Escort Carrier Modification

ThinksMarkedly wrote:RFC also makes the point that if the only thing you can build and/or afford is a frigate, then you shouldn't be in the business of having a navy in the first place. That of course won't deter warlords or dictators in the far Fringe, but those are the types of megalomaniacs I'd expect to order cruisers instead, even if it means their population goes hungry.

Anyway, his post is pretty conclusively saying frigates are not coming back, the RTN notwithstanding. Let's not argue with him. And do note the same post is saying that the Roland is an already-obsolete design, only waiting for the rest of the Galaxy to catch up so it can show its obsolescence. He's saying that the minimum viable warship in the face of DDMs and MDMs might be a 300k tonne light cruiser.

Well I could see an argument for a system with a LAC based SDF wanting to pick up or build some ships in the frigate weight class - though I can't see them having any practical use for the very long range cruising endurance of a proper frigate. They're no longer a powerful enough unit to be much use alone off in the boonies; but if you can afford to send a couple divisions or a squadron off on each foreign tasking you can afford to have somewhat fewer but far more capable units which will make you overall more combat effective.

So I'd say if they did get these small hyper capable combatants either spend a bit more and give them a better weapons/defense suite so they're just very small DD (trading off range for combat capability) or else keep the weapons/defense fit of a frigate and make them smaller/cheaper by deleting the unneeded endurance.

But the reason I could see a few ships of that size being useful (assuming you really can't, or won't get and operate a half squadron of DDs) is to supplement your SDF LACs by providing a rapid reaction defense or coast guard response, for the parts of your system beyond the hyper limit (asteroid mining/refining bases, gas mines around your gas giants, etc. which tend to be beyond the hyper limit, or freighter that run into trouble arriving, or about to depart, beyond your hyper limit). Their hyper generator given them much improved mobility around that part of your system compared to your LACs. And they won't need much endurance for those missions as they are still in your home system, and can return to a base for resupply pretty regularly; nor will you need that many of them if they're just lightly supplementing the main defense force of LACs.


Just don't become deluded into thinking you're building a real navy. You've still got only a LAC based SDF that's mostly just good for scaring off your garden variety pirate, but not really much more. You just also have a few quick response ships for your territory beyond the hyper limit. But they're much more expensive than, and barely any more combat capable than the LACs you can build/buy, and arguable a bit less survivable.
Still, if you can afford a few of them they might make a useful adjunct to your LACs.

Relax wrote:Most systems have only LAC's and outdated LAC's at that,or ancient obsolete DD's. So saying a Frigate can't do the job, is not true. The question is efficiency of doing so per $$$ spent to offensive/defensive weapon suite and #personnel required. It is this reason that has seen the demise of the Frigate. Monetary efficiency justifies each subsequent ship class increasing in tonnage. It should be noted, infrastructure keeps increasing each year including system defensive infrastructure. Beating up on ever decreasing neobarbs with Frigates becomes less viable each increasing year as # of Neobarb planets is decreasing near "Galactic earth center". Frigates seem viable for those further out than Silesia for instance, but inside that radius going ever closer to earth? Nope. Manticore used to be on this fringe of neobarb star systems which is why they had Frigates.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Even then RFC makes the point in the infodump linked above that a frigate is neither cost-effective over the long run nor combat effective against anything except maybe those old-style LACs. The Nat Turner-class frigates the RTN has right now have a very limited timespan in which they are effective against warships because of the lopsided tech imbalance. That will not last and the RTN knows it. I'm sure they've placed orders for some Warrior-class destroyers from Erewhon as soon as they spare capacity.

RFC also makes the point that if the only thing you can build and/or afford is a frigate, then you shouldn't be in the business of having a navy in the first place. That of course won't deter warlords or dictators in the far Fringe, but those are the types of megalomaniacs I'd expect to order cruisers instead, even if it means their population goes hungry.

I love David's post, but I do question this. If a Frigate fulfills your, specific needs, then it is cost effective. Some planet out in the Verge or beyond - who depend on the SLN anyway - may just want something with a little more endurance and flexibility. And, or ability to "run for help!" You can't run for help if you get blown into inner-system debris. You can't run atall if you got no hyper generator.

Plus, a government may be interested solely on deterrence, with the ability to fight if need be. To a criminal who don't have benefit of the author's analysis, a FF may be more feared, being a larger hyper capable unit. Posturing. You don't want someone to say, "If they can only afford to build LACs for their system defense, they should have used the money for something else." In the ghetto, nobody knows anything about Super LACs. IOW, sometimes it is the psychology of it. Know your enemies. Against a mindset like the Klingons, LACs would appear weak. Thus, inviting attack. Right mindset or no. But, to be fair, the author did allow for the extremes in his post. And he did say, "no... major navy."

I always wondered what vessels are deployed to protect the money making mining sites.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Anyway, his post is pretty conclusively saying frigates are not coming back, the RTN notwithstanding. Let's not argue with him. And do note the same post is saying that the Roland is an already-obsolete design, only waiting for the rest of the Galaxy to catch up so it can show its obsolescence. He's saying that the minimum viable warship in the face of DDMs and MDMs might be a 300k tonne light cruiser.

Oh, I agree. But I wasn't arguing with him. On the contrary, I understood his notion when LACs were first introduced. LACs utilize the "swarm" tactic. It is a very old tactic. Overrun an enemy's defenses. Like bees, swarm. As far as being cost effective, armies used the swarm tactic for ages. And when you use actual bees on the enemy, it becomes VERY cost effective. LOL

It sure was funny in storyline when the RHN was taken by surprise with those damn pesky LACs. LACs aren't suppose to close with Capital ships!

At any rate, my interest was partly scientific on this one. Simply a "can... this be done. We may see it after all from the MA. They tend to think on a higher wavelength than the rest of the Galaxy. They can reach the Alpha bands.

'OUCH!'

cthia wrote:I love David's post, but I do question this. If a Frigate fulfills your, specific needs, then it is cost effective. Some planet out in the Verge or beyond - who depend on the SLN anyway - may just want something with a little more endurance and flexibility. And, or ability to "run for help!" You can't run for help if you get blown into inner-system debris. You can't run atall if you got no hyper generator.

Plus, a government may be interested solely on deterrence, with the ability to fight if need be. To a criminal who don't have benefit of the author's analysis, a FF may be more feared, being a larger hyper capable unit. Posturing. You don't want someone to say, "If they can only afford to build LACs for their system defense, they should have used the money for something else." In the ghetto, nobody knows anything about Super LACs. IOW, sometimes it is the psychology of it. Know your enemies. Against a mindset like the Klingons, LACs would appear weak. Thus, inviting attack. Right mindset or no. But, to be fair, the author did allow for the extremes in his post. And he did say, "no... major navy."

I always wondered what vessels are deployed to protect the money making mining sites.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Anyway, his post is pretty conclusively saying frigates are not coming back, the RTN notwithstanding. Let's not argue with him. And do note the same post is saying that the Roland is an already-obsolete design, only waiting for the rest of the Galaxy to catch up so it can show its obsolescence. He's saying that the minimum viable warship in the face of DDMs and MDMs might be a 300k tonne light cruiser.

Oh, I agree. But I wasn't arguing with him. On the contrary, I understood his notion when LACs were first introduced. LACs utilize the "swarm" tactic. It is a very old tactic. Overrun an enemy's defenses. Like bees, swarm. As far as being cost effective, armies used the swarm tactic for ages. And when you use actual bees on the enemy, it becomes VERY cost effective. LOL

It sure was funny in storyline when the RHN was taken by surprise with those damn pesky LACs. LACs aren't suppose to close with Capital ships!

At any rate, my interest was partly scientific on this one. Simply a "can... this be done. We may see it after all from the MA. They tend to think on a higher wavelength than the rest of the Galaxy. They can reach the Alpha bands.

'OUCH!'

I'm at a bit of a loss for what specific needs a small system would have where a frigate would be the best fit.

Remember, in the Honorverse a frigate is very specifically a small warship which has traded away combat effectiveness to gain greatly increased cruising endurance. A small warship that did not make that trade-off and retains as much combat effectiveness as possible on that hull is a small destroyer, and NOT a frigate.


And as I said in my earlier post I can see a system having use for some small destroyers. And those would also do better than a frigate in your 'run and call for help' scenario; as they'd have a much better chance of surviving their escape attempt should they come under fire. (And if you're not worried about coming under fire when running for help then then use dispatch boats; they're even quicker and you can buy at least two or three for the cost of a frigate/small DD). And anybody you'd be yelling for help from had better be closer than a couple months' sailing; and so would be within reach of even a small DD.


But maybe I'm overlooking something. What specific need of a small system are you thinking of, where a handful of ships that gave up combat effectiveness for range are the best solution to?

cthia wrote:I love David's post, but I do question this. If a Frigate fulfills your, specific needs, then it is cost effective. Some planet out in the Verge or beyond - who depend on the SLN anyway - may just want something with a little more endurance and flexibility. And, or ability to "run for help!" You can't run for help if you get blown into inner-system debris. You can't run atall if you got no hyper generator.

Plus, a government may be interested solely on deterrence, with the ability to fight if need be. To a criminal who don't have benefit of the author's analysis, a FF may be more feared, being a larger hyper capable unit. Posturing. You don't want someone to say, "If they can only afford to build LACs for their system defense, they should have used the money for something else." In the ghetto, nobody knows anything about Super LACs. IOW, sometimes it is the psychology of it. Know your enemies. Against a mindset like the Klingons, LACs would appear weak. Thus, inviting attack. Right mindset or no. But, to be fair, the author did allow for the extremes in his post. And he did say, "no... major navy."

I always wondered what vessels are deployed to protect the money making mining sites.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Anyway, his post is pretty conclusively saying frigates are not coming back, the RTN notwithstanding. Let's not argue with him. And do note the same post is saying that the Roland is an already-obsolete design, only waiting for the rest of the Galaxy to catch up so it can show its obsolescence. He's saying that the minimum viable warship in the face of DDMs and MDMs might be a 300k tonne light cruiser.

Oh, I agree. But I wasn't arguing with him. On the contrary, I understood his notion when LACs were first introduced. LACs utilize the "swarm" tactic. It is a very old tactic. Overrun an enemy's defenses. Like bees, swarm. As far as being cost effective, armies used the swarm tactic for ages. And when you use actual bees on the enemy, it becomes VERY cost effective. LOL

It sure was funny in storyline when the RHN was taken by surprise with those damn pesky LACs. LACs aren't suppose to close with Capital ships!

At any rate, my interest was partly scientific on this one. Simply a "can... this be done. We may see it after all from the MA. They tend to think on a higher wavelength than the rest of the Galaxy. They can reach the Alpha bands.

'OUCH!'

Jonathan_S wrote:I'm at a bit of a loss for what specific needs a small system would have where a frigate would be the best fit.

Remember, in the Honorverse a frigate is very specifically a small warship which has traded away combat effectiveness to gain greatly increased cruising endurance. A small warship that did not make that trade-off and retains as much combat effectiveness as possible on that hull is a small destroyer, and NOT a frigate.

And as I said in my earlier post I can see a system having use for some small destroyers. And those would also do better than a frigate in your 'run and call for help' scenario; as they'd have a much better chance of surviving their escape attempt should they come under fire. (And if you're not worried about coming under fire when running for help then then use dispatch boats; they're even quicker and you can buy at least two or three for the cost of a frigate/small DD). And anybody you'd be yelling for help from had better be closer than a couple months' sailing; and so would be within reach of even a small DD.


But maybe I'm overlooking something. What specific need of a small system are you thinking of, where a handful of ships that gave up combat effectiveness for range are the best solution to?

A Frigate may be the best fit in a system where, specifically, cruising endurance is a must. I'm not trying to disrespect David's post. I'm rather trying to caution against making general statements used as a one size fits all when it comes to cash strapped smaller systems on the verge of nowhere.

Let's say a system sits right smack dab in the middle of a SLN base and their very profitable mining industry, and their needs are to cover that particular peripheral infrastructure with an initial investment. They may need a ship with lots of cruising potential. A workhorse. Since they are within reach of the SL base, they can afford to forego a little weaponry. Until a later date when they are no longer operating in the red. Shrug.

Also, the numbers David tossed around regarding the measley $25k or so difference between units may seem paltry to high-end rollers like Manticore. But that may be a lot of money to some systems. Systems which might not be in a position to afford slightly higher initial costs as a more equitable long-term investment. In the same vein that poor families can ill-afford to save money in the long run with a higher initial investment of buying food in bulk.

As far as DBs, you are speaking from the perspective of the lucrative Manticoran system which can afford a DB, in addition to, pulling their hair out trying to scrape up pennies to build the best warship(s) to accomplish ALL of their needs. Manticore, a system which can afford to build Dispatch Boats and keep them lying around waiting for the shoe to drop. DBs are busy making money just like freighters. Storyline made it clear that they aren't in the habit of sitting in a garage, so one may not be available when the shit hits the fan. Especially in a backwater system. They need to be sprinting across the Galaxy gathering the latest prices and stock quotes.

Initial investments can kill some systems. Especially when they are being gouged by the SL. Consider that some systems have to crawl before they can walk, while truly pinching pennies without a Hauptman to bail them out.

cthia wrote:A Frigate may be the best fit in a system where, specifically, cruising endurance is a must. I'm not trying to disrespect David's post, but rather cautions general statements used as a one size fits all when it comes to cash strapped smaller systems on the verge of nowhere.

Let's say a system sits right smack dab in the middle of a SLN base and their very profitable mining industry, and their needs are to cover that particular peripheral infrastructure with an initial investment. They may need a ship with lots of cruising potential. A workhorse. Since they are within reach of the SL base, they can afford to forego a little weaponry. Until a later date when they are no longer operating in the red. Shrug.

Also, the numbers David tossed around regarding the measley $25k or so difference between units may seem paltry to high-end rollers like Manticore. But that may be a lot of money to some systems. Systems which might not be in a position to afford slightly higher initial costs as a more equitable long-term investment. In the same vein that poor families can ill-afford to save money in the long run with a higher initial investment of buying food in bulk.

As far as DBs, you are speaking from the perspective of the lucrative Manticoran system which can afford a DB, in addition to, pulling their hair out trying to scrape up pennies to build the best warship(s) to accomplish ALL of their needs. Manticore, a system which can afford to build Dispatch Boats and keep them lying around waiting for the shoe to drop. DBs are busy making money just like freighters. Storyline made it clear that they aren't in the habit of sitting in a garage, so one may not be available when the shit hits the fan. Especially in a backwater system. They need to be sprinting across the Galaxy gathering the latest prices and stock quotes.

Initial investments can kill some systems. Especially when they are being gouged by the SL. Consider that some systems have to crawl before they can walk, while truly pinching pennies without a Hauptman to bail them out.

The cruising endurance we're discussing here is Excessive cruising endurance. A modern 1900 destroyer had 5-8 weeks cruising times, maybe more. A Frigate had months of cruising time.

The RMN needed frigates prior to 1900 because Silesia denied the RMN permanent basing structure in Silesia, and they needed to be in dozens of places at the same time to watch for pirates. The Frigate gave the RMN a cheap, presence unit that could be deployed in numbers in Silesia and not need a series of bases to keep it's consumables topped off.

Leading up to 1900, it was realized that a frigate couldn't survive against a laserhead armed opponent, and the growth of DD designs and procurement of more, larger CLs meant that those designs had the ability to replace Frigates in missions AND survive any encounters they had with a well armed opponent.

The vast majority of nation states don't need a ship that can travel the spaceways for months looking for trouble - they are looking for a ship to protect their system and project a modicum of power in the surrounding region - enough to look around the neighborhood for trouble, and either defend or threaten your neighbors, depending on the circumstances. No small polity is going afar looking for trouble.

Currently, a nation state buys a Frigate because it wants a hyper warship and that's all it can afford, not because it's the warship it wants. In addition to the ship being small and under armed, usually every sub system is cut-rate in an effort to make the unit as cheap as possible - because the only people who will buy them, barely have the money to afford them. It's like the people who bought the Yugo back in the 80's - people bought it because it was a new car they could afford, not because it was necessarily the new car they wanted - and they ended up getting an unreliable, unsafe, poorly made piece of junk with a short lifespan.

Theemile wrote:The cruising endurance we're discussing here is Excessive cruising endurance. A modern 1900 destroyer had 5-8 weeks cruising times, maybe more. A Frigate had months of cruising time.

The RMN needed frigates prior to 1900 because Silesia denied the RMN permanent basing structure in Silesia, and they needed to be in dozens of places at the same time to watch for pirates. The Frigate gave the RMN a cheap, presence unit that could be deployed in numbers in Silesia and not need a series of bases to keep it's consumables topped off.

Leading up to 1900, it was realized that a frigate couldn't survive against a laserhead armed opponent, and the growth of DD designs and procurement of more, larger CLs meant that those designs had the ability to replace Frigates in missions AND survive any encounters they had with a well armed opponent.

The vast majority of nation states don't need a ship that can travel the spaceways for months looking for trouble - they are looking for a ship to protect their system and project a modicum of power in the surrounding region - enough to look around the neighborhood for trouble, and either defend or threaten your neighbors, depending on the circumstances. No small polity is going afar looking for trouble.

And even the DDs of the late 1890s or early 1900s had sufficient cruising endurance to escort a convoy on the Gregor to Basilisk route; no problem. They just couldn't hang around various Silesian systems attempting to deter pirates for anywhere near as long. (Though the RMN did still seem to send DDs out there; they'd just be there for shorter deployment - or possibly restricted their patrol routes to systems closer to one of the Manticore controller termini where they could go back to refuel and restock.

And when you're patrolling your own system you don't need 4-6 months (or whatever) of cruising endurance. You're within a day or so of resupply stations, or a freighter (even an intrasystem one) could be dispatched out to meet up with you to transfer fuel and supplies.


To my mind it make zero sense to sacrifice other capabilities to squeeze double or triple the cruise endurance into a ship that's not going to routinely be making very long range hyper trips into areas it can't resupply (or handing around patrolling systems where it can't get resupply)


Basically figure out what weapons fit you can afford and then build/buy a hull big enough to hold that, but without all the extra volume (and consequent impact on acceleration and cost) needed to squeeze in the fuel supplies and spares for the unnecessarily high cruise endurance.
And sure, that might get you a small DD with identical combat capabilities of someone else's frigate - but your small DD will be smaller, cheaper, and can accelerate quicker than their frigate -- because you didn't need to get a larger hull just to squeeze in everything else you need to operate so long without resupply.

Theemile wrote:Currently, a nation state buys a Frigate because it wants a hyper warship and that's all it can afford, not because it's the warship it wants. In addition to the ship being small and under armed, usually every sub system is cut-rate in an effort to make the unit as cheap as possible - because the only people who will buy them, barely have the money to afford them. It's like the people who bought the Yugo back in the 80's - people bought it because it was a new car they could afford, not because it was necessarily the new car they wanted - and they ended up getting an unreliable, unsafe, poorly made piece of junk with a short lifespan.

Or giving Honorverse definition of a frigate, it's might be more like a Yugo that's bogged down and its handling impacted by having a 100 gallon fuel tank welded onto the back.

Yes, it's very impressive that it can now potentially drive most of the way across the US without refueling -- but you compromised a bunch of stuff to get that capability compared to buying the same basic cut-rate vehicle without the (likely unnecessary) long range additions.

Jonathan_S wrote:But maybe I'm overlooking something. What specific need of a small system are you thinking of, where a handful of ships that gave up combat effectiveness for range are the best solution to?

Two scenarios: the first is a system supporting itself by piracy a fair distance from home. No one expects a pirate they encounter in Silesia to be Masada-based, right? (Well, certainly not any more!)

The second is the one system we know to be currently operating frigates to do basically the same thing. From the Mesan point of view, what Torch (and SIM and Beowulf and Haven) are doing to their slave ships looks a lot like state sponsored piracy, right? Cue Obiwan Kenobi quote here.

cthia wrote:A Frigate may be the best fit in a system where, specifically, cruising endurance is a must. I'm not trying to disrespect David's post. I'm rather trying to caution against making general statements used as a one size fits all when it comes to cash strapped smaller systems on the verge of nowhere.

Let's say a system sits right smack dab in the middle of a SLN base and their very profitable mining industry, and their needs are to cover that particular peripheral infrastructure with an initial investment. They may need a ship with lots of cruising potential. A workhorse. Since they are within reach of the SL base, they can afford to forego a little weaponry. Until a later date when they are no longer operating in the red. Shrug.

Also, the numbers David tossed around regarding the measley $25k or so difference between units may seem paltry to high-end rollers like Manticore. But that may be a lot of money to some systems. Systems which might not be in a position to afford slightly higher initial costs as a more equitable long-term investment. In the same vein that poor families can ill-afford to save money in the long run with a higher initial investment of buying food in bulk.
[snip]

Initial investments can kill some systems. Especially when they are being gouged by the SL. Consider that some systems have to crawl before they can walk, while truly pinching pennies without a Hauptman to bail them out.

I think the initial investment argument is actually more of an argument against frigates - at least as they're defined in the Honorverse.

That definition of a frigate is a small warship with at least double or triple the un-resupplied cruising range of other small warships. That requires extra fuel storage, extra stores, extra spare parts, quite possibly extra (or at least better equipped maintenance shops); all of which requires additional volume, and hence a larger hull. All of that makes it more expensive and larger (hence more sluggish) than a non-frigate with the same weapons systems would be; as the non-frigate would "only" have the normal 5-8 weeks Theemile mentioned (before it needed resupply).

This fact does get obscured a bit as most frigates we've seen have been designed to a price point, and that price point has been a little below a contemporary DD.
So maybe it would avoid confusion if instead of me calling a small combatant without the extra-long range of the frigate a small DD (as we're used to thinking of DD as larger and more expensive) I instead coin the term hyper-capable patrol craft (HPC) for them. (Basically you could think of HPC as the oxymoron of a short-range frigate)


But:
If you're designing a frigate and an HPC to the same price point the HPC design will be more capable; except of operating for half a year without resupply. Or

If you're designing a frigate and an HPC to use identical combat systems the HPC will be a bit smaller (hence quicker) and a bit cheaper due to omitting the need for massively longer un-resupplied operation (and the internal volume needed for same).

It is only if you're designing a frigate and an HPC to the maximum capabilities of a given hull size that the HPC will be more expensive (because spares, fuel bunkerage, and storage is cheaper than additional sensors, weapons systems, and defenses)



So if a economically struggling system was looking at up-front acquisition costs for a hyper-capable ship to patrol their system beyond the hyper limit then why would they waste money buying the larger hull to support operating half a year without resupply when it's going to be operating within a day's flight of their planet?
Save that upfront money by building those same exact combat systems into a smaller hull without all the long-range extras they don't need.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:But maybe I'm overlooking something. What specific need of a small system are you thinking of, where a handful of ships that gave up combat effectiveness for range are the best solution to?

Two scenarios: the first is a system supporting itself by piracy a fair distance from home. No one expects a pirate they encounter in Silesia to be Masada-based, right? (Well, certainly not any more!)

The second is the one system we know to be currently operating frigates to do basically the same thing. From the Mesan point of view, what Torch (and SIM and Beowulf and Haven) are doing to their slave ships looks a lot like state sponsored piracy, right? Cue Obiwan Kenobi quote here.

Fair point about wanting to be a pirate.
Though a slight counter-point is that as a pirate you can resupply your ship by looting the freighters you capture - so for a given patrol length you (hopefully) don't need to bring as much supplies with you as a naval ship that isn't going to be capturing prizes would need to.

The Anti-Slavery League was a bit of a special case there as they were only targeting slave ships and depots - making targets for them far scarcer than your general issue pirate. But because they were viewed by many as terrorists they'd have trouble buying supplies in a lot of places (and depending on how connected to slavers were, showing up to buy supplies might tip them off that the ASL was working in their area. So that makes total sense of why they'd want the otherwise excessively long range of a frigate; compared to a small DD.

Though even their priorities started to chance once they had a system of their own to defend; as they now also needed ships better suited to act as their system defense force / home fleet and their frigates weren't optimized for that.

Theemile wrote:

cthia wrote:A Frigate may be the best fit in a system where, specifically, cruising endurance is a must. I'm not trying to disrespect David's post, but rather cautions general statements used as a one size fits all when it comes to cash strapped smaller systems on the verge of nowhere.

Let's say a system sits right smack dab in the middle of a SLN base and their very profitable mining industry, and their needs are to cover that particular peripheral infrastructure with an initial investment. They may need a ship with lots of cruising potential. A workhorse. Since they are within reach of the SL base, they can afford to forego a little weaponry. Until a later date when they are no longer operating in the red. Shrug.

Also, the numbers David tossed around regarding the measley $25k or so difference between units may seem paltry to high-end rollers like Manticore. But that may be a lot of money to some systems. Systems which might not be in a position to afford slightly higher initial costs as a more equitable long-term investment. In the same vein that poor families can ill-afford to save money in the long run with a higher initial investment of buying food in bulk.

As far as DBs, you are speaking from the perspective of the lucrative Manticoran system which can afford a DB, in addition to, pulling their hair out trying to scrape up pennies to build the best warship(s) to accomplish ALL of their needs. Manticore, a system which can afford to build Dispatch Boats and keep them lying around waiting for the shoe to drop. DBs are busy making money just like freighters. Storyline made it clear that they aren't in the habit of sitting in a garage, so one may not be available when the shit hits the fan. Especially in a backwater system. They need to be sprinting across the Galaxy gathering the latest prices and stock quotes.

Initial investments can kill some systems. Especially when they are being gouged by the SL. Consider that some systems have to crawl before they can walk, while truly pinching pennies without a Hauptman to bail them out.

The cruising endurance we're discussing here is Excessive cruising endurance. A modern 1900 destroyer had 5-8 weeks cruising times, maybe more. A Frigate had months of cruising time.

The RMN needed frigates prior to 1900 because Silesia denied the RMN permanent basing structure in Silesia, and they needed to be in dozens of places at the same time to watch for pirates. The Frigate gave the RMN a cheap, presence unit that could be deployed in numbers in Silesia and not need a series of bases to keep it's consumables topped off.

Leading up to 1900, it was realized that a frigate couldn't survive against a laserhead armed opponent, and the growth of DD designs and procurement of more, larger CLs meant that those designs had the ability to replace Frigates in missions AND survive any encounters they had with a well armed opponent.

The vast majority of nation states don't need a ship that can travel the spaceways for months looking for trouble - they are looking for a ship to protect their system and project a modicum of power in the surrounding region - enough to look around the neighborhood for trouble, and either defend or threaten your neighbors, depending on the circumstances. No small polity is going afar looking for trouble.

Currently, a nation state buys a Frigate because it wants a hyper warship and that's all it can afford, not because it's the warship it wants. In addition to the ship being small and under armed, usually every sub system is cut-rate in an effort to make the unit as cheap as possible - because the only people who will buy them, barely have the money to afford them. It's like the people who bought the Yugo back in the 80's - people bought it because it was a new car they could afford, not because it was necessarily the new car they wanted - and they ended up getting an unreliable, unsafe, poorly made piece of junk with a short lifespan.

I love the post! It supports a lot of my notions. Dunno if that was your intent.

Like the Yugo, a FF may be what a polity can afford, and still fulfill their need.

If you are considering the purchase of a new car with excessive miles on it, one of the first things you may want to know is whether those miles are road miles or local. There is a huge difference between the two. My point is that the distinction can be tactically and logistically significant in the HV.

Take the present discussion. Extended cruising does not necessarily mean extended distances, it could mean a lot of local traveling and the irritating but necessary hurry-up and waiting. Now, how could that be important. First, you have to take as a given that this is a relatively poor system trying to increase its revenue. Then you must accept that it has formulated a business plan which will allow it to do so. Now, accept that this business plan calls for excessive cruising endurance. That should end the discussion right there, but let's continue.

Now, imagine that this system owns several important mining facilities that are somewhat spread out, along with other remote interests. These are lucratively promising mining facilities, but there is a need to ride herd on them all. These are the planet's money makers. It is a cold slap in the face to spend weeks or months mining commodities only to have pirates steal it all away from you, and after the work is done. A DD may have more firepower than a FF, but a DD is useless if it is rarely present when trouble arrives. Heck, at 5-8 weeks, a destroyer may have even less than that on its clock by the time it arrives. All a pirate has to do is wait a DD out and destroy any freighter bringing it fuel.

About fuel. This hypothetical navy can hypothetically procure fuel at substantially lower prices in System X which is only one month away. At 5-8 weeks that puts it outside of the range of DDs to take advantage of the significant savings. A FF, however, can take advantage of the windfall and greatly reduce it's overall operating costs.

In case some of you are skeptical that fuel costs can vary drastically, consider the big difference in fuel even in different locations within your own city. Fuel costs more near big intersections, shopping malls, etc. As far as the price of fuel, geography affects its cost. It is all about supply and demand. Fuel costs in the HV probably fluctuate wildly between the Verge and the Core and elsewhere, and they undoubtedly fluctuate wildly inside of each.

Convenience stores can charge a big mark-up for their convenience. Of course, high-rollers from the MBS don't care about the price of fuel, they care about the time savings of convenience. Some polities aren't as fortunate.

Now, add up the savings in fuel alone over a deployment of months with cheap fuel. Again, if a system's most important requirement is endurance, a FF makes more sense. You cannot allow yourself to become too power hungry and too married to firepower to understand the realities of certain systems. It isn't that they wouldn't like more firepower. It is that they can only afford a Yugo with a very big fuel tank that can horde thousands of gallons of the cheap fuel in System X. While enabling it to be stocked with goods that are much cheaper being produced in its own system, than having to swallow the prices of convenient stations.

Remember, they are relying on the SL for help. A warship, no matter how powerful, cannot effectively ride herd on your most remote interests if it is always away refueling when you need it. Plus, poorer systems have to utilize the navy for trivial matters until it can do better, which may include things other than escort duty. A system's warwhips may need to be errand boys, carrying out important business affairs which support the planet. Workhorses. And all without having to return to the planet with delays encompassing days every 5-8 weeks.

Of course I am fabricating, on the fly, what I see could realistically be real life realities of some of the poorer systems in the HV, which, quite frankly, could certainly require excessive cruising endurance as a must.

At any rate, the bottom line is that the difference in cruising endurance can be a deal breaker by fatally affecting a system's current logistics.

I'm certain it isn't a difficult thing to understand that endurance can greatly effect logistics. Especially in the HV.

Theemile wrote:The RMN needed frigates prior to 1900 because Silesia denied the RMN permanent basing structure in Silesia, and they needed to be in dozens of places at the same time to watch for pirates. The Frigate gave the RMN a cheap, presence unit that could be deployed in numbers in Silesia and not need a series of bases to keep it's consumables topped off.

Leading up to 1900, it was realized that a frigate couldn't survive against a laserhead armed opponent, and the growth of DD designs and procurement of more, larger CLs meant that those designs had the ability to replace Frigates in missions AND survive any encounters they had with a well armed opponent.

If riding herd on remote interests a FF doesn't need a freighter (which can be destroyed by pirates) to keep its consumables topped off. And it absolutely might not be able to afford to leave its charge. Unless they want the rats to play when the cat is away.

Jonathan_S wrote:And even the DDs of the late 1890s or early 1900s had sufficient cruising endurance to escort a convoy on the Gregor to Basilisk route; no problem. They just couldn't hang around various Silesian systems attempting to deter pirates for anywhere near as long.

All a pirate had to do was wait the DD out in some cases. Especially if there is any number of delays in the operation, brought on by a corrupt system, to name one. Your escort service has to leave you stranded to get food and gas.

Jonathan_S wrote:(Though the RMN did still seem to send DDs out there; they'd just be there for shorter deployment - or possibly restricted their patrol routes to systems closer to one of the Manticore controller termini where they could go back to refuel and restock.

How fortunate a logistical problem for a bunch of warships from a rich system whose options are undoubtedly many.

Jonathan_S wrote:And when you're patrolling your own system you don't need 4-6 months (or whatever) of cruising endurance. You're within a day or so of resupply stations, or a freighter (even an intrasystem one) could be dispatched out to meet up with you to transfer fuel and supplies.

"System A" just might. "You" don't have to understand a system's needs for their needs to be real to them. Ever heard the saying "Something only has to make sense to yourself." Plus, factor in the overall cost of constantly deploying a support ship, a freighter, to support your warship.

Anyway, a day or so leaving your post could be enough for pirates to clean you out. Even IF that is a day or so "turnaround time" as opposed to simply travel time.

Jonathan_S wrote:To my mind it make zero sense to sacrifice other capabilities to squeeze double or triple the cruise endurance into a ship that's not going to routinely be making very long range hyper trips into areas it can't resupply (or handing around patrolling systems where it can't get resupply)

See above.


System A: Greater endurance = feasible logistics.

.

Oops, caught editing.

.