Crown of Swords and Frigates

Jeffrey MacHott wrote:
> Offbreed wrote:

>> Wrong universe.
>
> Well, they can do micro jumps AROUND the system, as we saw several
> fleets do during the Battle of Manticore, transiting in at the Trevor's
> Star Terminus and then hopping out to the limit near Sphynx.

A short hop out of the Resonance Zone, IIRC, but it might not be
accurate to call it a "micro jump _within_ the system".
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Offbreed wrote:
> Jeffrey MacHott wrote:
>> Offbreed wrote:
>
>>> Wrong universe.
>>
>> Well, they can do micro jumps AROUND the system, as we saw several
>> fleets do during the Battle of Manticore, transiting in at the
>> Trevor's Star Terminus and then hopping out to the limit near Sphynx.
>
> A short hop out of the Resonance Zone, IIRC, but it might not be
> accurate to call it a "micro jump _within_ the system".

What IS the definition, if any, of a system's boundaries in the
Honorverse? The Hyperlimit?

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Mon, 01 May 2006 03:22:04 -0500, an orbiting mind-control laser
made Jeffrey MacHott <Raguleader RemoveThis @netzero.net> write:

>Offbreed wrote:
>> Jeffrey MacHott wrote:
>>> Offbreed wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong universe.
>>>
>>> Well, they can do micro jumps AROUND the system, as we saw several
>>> fleets do during the Battle of Manticore, transiting in at the
>>> Trevor's Star Terminus and then hopping out to the limit near Sphynx.
>>
>> A short hop out of the Resonance Zone, IIRC, but it might not be
>> accurate to call it a "micro jump _within_ the system".
>
>What IS the definition, if any, of a system's boundaries in the
>Honorverse? The Hyperlimit?

There is the twelve lighthour territorial boundary,

-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Dahak wrote:
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 03:22:04 -0500, an orbiting mind-control laser
> made Jeffrey MacHott <Raguleader.TakeThisOut@netzero.net> write:
>
>> Offbreed wrote:

>>> A short hop out of the Resonance Zone, IIRC, but it might not be
>>> accurate to call it a "micro jump _within_ the system".
>> What IS the definition, if any, of a system's boundaries in the
>> Honorverse? The Hyperlimit?
>
> There is the twelve lighthour territorial boundary,

I don't recall seeing that about the territorial limit. I think DW has
said something about "in-system" several times, and got the idea it was
the same as "inside the hyper limit", but do not recall it ever actually
being stated. Do you recall the usage?

I'm afraid I did not pay enough attention to the difference between the
hyper limit and the resonance zone. That jump out from the Junction was
a surprise.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Offbreed wrote:
> Dahak wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 May 2006 03:22:04 -0500, an orbiting mind-control laser
> > made Jeffrey MacHott <Raguleader.DeleteThis@netzero.net> write:
> >
> >> Offbreed wrote:
>
> >>> A short hop out of the Resonance Zone, IIRC, but it might not be
> >>> accurate to call it a "micro jump _within_ the system".
> >> What IS the definition, if any, of a system's boundaries in the
> >> Honorverse? The Hyperlimit?
> >
> > There is the twelve lighthour territorial boundary,
>
> I don't recall seeing that about the territorial limit. I think DW has
> said something about "in-system" several times, and got the idea it was
> the same as "inside the hyper limit", but do not recall it ever actually
> being stated. Do you recall the usage?
>
> I'm afraid I did not pay enough attention to the difference between the
> hyper limit and the resonance zone. That jump out from the Junction was
> a surprise.

In HH3, Sarnow wants to put the entire fleet right on the twelve
lighthour limit and do some maneuvers so they can shadow Rollins if
necessary. There was a clear implication (or maybe it was explicitly
stated?), that this was the recognized limit for territoriality. When
GHQ sent out the war warning, Parks used the fact that staying on the
limit might be inflammatory as a reason to not do it, leading up to the
Battle of Hancock (and the Harris assassination, for that matter).
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Quarthinos wrote in message
<1146500429.218554.263160 RemoveThis @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>...
>
>Offbreed wrote:
>> Dahak wrote:
>> > On Mon, 01 May 2006 03:22:04 -0500, an orbiting mind-control laser
>> > made Jeffrey MacHott <Raguleader RemoveThis @netzero.net> write:
>> >
>> >> Offbreed wrote:
>>
>> >>> A short hop out of the Resonance Zone, IIRC, but it might not be
>> >>> accurate to call it a "micro jump _within_ the system".
>> >> What IS the definition, if any, of a system's boundaries in the
>> >> Honorverse? The Hyperlimit?
>> >
>> > There is the twelve lighthour territorial boundary,
>>
>> I don't recall seeing that about the territorial limit. I think DW has
>> said something about "in-system" several times, and got the idea it was
>> the same as "inside the hyper limit", but do not recall it ever actually
>> being stated. Do you recall the usage?
>>
>> I'm afraid I did not pay enough attention to the difference between the
>> hyper limit and the resonance zone. That jump out from the Junction was
>> a surprise.
>
>In HH3, Sarnow wants to put the entire fleet right on the twelve
>lighthour limit and do some maneuvers so they can shadow Rollins if
>necessary. There was a clear implication (or maybe it was explicitly
>stated?), that this was the recognized limit for territoriality. When
>GHQ sent out the war warning, Parks used the fact that staying on the
>limit might be inflammatory as a reason to not do it, leading up to the
>Battle of Hancock (and the Harris assassination, for that matter).
>

Good pickup. I forgot about that one.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Mon, 1 May 2006 17:18:52 -0400, an orbiting mind-control laser made
"Fred Burton" <fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> write:

>
>Quarthinos wrote in message
><1146500429.218554.263160.TakeThisOut@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>...
>>
>>In HH3, Sarnow wants to put the entire fleet right on the twelve
>>lighthour limit and do some maneuvers so they can shadow Rollins if
>>necessary. There was a clear implication (or maybe it was explicitly
>>stated?), that this was the recognized limit for territoriality. When
>>GHQ sent out the war warning, Parks used the fact that staying on the
>>limit might be inflammatory as a reason to not do it, leading up to the
>>Battle of Hancock (and the Harris assassination, for that matter).
>>
>
>Good pickup. I forgot about that one.


It's mentioned several times in _TSVW_:

--------------------

“I think we should consider a forward deployment, instead, Sir,”
Parks’ junior squadron commander said quietly.
“How far forward, Admiral?” The question sounded sharper than
Parks had intended, but Sarnow seemed unfazed.
“Right on the twelve-hour limit from Seaford Nine, Sir,” he
replied, and feet shuffled under the table. “I’m not talking about a
permanent presence, but an extended period of maneuvers out there
would almost have to make Rollins nervous, and we’d still be outside
the territorial limit. He wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if he tried
to protest our presence, but if he started anything, we’d be close
enough to keep our force concentrated and stay with him all the way to
his intended target—whatever it might be.”

--------------------

The ops officer was right about the strangeness of their approach.
The Zuckerman System’s outer surveillance platforms had picked them up
well short of the twelve-light-hour territorial limit, and letting
that happen was an outstandingly dumb move on someone’s part. If
they’d just stayed in h-space to the hyper limit, they’d have been on
top of Zuckerman—and Longtree—before she even knew they were coming.
As it was, she’d had plenty of time to get a courier away to Fleet HQ;
even if they wiped out her entire squadron, Manticore would know who’d
done it. As acts of war went, that made this one of the most pointless
and stupid on record.

--------------------

There are other mentions, but none indicate the range of the
limit, just its existence.

-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:51:04 -0400, an orbiting mind-control laser
made Don Sample <dsample RemoveThis @synapse.net> write:

>I doubt if, during the pre-war build up, a Mantie fleet could have
>cruised through the People's Republic of Haven, without having the Peeps
>raise a big stink, even if the Manties never came within 12 light
>minutes of any system.

That's exactly what Mark Sarnow was proposing.

It may not be a good move _politically_, but _legally_, so long as
they stay outside the twelve lighthour limit, they abide by
interstellar law.

And I would imagine that _legally_ that limit is set by treaty. As
you surmise, whether the locals can exert and maintain control over
their own territory is a whole 'nother question.

-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

"Papatom" <thomasb.RemoveThis@uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:8im952dg758326gm4v07qipt73dr6jalo2@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>>> Actually the point of a Modern Frigate is to do a Destroyers job with
>>> as few people as possible and once again Screening and rescues is so
>>> important as well as point defense. Just imagine a sphere Thousands
>>> (millions) of Km in diameter one that a smart Admiral can coordinate.
>>>
>>> Heck I personally think DD's should be called FF's
>>
>>Are we talking Honorverse DD's or US DD's? Cause I've heard some folks
>>say that the DD's as they are represented in the US navy tend to be more
>>like slightly smaller cruisers than destroyers in terms of capabilities
>>and duties.
>
> True comparing almost anything Now and the Honorverse is like
> comparing apples and kumquats. I was merely trying to think of
> missions that a small lightly armed hyper capable unit might be able
> to do and if something small like the ASL ships could not be useful in
> a military formation like a convoy or even the wall of battle.
>
> pops

I'd want these ships out of the wall of battle but they might play screen.
The frigite role seems to have been taken over by lacks which we tend to
think of as planes but are obviously rather larger than that.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:e32mdm$30ak$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> deowll wrote in message ...
>>
>>"Taki Kogoma" <quirk DeleteThis @swcp.com> wrote in message
>>news:e2qs7a$mm8$1@iruka.swcp.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:10:55 -0700, Offbreed <offbreed_106 DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
>>> allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>>>>forkliftramp.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>>>>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>>>>> or surface.
>>>>
>>>>I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>>>>new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.
>>>
>>> "Torpedo boat destroyer"; they were meant as a small, agile platform
>>> to screen the battle line from troepdo boats.
>>>
>>> One problem we're facing here is the evolution of names/missions of
>>> naval units over the centuries, and MWW's decision to try to apply early
>>> 20th C. nomenclature to what started as a quasi-Nelsonian paradigm
>>> that itself is rapidly evolving. Another problem is trying to use
>>> 'modern' ship types as one-to-one correspondance with what is in the
>>> Honorverse; the distinction between "frigate", "destroyer", and
>>> "cruiser" in the modern navy is getting increasingly muddled.
>>>
>>> The sailing-era "frigate" was the equivalent of the turn-of-the-20th-
>>> century cruiser. A Honorverse frigate strikes me as the equivalent of
>>> a sailing era sixth-rate or 20-gun Post Ship (at a time when most navies
>>> had moved to 5th rates or even 4th rates for screening units.)
>>>
>>> The development of destroyer-escorts, corvettes, frigates, etc. for
>>> anti-submarine work is based on the need for as many sensor platforms
>>> as possible as quickly as possible as economically as possible; crew
>>> requirements weren't really an issue, unlike the bottleneck faced by
>>> the RMN BuPers. Also, there is no corresponding "submarine" threat in
>>> the Honorverse. (Relatively short-ranged, very powerful offensive
>>> capability, extremely stealthy, generally immue to most 'conventional'
>>> ttack modes.)
>>>
>>> The anti-LAC and missile-defense missions have been discussed ad
>>> nauseum and may or may not result in their own specialized units
>>> analogous to modern air-defense platforms, but that's another mega-
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
>>> Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
>>> same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
>>> capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
>>> worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
>>> build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
>>> capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.
>>
>
>
>
>>On the reverse side if you are only concerned about in system defense as
>>seems to have beeen true of several very weak systems you might leave of
> the
>>hyper capible off a DD and make a frigite for in system that could eat
>>most
>>DD depending on how well you could equip it. Just a passing thought but
> such
>>systems did get passing mention.
>>
>>
> I don't know exactly how much of any ship's internal volume is consumed by
> its hyperdrive. It may or may not be significant enough to matter.
>
> I suppose if the percentage was high ehough, it might be worth having some
> non-hyper system defense warships. But they would seem to me to seriously
> hurt the strategic flexibility of the fleet. Also, not having a
> hyperdrive
> also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system,
> which
> is a very useful tactical ability. In fact, I'm not sure that giving up
> that ability is truly worth the extra volume that you could dedicate to
> other things.
>
>
>
>

Must be manticore is building them by the thousands and so are the peeps.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

"Fred Burton" <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:e32uq3$1ep$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> Offbreed wrote in message ...
>>Fred Burton wrote:
>>> Also, not having a hyperdrive
>>> also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system,
>>
>>Wrong universe.
>
> Not so.
>
> Didn't Kuzak's 3rd Fleet and Honor's 8th Fleet microjump within the
> Manticore system during the Battle of Manticore? Yes, they did.
>
>
>
>

They couldn't have been anywhere near the primary.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

deowll wrote in message ...
>
>"Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>news:e32mdm$30ak$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>
>> deowll wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>"Taki Kogoma" <quirk.RemoveThis@swcp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e2qs7a$mm8$1@iruka.swcp.com...
>>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:10:55 -0700, Offbreed <offbreed_106.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
>>>> allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>>>>>forkliftramp.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>>>>>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti
air
>>>>>> or surface.
>>>>>
>>>>>I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>>>>>new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.
>>>>
>>>> "Torpedo boat destroyer"; they were meant as a small, agile platform
>>>> to screen the battle line from troepdo boats.
>>>>
>>>> One problem we're facing here is the evolution of names/missions of
>>>> naval units over the centuries, and MWW's decision to try to apply
early
>>>> 20th C. nomenclature to what started as a quasi-Nelsonian paradigm
>>>> that itself is rapidly evolving. Another problem is trying to use
>>>> 'modern' ship types as one-to-one correspondance with what is in the
>>>> Honorverse; the distinction between "frigate", "destroyer", and
>>>> "cruiser" in the modern navy is getting increasingly muddled.
>>>>
>>>> The sailing-era "frigate" was the equivalent of the turn-of-the-20th-
>>>> century cruiser. A Honorverse frigate strikes me as the equivalent of
>>>> a sailing era sixth-rate or 20-gun Post Ship (at a time when most
navies
>>>> had moved to 5th rates or even 4th rates for screening units.)
>>>>
>>>> The development of destroyer-escorts, corvettes, frigates, etc. for
>>>> anti-submarine work is based on the need for as many sensor platforms
>>>> as possible as quickly as possible as economically as possible; crew
>>>> requirements weren't really an issue, unlike the bottleneck faced by
>>>> the RMN BuPers. Also, there is no corresponding "submarine" threat in
>>>> the Honorverse. (Relatively short-ranged, very powerful offensive
>>>> capability, extremely stealthy, generally immue to most 'conventional'
>>>> ttack modes.)
>>>>
>>>> The anti-LAC and missile-defense missions have been discussed ad
>>>> nauseum and may or may not result in their own specialized units
>>>> analogous to modern air-defense platforms, but that's another mega-
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
>>>> Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
>>>> same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
>>>> capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
>>>> worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
>>>> build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
>>>> capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On the reverse side if you are only concerned about in system defense as
>>>seems to have beeen true of several very weak systems you might leave of
>> the
>>>hyper capible off a DD and make a frigite for in system that could eat
>>>most
>>>DD depending on how well you could equip it. Just a passing thought but
>> such
>>>systems did get passing mention.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know exactly how much of any ship's internal volume is consumed
by
>> its hyperdrive. It may or may not be significant enough to matter.
>>
>> I suppose if the percentage was high ehough, it might be worth having
some
>> non-hyper system defense warships. But they would seem to me to
seriously
>> hurt the strategic flexibility of the fleet. Also, not having a
>> hyperdrive
>> also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system,
>> which
>> is a very useful tactical ability. In fact, I'm not sure that giving up
>> that ability is truly worth the extra volume that you could dedicate to
>> other things.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Must be manticore is building them by the thousands and so are the peeps.
>
>
>

deowll, I think that the thought about equipping a hyperdrive or not was
related to heavier starships, not LACs. Besides, LACs are small enough to
be carried by LAC carriers.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

deowll wrote in message ...
>
>"Fred Burton" <fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>news:e32uq3$1ep$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>
>> Offbreed wrote in message ...
>>>Fred Burton wrote:
>>>> Also, not having a hyperdrive
>>>> also prevents you from being able to do micro-jumps within the system,
>>>
>>>Wrong universe.
>>
>> Not so.
>>
>> Didn't Kuzak's 3rd Fleet and Honor's 8th Fleet microjump within the
>> Manticore system during the Battle of Manticore? Yes, they did.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>They couldn't have been anywhere near the primary.
>
>

Duh.

They jumped from the Wormhole Junction to their destinations.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates