Aerospace Logistics - Sales Department

[Hogusholand]

we wish to purchase 40 additional hydroplanes

kind regards Hogusholand

[Vault 10]

From: Anthony Stevens
To: The Commonwealth of Mossat

Greetings.

We will produce 400 Mudskipper class hydroplanes with armament systems included. If you specify the primary missiles you intend to use, the loadout (capacity) information will be provided.

Your order should be completed within a month.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.

From: Dennis Vermont, Hub Limited Exports
To: Hogusholand

Your orders have been accepted. Another 60 Mudskipper Hydroplanes, prepared for internal configuration, will be sent to you.

With best wishes,
Dennis Vermont,
Hub Limited Exports

[Mossat]

The Military Commission is not very creative at the moment with armaments, nor did we have a specific armament in mind. Is it too much trouble to ask if you were to instal appropriate armaments?
We ask that 300 of the Mudskippers be designed for anti-air purposes, and the other 100 be designed for anti-shipping purposes?

Thank you,
Military Commission of the Commonwealth.

[Vault 10]

Aerospace Logistics Corporation

From: Anthony Stevens
To: The Commonwealth of Mossat

The question about preferred armament is due to the fact that the design is highly modular, and can accommodate a wide selection of missiles. As such, this is intended to ensure you know the armament carried. Note that the missiles are not included in the cost (as we do not produce all of them), but launch systems are.

All armament is carried in 16 modules, numbered 1-8 fore to aft, P and S corresponding to portside and starboard (left/right).

The recommended loadout for anti-aircraft role would be as follows:
Module 1S - Radar and ECM control center
Module 1P - Infrared search and track system
Module 2-3S - 20mm Vulcan cannon (CIWS)
Module 2-3P - 12xRIM-116 missiles (CIWS/short-range attack)
Modules 4-5 - 24xMBDA MICA missiles (60km range)
Modules 6-7 - 8xAster-30 missiles (120km range)
Module 8S - Countermeasures (chaff and flare dispensers)
Module 8P - Auxiliary generators, spares storage

All missile amounts specified are total for the craft.


For the anti-shipping role, the craft can carry a set of conventional Harpoon and Penguin missiles. Module 1 would house an extended range radar antenna, modules 2, 3 and 8 would remain the same. Modules 4-7 would carry 8 Harpoon missiles (250km range) and 8 Penguin missiles (60km range).

For maximum performance, we would recommend to use the MLSS-21 missiles, an advanced design, specifically intended for this vessel.
A loadout with MLSS-21 in place would be as follows:
(Modules 1, 2, 3, 8 - same as above)
Modules 4-5 - 24xMLSS-21-250 (280km range)
Modules 6-7 - 12xMLSS-21-315 (300km range)

These missiles are a proprietary design and are not included in the cost. The additional cost for procuring them would be $17,160,000 per craft (at discounted price) per load. For 100 craft and 3 loads per craft (main load and two full sets of additional missiles), that would be $5,148,000,000.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.

[Mossat]

The Commonwealth will accept the Mudskipper hydrocraft outfitted with the reccommended loadouts for each role. We will accept any additional cost incurred for the installation.

[Vault 10]

Aerospace Logistics Corporation

From: Anthony Stevens
To: The Commonwealth of Mossat

Thank you. All hydroplanes will be outfitted as described and send to you, along with two full reload sets of MLSS-21 missiles for each. The total cost is $25,148,000,000.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.

[Vault 1]

Overtaken by Vault 1, i.e. me, who is the same player. Alive.

[Leos]

To:aerospace logistics
From Lake young Director of Logistics
To continue our over haul of leosian equipment we would like - Full package, including H-series, all future models, and design of custom models with any size and purpose, immediately or whenever requested: N$450 billion DPR of the R2 series 900Billion and a DPR for the Body armor systems if possible
In regards Lake young

[Vault 1]

OOC: It seems to me that you've been doing nothing but buying equipment. Why?

[Leos]

im not to good at rping and kinda lazy but ive been trying to get out there just not to motivated but trying

[Wagdog]

From:James Dolands; Undersecretary of Defense for Procurement, Defense Department of the Supreme
Directory of the Revolutionary Commonwealth
To:Anthony Stevens; Sales Director, Aerospace Logistics Corporation
Re:Procurement of "Frogger" SL-ASAT Missiles & Production Licensing?
Encryption: Procurement-grade Maximum; key provided.

---

Greetings,

How wonderful it is to hear about you fine people at Aerospace Logistics once again operating! I nearly scooted my chair out from under me and and faceplanted into my latte and desk when some SIGINT spookling sent over from Office of Strategic Services alerted me and the boss-lady here at DoD, Chief-Marshal Eileen Millenhaus, about the matter. But 'tis a small price to pay for good news, so we gave the girl our commendations so she could get back to Director Matthews and the rest of the spooks while the Marshal and I talked shop about what might bear ordering.

You'll be pleased to know that our Dachnik-complex systems, as-provided by your enterprise some years ago, continue to provide well within parameters for our midcourse-phase strategic-defenses at all planned stages of engagement; indeed even into the earlier stages of the terminal-phase, if one restricts the evaluation to the more reaction-launch-capable Yanodachi launchers specifically. Therefore as satisfied customers we have a new, and hopefully as-satisfactory to ALC, deal in mind.

See, we recently came into possession of the domestic-construction license for the Pennsylvanian Cheeseekau-class SSBN; however seeing as we already operate the Lyran Scylla-class SSBN, naturally we're not interested in unnecessary duplication of roles. At the time, as far as Chief-Marshal Millenhaus has informed me anyway since she handled that deal with the Pennsylvanians personally, the navy's idea for her to bounce off the Pennsylvanians' heads was to turn any Cheeseekaus we bought or built into some sort of Anti-Shipping Ballistic Missile-toting boats. We're still working on that idea, but it's a bit delayed for want of a missile to use; our ideal missile (the Khan) has been long out-of-production, the eggheads are still pondering designs of anti-ship MARVs to mount on the appropriate Pennsylvanian SLBMs we acquired DPR for at the same time, and we still aren't especially keen on using the common Dongfeng-21D as a "substitute" unless desperation should require.

So, noticing that the Frogger naval-variant Dachnik-launcher's dimensions could possibly allow quad-packing it into a Cheeseekau's former SLBM tubes (1.6m-radius former; 3.4m-radius latter, assuming some additional insulation/&c spacing...), we decided on a possibly-better idea: Create for ourselves an anti-satellite/anti-ballistic-missile submarine class that could (once built in bulk) either conduct strategic-defense patrols to supplement the orbital belts of Jaeger-launched Dachniks with additional midcourse-defense coverage, or else follow the fleets abroad to provide an in-theater ASAT & boost-phase ABM capability both superior and supplementary to more-"conventional" fleet area-defense missile systems. The SECDEF seized on the idea when I mentioned that I'd handled the original Dachnik order way back when, and so here I am writing this letter-of-intent your way per her orders.

To either end, our intended buy is itemized as below:

• 72,000 Frogger single-orbiter, naval-launch space-defense systems. (72,000 x $14,000,000 USD = $1.008 Trillion USD)
• GRAND TOTAL: $1.008 Trillion USD

The monies in question are reserved for automatic wiring immediately following confirmation, as usual per Departmental policy; if any corrections are required but of course, do not hesitate to notify us. Also, although I recall that for large orders shipment of production machinery for the items in question and granting of licensure for local manufacture was standard ALC procedure last I checked, and thus a line-item for DPR costs is left out for now, I should perhaps inquire if that remains the case as a sensible precaution. If that has changed, please notify us and we shall address it as any other correction would be.

Sincerely and Warmest Regards,
-James Dolands

[Allanea]

Official Message of the CAPINTERN

We are interested in purchasing a truly vast quantity of the MLSS-21-520 FE missile. We wish to pay the full price, despite the fact Vault 10 is a member of CAPINTERN, and though we technically qualify for a discount. This will encourage allied economies to develop, which is great.

We wish to purchase 1,000,000 of these missiles, for which we will joyfully pay 2 trillion Universal Standard Dollars from the CAPINTERN emergency fund.

[Vault 1]

Aerospace Logistics Corporation

From: Anthony Stevens
To: James Dolands
Revolutionary Commonwealth

Greetings. I'm happy that you are satisfied with this system we distribute and are interested in further investment.

A quad-packing arrangement, unfortunately, would not be practical in the proposed installation scenario. First of all, with the minimum space requirements of a quad-pack installed in a circular launch device, the only arrangement feasible for submarines, being 2.42 times the diameter of the missile, significant modification would be required to install 4 separate tubes rather than a single one.

While possible, it isn't a useful solution. Since the launcher is a relatively small part, in terms of complexity, of the overall system, it is more practical to use a different launcher altogether.
Fitting the orbital sections on a dedicated launcher platform, based on available 3.15m diameter class platforms, should provide the necessary compatibility and capacity. Such a launcher would be able to carry 3 orbiters. We would estimate a cost of $57 million per each launcher (with orbiters) due to the changes in manufacturing and customized design.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.

[/quote]

[Wagdog]

(Image)

Aerospace Logistics Corporation

From: Anthony Stevens
To: James Dolands
Revolutionary Commonwealth

Greetings. I'm happy that you are satisfied with this system we distribute and are interested in further investment.

A quad-packing arrangement, unfortunately, would not be practical in the proposed installation scenario. First of all, with the minimum space requirements of a quad-pack installed in a circular launch device, the only arrangement feasible for submarines, being 2.42 times the diameter of the missile, significant modification would be required to install 4 separate tubes rather than a single one.

While possible, it isn't a useful solution. Since the launcher is a relatively small part, in terms of complexity, of the overall system, it is more practical to use a different launcher altogether.
Fitting the orbital sections on a dedicated launcher platform, based on available 3.15m diameter class platforms, should provide the necessary compatibility and capacity. Such a launcher would be able to carry 3 orbiters. We would estimate a cost of $57 million per each launcher (with orbiters) due to the changes in manufacturing and customized design.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.

From:James Dolands; Undersecretary of Defense for Procurement, Defense Department of the Supreme
Directory of the Revolutionary Commonwealth
To:Anthony Stevens; Sales Director, Aerospace Logistics Corporation
Re:Procurement of "Frogger" SL-ASAT Missiles, & Derivative-designs Thereof?
Encryption: Procurement-grade Maximum; key provided.

---

Good Sir,

So it would be more practical to design a new variant of the Dachnik family to accommodate missile tubes of this size, rather than quad-pack the original variant, you say? Well; not quite what I'd been led to believe by the uniforms whose stipend from the citizens and their government I help manage, but since Aerospace Logistics does indeed distribute the system in question on behalf of GNAVT I have no reason to dispute your assessment of their design. Far better such things be pointed out here in this correspondence rather than in shipyards' complaints to my office, but of course.

I brought this to The Joint Chiefs' attention as soon as I received your reply. They were a bit nonplussed at first, but their technical aides pointing out the probable benefits of a three-orbiter LV design brought them around quickly-enough; even accounting for the understandable price increase involved as I did at said meeting. They dithered a bit about possibly building the first squadrons of ASAT-boats anyway, and just single-mounting purchased Frogger launchers as a temporary measure until the new launcher design were completed and ready for sale; maybe even buying many of both designs (i.e. original Frogger, and the new derivative you proposed in your reply), and saving the original-type Froggers for some Lalawethika-class SSBs we bought design rights to as well and might see fit to commission for our Maritime Civil Guard, thereby adding some additional depth to our early-terminal-stage strategic defenses in the bargain. Not really my field of expertise, but the principle of caveat emptor requires I pay it what attention I can all the same.

Therefore to buy on the safe side, I'll simply repeat our original order and add in a down-payment to pre-order the new LV design; incidentally I've also included in the item nomenclature the required maximum-length of the derivative for the submarines in question to handle it. That way would more than cover the planned Cheeseekau force we have in mind from either end; considering a single-pack Frogger interim deployment prior to arrival of the optimum-solution later, and retention of the inevitable surplus reloads among the former to keep on hand for whatever else the brass decided to do with them.

• 72,000 Frogger single-orbiter, naval-launch space-defense systems. (72,000 x $14,000,000 USD = $1.008 Trillion USD)
• 36,000 "3.15m-Diameter x 18m-Height Frogger-Derivative" triple-orbiter, naval-launch space-defense systems. (36,000 x $57,000,000 USD = $2.052 Trillion USD)
• GRAND TOTAL: $3.060 Trillion USD

Again the monies in question are already prepared, as described in my initial correspondence, and we remain ready to address any needful corrections should any exist. Allow me to express my own and my Department's pleasure doing business with you and Aerospace Logistics, as always.

Sincerest Thanks,
-James Dolands

[Vault 1]

Aerospace Logistics Corporation

From: Anthony Stevens
To: CAPINTERN

Greetings. We are pleased with your decisions and have started the work on your order.
We will be able to ship 25% within the month; the rest of the order will be completely fulfilled within two years.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.

---

Aerospace Logistics Corporation

From: Anthony Stevens
To: James Dolands
Revolutionary Commonwealth

Greetings again. We have initially reviewed the mounting possibilities. Within the given space constraints, a tube radius of 1.8m and launcher of 0.8m, unfortunately, a quad-pack would not be feasible. A 3-pack arrangement would be technically possible (as illustrated), but, even if relatively simple, it's still a space launch system, so any multiple packing significantly increases the risk of failure. The operating manuals actually recommend never launching more than 2 vehicles at a time, and only if they can be spaced by at least 20m, otherwise separate the launches by 20-60 seconds.

A cost increase is inevitable with any changes to the launcher or the overall system, first of all simply as a matter of new vs old tooling, reusing existing parts, and overall increases in costs. The original launchers were highly cost-optimized, to disregard of a number of secondary considerations, and are one-off designs, fitted to specific component availability and ease of manufacturing, that can not be readily scaled. Additionally, the Frogger launcher is designed for surface launch at sea, not subsurface; if installed on a submarine, it would have to surface before launch.

Within given dimensions, it may be technically possible to design a launcher supporting 4 orbiters, but such would have be a fully custom design, incurring additional costs, and the additional challenges of subsurface launch, requiring a protective capsule or special airframe design plus a deep launch stage, would restrict its depth and surface conditions performance.

By adapting a 3.15m surface type launch system, based on our S4L design, within a protective capsule, we will be able to allow for the same launch envelope as typical for SLBM. The new launcher should be possible to supply in minimal time, as we currently have production launch systems in this size and weight range, requiring only moderate alterations and for the capsule to be designed and tested, so we will be begin delivery in 6 months, together with the orbiters. Thus a temporary single-fitting solution will not be required.

With regards to Lalawethika class submarines, you should also keep in mind that surfacing would be required for Frogger launch. Adapting it with a protective capsule for subsurface would increase the required tube diameter to 1.8m. The requirement of surfacing is typically not as critical for SSB however.

With best regards,
Anthony Stevens.