion an intercept would cause would not damage the aircraft launch platform, or at least reduce the damage--the minimum safe distance).

Everything is a compromise, and even if it could be done, could an aircraft carry such a system and still accept the penalties and still meet all the other requirements of its mission? Remember, unlike the Honorverse, aircraft today have to deal with gravity, and except for helicopters, can't hover. Fixed wing aircraft have to contend with a minimum flying speed to avoid stalling, as well as drag imposed by the aircraft's speed and coefficient of drag.

And even in the Honorverse, we've seen what happens to (hovering) aircraft that use counter-grav when they suddenly lose that counter-grav and Newton's Law of Gravity takes over:

On Basilisk Station, Chapter 17 wrote:Ensign Tremaine swallowed the rest of the phrase as a towering plume of smoke and dust spewed up from the base. An entire NPA skimmer cartwheeled away from it almost lazily, bouncing end-over-end across the ground for fifty meters before it disintegrated in a fireball all its own. One of the hovering skimmers vanished, plunging straight down into the inferno as some flying projectile smashed into its counter-grav coils and it lost lift. A fresh explosion roared up out of the chaos, and the last of the six skimmers staggered drunkenly across the sky. It careened downward, barely under control, and its port engine ripped away as it hit. The pilot lost it—dead, unconscious, or simply overpowered by the uneven thrust that spun his crippled mount in a wreckage-shredding ground loop over the rough terrain—but at least it neither exploded nor caught fire.

Boldface is my emphasis.

I never considered any of the possible complications. Though I did consider that the missiles would be carried inside of the ship's skin just aft of the engines. Greatly minimizing drag.

I wouldn't think that any of the factors you listed would severely hamper a ship her size with such powerful engines. And the new 747-8 increased maximum takeoff weight by over 150,000 lbs. 'Course, wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, at least the second or third. LOL

Extra weight would affect speed and range, but she already enjoys impressive numbers there and she does have the ability of mid air refueling. I read somewhere that the reason the current engines were chosen was for their enormous power, reliability and flexibility. The new engines are offered by GE, touting lighter weight and increasing efficiency by 15%.

All to afford the deployment of more goodies, for baddies?

drothgery wrote:Probably worth noting is that all previous Manticoran Royal Yachts (and the current Haven One) were essentially civilian craft; HMS Duke of Cromarty is undoubtedly the most heavily armed -- both offensively and defensively -- vessel explicitly set aside as a head of state / government transport in the Honorverse.

cthia wrote:Why was that exactly? I mean like, why was she ever placed in an eggshell screaming "Wait! Don't shoot! This is the hive that holds our Queen!?"

Jonathan_S wrote:I don’t know. Why does the US President fly on a modified civilian airliner - and one originally designed about 50 years ago - instead of a much more survivable modified stealth bomber?

Why, during wartime even, was President Roosevelt’s yacht an unarmed ship rather than at least a heavy cruiser?

And heck, even the Presidential limos, while armored, are civilian designs and not based on a heavy tank, mine resistant APC, or other highly survivable military vehicle.

By and large people just don’t do that. It often sends the wrong diplomatic message, you’re not supposed to send the head of state anywhere anticipated to be dangerous, and in unusual situations they can always catch a ride on a real warship (see Churchill taking HMS Prince of Whales to Newfoundland to meet Roosevelt, who’d taken the CA USS Augusta, and sign the Atlantic Charter.

Your current president is asking that same question.

Do note that the 737 has already been "militarized." So I suspect that the 747 can be too.

cthia wrote:Speaking of how to abandon ship. Can anyone tell me where the scene with Ajax is? I perused War of Honor several times but caught no joy. It is when I finally found the elusive tidbit on EMP.

I'm wanting to reread the trap that was set up for the Peeps. IINM, Ajax dropped her wedge indicating surrender? Yet fired on the Peeps? I thought that was dirty and sneaky and it could have opened a can of wormy tits for tat.

I believe you're looking for the retelling of the Battle of Solon from Chapters 1 & 2 of Storm from the Shadows.

(Though unlike what Maxxq said, in this case the orderly phased evacuation of the ship - lifepods first and then later once damage control finally managed to clear the way to the single remaining boat small craft much later - seems to have been done while the drive was up (on just the forward rings) and Ajax was still running from the Havenites)

Ajax never dropped her wedge, that we saw. She'd rolled pods and left them behind her as a field expedient mine field, and kept running, even while everyone who could got off. She ran for over an hour after rolling the pods, until the chasing force almost ran over them. When the Mk16s launched it forced the Havenites to fire on Ajax and destroy the still running (but nearly evacuated) BC(P).

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Speaking of how to abandon ship. Can anyone tell me where the scene with Ajax is? I perused War of Honor several times but caught no joy. It is when I finally found the elusive tidbit on EMP.

I'm wanting to reread the trap that was set up for the Peeps. IINM, Ajax dropped her wedge indicating surrender? Yet fired on the Peeps? I thought that was dirty and sneaky and it could have opened a can of wormy tits for tat.

I believe you're looking for the retelling of the Battle of Solon from Chapters 1 & 2 of Storm from the Shadows.

(Though unlike what Maxxq said, in this case the orderly phased evacuation of the ship - lifepods first and then later once damage control finally managed to clear the way to the single remaining boat small craft much later - seems to have been done while the drive was up (on just the forward rings) and Ajax was still running from the Havenites)

Ajax never dropped her wedge, that we saw. She'd rolled pods and left them behind her as a field expedient mine field, and kept running, even while everyone who could got off. She ran for over an hour after rolling the pods, until the chasing force almost ran over them. When the Mk16s launched it forced the Havenites to fire on Ajax and destroy the still running (but nearly evacuated) BC(P).

I knew it! Another thing I was going to look for. But I wanted to be certain that it is as I remember it.

Thanks for the coordinates.

cthia wrote:Do note that the 737 has already been "militarized." So I suspect that the 747 can be too.

You mean sort of like this one?




The 747 has been "militarized" since the early 70's -- long before the current "AF-1" airframes were purchased and "militarized"

The article you linked notes the current VC-25A aircraft have a passenger capacity of 70 people (Wikipedia says 76) as opposed to a commercial 747-200 passenger capacity of ~~480. [sarcasm]I wonder what all that extra capacity is squandered on? [/sarcasm]

A B-2 or B-21 doesn't have the capacity to carry all of the "airborne white house" communications, command and control gear. Nor all of the additional ECM and anti-missile modifications -- like chaff and flare dispensers. Nor all of the food and other provisions carried on board to make the president independent of local food and water supplies if necessary.

Most people only see the $4B price tag for replacing AM 26000 and SAM 28000 and don't consider everything that the Presidential Transports have to be capable of to keep the president in contact with and control of the government. Or to keep him safe if everything goes to hell.

Pres Trump's comment about needing the EMP hardening of a stealth bomber just shows how little he knows about the VC-25A.

Weird Harold wrote:

cthia wrote:Do note that the 737 has already been "militarized." So I suspect that the 747 can be too.

You mean sort of like this one?




The 747 has been "militarized" since the early 70's -- long before the current "AF-1" airframes were purchased and "militarized"

The article you linked notes the current VC-25A aircraft have a passenger capacity of 70 people (Wikipedia says 76) as opposed to a commercial 747-200 passenger capacity of ~~480. [sarcasm]I wonder what all that extra capacity is squandered on? [/sarcasm]

A B-2 or B-21 doesn't have the capacity to carry all of the "airborne white house" communications, command and control gear. Nor all of the additional ECM and anti-missile modifications -- like chaff and flare dispensers. Nor all of the food and other provisions carried on board to make the president independent of local food and water supplies if necessary.

Most people only see the $4B price tag for replacing AM 26000 and SAM 28000 and don't consider everything that the Presidential Transports have to be capable of to keep the president in contact with and control of the government. Or to keep him safe if everything goes to hell.

Pres Trump's comment about needing the EMP hardening of a stealth bomber just shows how little he knows about the VC-25A.

I'm thinking a Stratolaunch might make a better Airforce One. Plus the added launch to Orbit to Space Station One could be the All goes to Hell Option. For everyday use it would also help to have the dual hulls and as Airforce One with dual cockpits. Might need a walk through corridor.

Although Thinking about it a Dirigible (Helium lift) would be better.