New Freighter Design.

Duckk wrote:It doesn't do anyone a whole lot of good if your all your sensors and fire control are pointed at the wedge.

It would be a pretty stupid designer that didn't orient the sensors to look to the sides.

Imagine a freighter with a dorsal fin raising a modest suite of fire-control sensors to look over the tractored pods to the probable threat axis.

All that is needed inside the ship is a terminal or briefcase with a holographic display and keyboard (with optional big red button) that can link wirelessly to the computers and command links in the dorsal fin.

Duckk wrote:That presupposes that you are heading directly from a secured system to the port of call. It is equally (if not more) likely that you are hitting a trade circuit, where multiple systems don't allow armed merchant ships.

No, that presupposes that anyone on that kind of route won't bother renting missile pods or returns them to "Avis Rent-a-pod" at the last system with secure facilities for storage of the system before entering a problematic portion of their route.

As an alternative, move the pods inside the ship, and they become "cargo" and not affected by rules against armed merchantmen. (If you can't fire the missiles, are you armed?)

How would the fact that a merchant ship was carrying LACs for self-defense affect insurance rates? IMO, the fact that the ship was armed in such a manner would reduce the price of insurance on the ship itself by anywhere from 10 - 50%. Then there is the fact that on-planet insurers would probably lower their rates to the shipper for the cargoes. While the reductions might not offset the cost of the protection, it would make using those ships more attractive and commercially viable.

I'm still surprised that no one else seems to acknowledge the security risks inherent in attaching non-hyper capable LACs to be sent out on vulnerable freighters to 'dangerous' (by definition, or you wouldn't need LACs) systems far from the SEM.

So the crews are just expected to bail out in skinsuits and self destruct the LAC if they are caught out by an unfriendly system government?

Also the 12-hour limit is far outside the hyper limit so the freighter would still be vulnerable to pirates between the point where the LAC escort had to halt and the inside of the hyper limit 11 light-hours away. Worst of both worlds, since it gives pirates such a good chance to build an intercept.

BobfromSydney wrote:Also the 12-hour limit is far outside the hyper limit so the freighter would still be vulnerable to pirates between the point where the LAC escort had to halt and the inside of the hyper limit 11 light-hours away. Worst of both worlds, since it gives pirates such a good chance to build an intercept.

True, which is why I said you'd only do that if it was a safe system that also had a ban on armed freighters or foreign warships. So they'd have forces enforcing their 12h limit; which would also keep the pirates away.

If you had a system which couldn't secure itself and refused to let your warships escort in beyond the hyper limit (if not all the way to planetary orbit) then best just take it off the trade route. They're too demanding and high risk to be worth the potential profits.


Oh, and this prompted me to go reread the pearl about the 12 hour limit (which I probably should have done before).
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/323/0

First, you're only 6 light-hours out because it establishes a 12 light hour diameter bubble centered on the sun (so 6 light-hour radius). Second that limit only applies if they have the forces to patrol it (so you shouldn't need to worry about pirates out there, the system has to run patrols).

But third, and most importantly, I'd forgotten that the right of free passage applies up until the 12-light minute limit (hyper limit +12 lm); so they can't legally order your LACs to wait further away than that. Therefore a freighter shouldn't need to drop out of hyper further out than that.

BobfromSydney wrote:So the crews are just expected to bail out in skinsuits and self destruct the LAC if they are caught out by an unfriendly system government?

The first generation Shrikes carried a lifeboat/pinnace according to the appendix in one of the paperback editions I have; I can't find the appendix in any of the eBook editions though.

ETA: Found it. At the end of Echoes of Honor -- the image isn't named "shrike" and it doesn't have a caption in the eBooks. I found it by looking at all the images on the Torch of Freedom free library CD

If there is a concern about official secrets, only use the early version LACs (282s?) for Limpet duty. That's the reason I specified "Capacitor Extended Range or Capacitor MDM" such as Erewhon is providing the Maya sector; It's a technology that is out of Manticore's control already, but not even close to current generation hardware that is still tightly controlled.

BobfromSydney wrote:I'm still surprised that no one else seems to acknowledge the security risks inherent in attaching non-hyper capable LACs to be sent out on vulnerable freighters to 'dangerous' (by definition, or you wouldn't need LACs) systems far from the SEM.

So the crews are just expected to bail out in skinsuits and self destruct the LAC if they are caught out by an unfriendly system government?

Also the 12-hour limit is far outside the hyper limit so the freighter would still be vulnerable to pirates between the point where the LAC escort had to halt and the inside of the hyper limit 11 light-hours away. Worst of both worlds, since it gives pirates such a good chance to build an intercept.

Oh, I'm sorry you missed it.

Kizarvexis wrote:Snipped to the relevant section and post was on page two

'To live is to risk' and Manticore is at war and war is an inherently risky enterprise. Any time you send out warships no matter how big, you run the risk of losing technology. The question is, is the risk of someone trying to take the LACs, a bigger issue than not protecting the freighters and the government not having the money to fund the navy to protect Manticore? Remember Manticore just lost the largest trading parter in known space. Manticore needs new markets to keep the money flowing. Manticore has anti-theft devices on the tech to ameliorate the risk of tech loss, but if the fleet is as strapped for light units as I think they might be, then you might have to take the risk to keep the merchant marine moving and the money coming in.

Kizarvexis wrote: Snipped to the relevant section and post was on page three

You are talking about places with significant fleet presences. I'm sure Lovat, Haven, Grayson, Manticore, the worm hole termini don't have piracy problems due to the fleet presences in those places. But the lower tier systems and allied systems, especially the single polity ones, won't necessarily have that type of security. And while XYZ system may have treaties with Manticore, they may very well not allow semi-permanent to permanent military forces to set up in their system. Sure, a friendly visit by a cruiser division for a month or two is fine, but setting up a LAC base with support personnel living in your system would feel like they are taking over your nation. Look at all the trouble in RL with militaries working in other countries fighting extremists. Having LACs remora like on the sides of freighters as they come and go would be no worse than a tin can escorting the freighters.

To those places that require a convoy, limpeted LAC's/POD's will happen. To all other places, you are on your own.

Supposedly having limpeted LAC's onboard will be OK, but pods will not? Please. Either said system will allow armed merchantmen in system or they won't. Both are armed. There is no distinction between the two.

What will not happen is LAC's dropped at the hyper limit and left there to twiddle their thumbs as postulated up thread. That is ludicrous. If said merchant ship is late, or impounded, the LAC's and personnel are FUBAR'd. Now the system can just wait till the LAC's run out of air/water/food and force their surrender and get a windfall of technology. Fission piles. Compensator. Beta squared nodes. Grav drivers for missile launchers. Fast missile launcher mechs. Vastly improved capacitors compared to the rest of the galaxy for shipboard use and aboard missiles. FTL com. Bow/stern wall. Grav pinch effect focusing for their PDLC. Grav pinch tech on their missiles. Missile acceleration compensator. Missile ECM warheads and logic profiles. In short, capturing an intact RMN LAC is about the best windfall any planet/warlord/pirate could possibly hope to gain. There is no way in, either very cold or very hot places, that LAC's or Pods will be allowed anywhere even close to outside friendly space in anything other than a convoy.

Countervailing argument: Not really

Any system that allows RMN DD's CL's in system will allow armed MMM freighters as well. They will welcome them in fact just as they do today. Local defense forces will already be able to deal with the RMN LAC's. They are not worried about a couple of LAC's or an ad-hoc pod system limpeted, grafted, whichever word you wish to use, whose sole purpose is to swat a pirate. Now if a whole convoy of RMN ships, each with several LAC's/pods drops in unannounced, well, that could be a problem.

The Rent-a-pod idea could work out of a convoy drop point, but would not pirates/local warlords who find out about said system want to get their hands on said system and specifically target them for the tech? If you make dumbed down tech pods/missiles, that will be ok to defend at against a pirate or a DD, but nothing larger. Do note that here my assumption is that self destruct protocols can help some, but true destruction is not possible unless all of the missiles explode. Remember the pod launching grav drivers are new tech as well allowing others to build pods,LAC's, and better warships.

This rent-a-pod would require WAAAAYYYY dumbed down tech. Same goes for the LAC's used. Otherwise you are just asking for your merchant marine to become big, fat, slow, juicy targets.

Any limpeted/grafted/module use LAC's or PODS outside of a convoy or a true Q-ship is a no go as far as I am concerned. Especially LAC's.

Relax wrote:The Rent-a-pod idea could work out of a convoy drop point, but would not pirates/local warlords who find out about said system want to get their hands on said system and specifically target them for the tech? If you make dumbed down tech pods/missiles, that will be ok to defend at against a pirate or a DD, but nothing larger. Do note that here my assumption is that self destruct protocols can help some, but true destruction is not possible unless all of the missiles explode. Remember the pod launching grav drivers are new tech as well allowing others to build pods,LAC's, and better warships.

This rent-a-pod would require WAAAAYYYY dumbed down tech. Same goes for the LAC's used. Otherwise you are just asking for your merchant marine to become big, fat, slow, juicy targets.

Erewhon era missiles are better than a pirate would have -- at least in the short term, and in the long-term, the GA and/or Manticore, having beefed up its medium sized combatants to facilitate commerce raiding against the SL will be able to turn those ships to pirate suppression and convoy work. The advantage to using pods is that the customer could rent missiles of whatever size the threat warranted -- up to and including system defense missile pods. (A bit pricy, but when you care {about your own skin} enough to send the very best... )

Rent-a-pod outlets would have to employ significant security for storage areas, but those would generally be in secure systems and a much tougher proposition for pirates to raid.

Raiding a ship armed with extended range missiles would require a pirate with a severe deficiency in risk assessment: You're not likely to capture many missiles that are fired at you.

Either Limpet-LACs or rent-a-pod would fill the niche from convoy separation to destination just fine, and if sufficient Merchants are armed, convoy escorts can be reduced. Either will boost the effective number of Q-Ships for pirates to worry about, and that's the whole point.

Erewhon missiles and pods would still have the improved, grav drivers, ECM, capacitors, acceleration, etc. All better than anything anyone in the SL has. Without the improved grav drivers you do not have viable pods. One of the big themes of SVW. Ok, word 'theme' is too strong. Anyways, you just made your merchantmen nice fat juicy targets. Capture and sell the tech and make far more than they ever did grabbing the freighter.

You would have to build a special pod out of tech that has not been built in 10 years. Possible? Sure.

Of course pirates are going to be getting much nastier soon, as they get their hands on thousands of SLN BF and FF warships. Obsolete missile tech will not be viable anymore.

Weird Harold wrote:

Relax wrote:The Rent-a-pod idea could work out of a convoy drop point, but would not pirates/local warlords who find out about said system want to get their hands on said system and specifically target them for the tech? If you make dumbed down tech pods/missiles, that will be ok to defend at against a pirate or a DD, but nothing larger. Do note that here my assumption is that self destruct protocols can help some, but true destruction is not possible unless all of the missiles explode. Remember the pod launching grav drivers are new tech as well allowing others to build pods,LAC's, and better warships.

This rent-a-pod would require WAAAAYYYY dumbed down tech. Same goes for the LAC's used. Otherwise you are just asking for your merchant marine to become big, fat, slow, juicy targets.

Erewhon era missiles are better than a pirate would have -- at least in the short term, and in the long-term, the GA and/or Manticore, having beefed up its medium sized combatants to facilitate commerce raiding against the SL will be able to turn those ships to pirate suppression and convoy work. The advantage to using pods is that the customer could rent missiles of whatever size the threat warranted -- up to and including system defense missile pods. (A bit pricy, but when you care {about your own skin} enough to send the very best... )

Rent-a-pod outlets would have to employ significant security for storage areas, but those would generally be in secure systems and a much tougher proposition for pirates to raid.

Raiding a ship armed with extended range missiles would require a pirate with a severe deficiency in risk assessment: You're not likely to capture many missiles that are fired at you.

Either Limpet-LACs or rent-a-pod would fill the niche from convoy separation to destination just fine, and if sufficient Merchants are armed, convoy escorts can be reduced. Either will boost the effective number of Q-Ships for pirates to worry about, and that's the whole point.

Relax wrote:Any system that allows RMN DD's CL's in system will allow armed MMM freighters as well. They will welcome them in fact just as they do today. Local defense forces will already be able to deal with the RMN LAC's. They are not worried about a couple of LAC's or an ad-hoc pod system limpeted, grafted, whichever word you wish to use, whose sole purpose is to swat a pirate. Now if a whole convoy of RMN ships, each with several LAC's/pods drops in unannounced, well, that could be a problem.

We've already seen in-universe examples where that hasn't been true. Silesia (grudgingly) allowed foreign military ships to perform anti-piracy patrols or convoy escort. But they absolutely forbid privately owned hyper-capable ships. (Well, unless they exploited the loophole of being a naval reserve auxiliary; technically making them a foreign military warship)

Now that distinction may not make a lot of logical sense, especially if the weapons on the armed merchantman are manned by naval personnel, but legal restrictions don't need to be logical.


OTOH I'm fine if the solution to such an illogical system is simply to decide it's too much risk or trouble to bother trading with. You don't want us, we won't come.