Escort Carrier Modification

Theemile wrote:But on the reverse, If you have sufficient self-owned trade to protect, then you have a burgeoning economy which is providing tax revenue and foreign trading credits. In which case you should be able to buy a CL, with firepower and endurance to protect your far flung economic needs. Most polities are going to fall into 2 baskets: have a vibrant economy and can afford some actual combatants for it's navy, or they don't have a vibrant economy, don't have much trade, and cannot afford a real navy. Few will fall in between.

No one could hope to protect the entire hyper limit, but if you publish that the hyper locus volume nearest the main planet is patrolled, most legitimate traffic will use that hyper locus, allowing you to control them. This is the tact Manticore is using in Silesia, and one would think, most of it's other territories.

Oh, Silesian yards were producing 2 Frigate designs through 1905 (most of both of which went to the export/"private owner" market .) The SCN was buying one of the designs, but was planning on replacing them with a new Destroyer design.

And I'd think that even if you don't define an explicit locus for hyper emergence that freighters would tend to clump into a few anyway.

If they've got a crackerjack navigator then they'll try to hit the point on the hyper limit nearest the planet's current location, to shave time off their trip by avoiding a lengthier n-space transit.

If they don't then at least you know the directions to your common trading partners and ships that aren't trying to minimize their n-space travel are likely to drop out of hyper along the direct course from their most recent port stop.

That seems likely to cluster your arrivals into a few zone, where you can concentrate your patrols.



And remember, things aren't all rosy from the pirates perspective either. They can't afford to hang around forever waiting for a victim. So they'll also be interesting in being near higher traffic parts of your system to increase the chance of a target coming by within their detection and intercept range. If you succeed is simply pushing them out to area's unlikely to see traffic then it become uneconomical for them to keep stalking your system.



And in many cases I think the benefit of a hyper-generator may be getting somewhat oversold for anti-piracy patrols in your local systems. Yes it lets you jump your ship far around the circumstance of the hyper limit. But first you need to know there's an emergency to respond to.
Your own sensors could see a fleeing freighter via FTL within about 7 lightminutes (that's the range where Fearless would have lost Thunder of God from her onboard sensors) - and that's too short a distance to reliable hyper jump.

If the system had fixed grav sensor arrays able to look out beyond the hyper limit (which most economically behind systems won't) then at least they'd get FTL notification of the pursued freighter - but the alert to the warship probably needs to bounce back through the planet and could take anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes simply to get to the warship, not even counting the time it takes to actually get over there through hyper.

And if they don't have system grav sensor arrays then you need to wait for the lightspeed signal from the freighter's radio to either be picked up by the warship, or picked up by the planet and forwarded to the warship, before you can begin to react.

Frankly, without FTL comms, I suspect that in a lot of situations if the warship isn't close enough to see the attempted piracy with its own sensors then it won't be close enough to intervene no matter how quickly it could cover the distance once it knows of the problem.


But most anti-piracy work isn't daring charges to the rescue of a threatened ship. It's boring patrol work to search for, and chase off, ships lingering around the shipping lanes. And a LAC's capable of doing that, as well as being reasonable capable of charging to the rescue if something does go down within range of its sensors.
(Though, yes, classically LACs have had only about 77% (409.1g vs 525-530g) the acceleration of a frigate so they will be a bit slower to close the distance than a frigate would have been)

Some baselines: An Honorverse Frigate is a Destroyer using Modern terminology.

A modern Frigate is crippled in either anti air or anti torpedo capability. A destroyer can do all of the above. In the Honorvere, a Frigate can do everything a DD can do. The only difference is the amount of firepower and in Manticoran service(not everyone else's) they are LONG legged just like a CL is compared to a DD.

In effect everyone is minutely definition shaving here myself included. Just because one ship has 1 more tube per broadside and one more CM/PDLC cluster all of a sudden instead of a Frigate it is called a Destroyer.......

Just to put our argument into perspective here... for a good laugh all around lets compare... We have the Falcon Class Destroyers(88 built) with all of 3 Missiles in a Broadside... Chanson class(200 built) with all of 3 missile broadside. Built starting in 1850, not exactly ancient times in the Honorverse.

If they only had 2 missiles per Broadside would it be a Frigate? I'd say, no. Rather, it is just called the smallest, cheapest hyper capable warship that has an integrated weapons suite.

A pirate is a pirate in age of sail, modern times, and HV where they are an ad hoc arrangement. They all run when they see a warship irregardless of how small it is. They are after $$$, not death.

Also, piracy takes time to hail a ship(pirates are cheap and will use lower acceleration), get said ship to stop, get your guys TO said ship, take over said ship, get said ship operational, and then get said slow ship to a zero velocity relative to planet before it can accelerate back towards the hyperlimit. This amount of time in fairly large.

Now a planet like Sphinx near the Hyperlimit, it can be covered by LAC's as the time to do all of the above is greater than the time to get a LAC into interdiction range. Manticore on the other hand... It takes a LAC literally HOURS to get to the hyperlimit where the piracy is taking place. Whereas a Hyper capable warship sitting outside the hyperlimit takes ~1 hour and can always sit outside the limit forcing the pirate to go THROUGH them.

Relax wrote:
Also, piracy takes time to hail a ship(pirates are cheap and will use lower acceleration), get said ship to stop, get your guys TO said ship, take over said ship, get said ship operational, and then get said slow ship to a zero velocity relative to planet before it can accelerate back towards the hyperlimit. This amount of time in fairly large.

Now a planet like Sphinx near the Hyperlimit, it can be covered by LAC's as the time to do all of the above is greater than the time to get a LAC into interdiction range. Manticore on the other hand... It takes a LAC literally HOURS to get to the hyperlimit where the piracy is taking place. Whereas a Hyper capable warship sitting outside the hyperlimit takes ~1 hour and can always sit outside the limit forcing the pirate to go THROUGH them.

I basically agree with the bits I didn't quote. But there's no reason a LAC couldn't be patrolling beyond the hyper limit too. Yes, a LAC in Manticore orbit would be pretty useless for dealing with a pirate out near/beyond the hyper limit.

But a LAC patrolling the shipping arrival zones out there is would be close enough to intervein over a reasonably large area should a pirate attack. And there's no reason a LAC can't be assigned to patrol beyond the hyper limit; at least out to the distance freighters are likely to emerge.


Though a system like Manticore is one of the few places a hyper capable warship does have a huge advantage; and that's due to their combination of system sensor arrays and FTL communications. A warship clear over on the other side of the system could be quickly alerted by FTL message once the FTL sensor arrays observed the pirate. (Plus of course Manticore is rich enough that they've plenty of DDs they use for chasing down unexpected hyper emergences so they'll have a fair number of hyper capable warships out patrolling the outer system) But then Manticore is worried about more than just the odd pirate showing up; so their system patrols want a bit more firepower and survivability.

(Plus they've got Hermes Buoy and Apollo system defense missiles able to cover the hyper limit and some distance beyond. It's been a long time since Manticore was a safe place for pirates to hunt; but it's lethally unsafe now Still, its still reasonable to use as a proxy for other systems just because it has examples of how far from the hyper limits it's planets are)

Jonathan_S wrote:But a LAC patrolling the shipping arrival zones out there is would be close enough to intervein over a reasonably large area should a pirate attack. And there's no reason a LAC can't be assigned to patrol beyond the hyper limit; at least out to the distance freighters are likely to emerge.

Right. Piracy is only possible if the pirate has a reasonable chance of being close to the freighter. If freighters are emerging all over the hyperlimit and the show up once a week, the pirate has a very low probability of interception before the ship has come much closer to the planet and any defending units that there may be. That means the very existence of piracy in the system means there is a likely travel lane for arriving or departing ships.

Another point to consider is that we're talking about piracy, not commerce raiding. Pirates are attempting to steal the cargo or the ship or both. They are not trying to destroy the prey, at least not as a matter of routine. That means it takes time for the piracy action to take place: the pirate must convince the freighter to stop accelerating or reverse course, then establish a zero-zero, then board the freighter with a prize and assault crew to take possession. That's non-negligible time and it means a defender unit that was somewhat away can sufficiently approach.

And the defender does not need a zero-zero. They can launch missiles at the pirate ship, forcing it to withdraw or evade. Meanwhile, the freighter is going nowhere fast since it has very poor acceleration. It's probably stepped down the hypergenerator, so it'll take at least half an hour to transition out, and that's assuming they hadn't yet crossed into the hyperlimit.

All this is to conclude that LACs are indeed an effective deterrent. One does not need a frigate to defend against pirates. In fact, a frigate or a larger warship would actually be detrimental, since you can buy half a dozen LACs (or more) for the same price and operate that half-wing for twice as long (or more). That means redundancy, because you need to down-check some for refit and maintenance, relieve the crews, etc.

The LACs wouldn't suffice against a pirate that arrived in a light cruiser, but then neither would a frigate. A destroyer might scare them sufficiently because pirates don't want to take damage.

Relax wrote:Just to put our argument into perspective here... for a good laugh all around lets compare... We have the Falcon Class Destroyers(88 built) with all of 3 Missiles in a Broadside... Chanson class(200 built) with all of 3 missile broadside. Built starting in 1850, not exactly ancient times in the Honorverse.

That's really only valid if they're launching missiles of the size and performance, which is very unlikely.

Another potential tradeoff to make a frigate in the same weight class as a destroyer would be to sacrifice magazine space for endurance while keeping the same number of launchers. The Lightning class frigates may have had the same number of launchers as the Falcon class destroyers but only had enough magazine space for 4-5 full broadsides compared to 10-12 or more for the destroyers. Omitting the magazine space for possibly upwards of 20 missiles would allow for a lot of extra life support, fuel, and parts storage on the same size hull, or possibly even a smaller hull. Reduced countermissile stowage would save even more mass and volume.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

Relax wrote:Just to put our argument into perspective here... for a good laugh all around lets compare... We have the Falcon Class Destroyers(88 built) with all of 3 Missiles in a Broadside... Chanson class(200 built) with all of 3 missile broadside. Built starting in 1850, not exactly ancient times in the Honorverse.

That's really only valid if they're launching missiles of the size and performance, which is very unlikely.

Another potential tradeoff to make a frigate in the same weight class as a destroyer would be to sacrifice magazine space for endurance while keeping the same number of launchers. The Lightning class frigates may have had the same number of launchers as the Falcon class destroyers but only had enough magazine space for 4-5 full broadsides compared to 10-12 or more for the destroyers. Omitting the magazine space for possibly upwards of 20 missiles would allow for a lot of extra life support, fuel, and parts storage on the same size hull, or possibly even a smaller hull. Reduced countermissile stowage would save even more mass and volume.

Every saved DD/CL missile is ~80 tons, and every old MK29 CM saves 12 tons, plus the mass of the stowage and handling systems.

Destroyers usually carried 15-16 ship-killer missiles/launcher, so cutting the stowage of 4 missiles/launcher on one of those 3 missile broadside destroyers will save 40 missiles or 3200 tons. ~36 CMs seems to have been carried per launcher, so dropping by magazines by 25% again would cut ~110 missiles, or another 1320 tons. Saving 4500 tons on a 78,000 tons hull (Chanson) is nothing to sneeze at.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

Relax wrote:Just to put our argument into perspective here... for a good laugh all around lets compare... We have the Falcon Class Destroyers(88 built) with all of 3 Missiles in a Broadside... Chanson class(200 built) with all of 3 missile broadside. Built starting in 1850, not exactly ancient times in the Honorverse.

That's really only valid if they're launching missiles of the size and performance, which is very unlikely.

Another potential tradeoff to make a frigate in the same weight class as a destroyer would be to sacrifice magazine space for endurance while keeping the same number of launchers.

I see no justification for a new missile just for a new class. We have always seen LAC's firing DD missiles so why would a Frigate be special? From an economics standpoint it seems more practical as well, but this is government. Today the # of missile types are essentially all combining to multipurpose when 30 years ago, everyone had their own missile program to fit said weapons system. Today essentially the only difference is the seeker/warhead type. We have a lot of different nations building their own, but even here, in effect they are all the same, just named different things based on the local national manufacturer. New Technologies always start this way, high diversity of implementations early, until everything gets winnowed down/combined to only a few options. In the Honorverse the diameter of the missile tubes, DD, CL, CA, BC are all identical, but the length of the tubes is different for larger weapon attack heads. I see no reason the FG missile tube would be any different.

Your 2nd point seems to me to be the BIGGEST #1 distinction for why a Frigate would be called a Frigate instead of a Destroyer; duration of engagement or possibility for multiple engagements. We even have a pearl quote about that I do believe or is that in the appendix or HoS? Whichever. An old school LAC carries ~upwards of 40 in box launchers, a Shrike B is ??? 48-->72? That means a Frigate if it had 2 tubes/broadside instead of 3 would have ~10 reloads/tube which is roughly 50% that of a DD.

Great point.

Relax wrote:

Galactic Sapper wrote:That's really only valid if they're launching missiles of the size and performance, which is very unlikely.

Another potential tradeoff to make a frigate in the same weight class as a destroyer would be to sacrifice magazine space for endurance while keeping the same number of launchers.

I see no justification for a new missile just for a new class. We have always seen LAC's firing DD missiles so why would a Frigate be special? From an economics standpoint it seems more practical as well, but this is government. Today the # of missile types are essentially all combining to multipurpose when 30 years ago, everyone had their own missile program to fit said weapons system. Today essentially the only difference is the seeker/warhead type. We have a lot of different nations building their own, but even here, in effect they are all the same, just named different things based on the local national manufacturer. New Technologies always start this way, high diversity of implementations early, until everything gets winnowed down/combined to only a few options. In the Honorverse the diameter of the missile tubes, DD, CL, CA, BC are all identical, but the length of the tubes is different for larger weapon attack heads. I see no reason the FG missile tube would be any different.

Your 2nd point seems to me to be the BIGGEST #1 distinction for why a Frigate would be called a Frigate instead of a Destroyer; duration of engagement or possibility for multiple engagements. We even have a pearl quote about that I do believe or is that in the appendix or HoS? Whichever. An old school LAC carries ~upwards of 40 in box launchers, a Shrike B is ??? 48-->72? That means a Frigate if it had 2 tubes/broadside instead of 3 would have ~10 reloads/tube which is roughly 50% that of a DD.

Great point.

The 6 old LACs we have details on all had dual box launchers on each broadside, each box had between 5 and 8 missiles in it (most had 6 missile boxes), or a total of 20-36 missiles, average 24). Shrikes have 20 (4x5) shipkillers in them, Ferrets have 57 (20 plus 37 spares). Chansons carried 160 reloads for 10 launchers, Culverins 168 reloads with 14 launchers.

Relax wrote:I see no justification for a new missile just for a new class. We have always seen LAC's firing DD missiles so why would a Frigate be special? From an economics standpoint it seems more practical as well, but this is government. Today the # of missile types are essentially all combining to multipurpose when 30 years ago, everyone had their own missile program to fit said weapons system. Today essentially the only difference is the seeker/warhead type. We have a lot of different nations building their own, but even here, in effect they are all the same, just named different things based on the local national manufacturer. New Technologies always start this way, high diversity of implementations early, until everything gets winnowed down/combined to only a few options. In the Honorverse the diameter of the missile tubes, DD, CL, CA, BC are all identical, but the length of the tubes is different for larger weapon attack heads. I see no reason the FG missile tube would be any different.

I'd thought that the Falcon and Chanson classes were further apart in time than they actually were. Still, the introduction of a new class is generally the best time to introduce a new missile variant, as the new class can be designed around the missile dimensions rather than trying to retrofit older ships to firing larger missiles. For example, I don't think we know for certain anything older than a Wolfhound or Avalon can carry the LERMs those classes are designed around. Obviously that applies to the Mark 16 classes as well.

And yes, missile diameters do differ between classes as heavier missiles carry more lazing rods as well as longer lazing rods. IIRC the DD/CL version carries 3 or 4 max and the SD version carries up to 10, with CA/BC missiles carrying 6(ish?). Unfortunately I only have dead tree references so finding text will be challenging.

Galactic Sapper wrote:
I'd thought that the Falcon and Chanson classes were further apart in time than they actually were. Still, the introduction of a new class is generally the best time to introduce a new missile variant, as the new class can be designed around the missile dimensions rather than trying to retrofit older ships to firing larger missiles. For example, I don't think we know for certain anything older than a Wolfhound or Avalon can carry the LERMs those classes are designed around. Obviously that applies to the Mark 16 classes as well.

And yes, missile diameters do differ between classes as heavier missiles carry more lazing rods as well as longer lazing rods. IIRC the DD/CL version carries 3 or 4 max and the SD version carries up to 10, with CA/BC missiles carrying 6(ish?). Unfortunately I only have dead tree references so finding text will be challenging.

What you say is true to an extent for sure. Logic dictates that is so.
0) Biggest missile supplier for everyone in the Galaxy is the SLN, so what their standards are, is what everyone uses, or their missiles tubes could all be SLIGHTLY larger allowing the accommodation of SLN sizes, and their own home grown designs.

1)How do we know how the missiles are fired? We know the missiles have collars for moving them around and stuffing into the missile tubes in question. I believe this is from OBS in the transfer of missiles between magazine scene as they had to replace a collar which broke or some such. This could indicate that the diameter of the missile tube in question should be created at the beginning of design to be much larger than the actual initial missile requires. OBviously there are limits. We also know that they dumb CM cannisters out the tubes. So, the analogy is NOT like artillery, requiring a precision fit and nothing else will work, but far closer to today's GMLRS.

2) In OBS, I do believe DD/Cl missiles are 72 tons.

An old memory here, in HoTQ, I believe Grayson's missiles could fit but was stated, why would they bother putting such slow, dumb, low grade missiles in Honor's ships.

3) MK16 we know is 94t and is both larger in diameter, and longer and does not fit, and if it was just equal diameter would be ~1/3 longer. Yet, what we have here is NOT the inability of the missile tubes to fit the MK16 on wolfhound etc, which are bigger than OLD ships, but rather their inability to POWER up the Fusion powered missiles in the missile tubes and therefore had to use the LERM. Something about an entirely 2nd missile armored tube to contain said fusion power core which is now active and TM(bad things happen to fusion plants when things go BOOM)So this sets the Max/Min here for what can be done. Also why can MK16 tubes can only be placed on the SAG-C and larger beamed ships. Not that the missile is MUCH larger, but rather its equipment to fire the missile is MUCH larger.

4) We know that Yes, CA/BC missiles have??? 6 laser rods whereas DD only has a couple. Capital grade has 10.

5) Another place to look would be ToF, but here I am sure only compares BC/CA in Havenite service. This would indicate that in the RHN, their BC missile tube is indeed larger than their CA missile tube unlike in Manticoran service. This seems to also be true of the battles we see of the SLN.

Each nation is different and my blanket statement seems to ONLY be true of Manticore and here the blanket is way too thick on a generational basis.