So, who actually builds corsairs?

[wbyrd]

The Escort carrier( sort of what i posted above) was a major innovation in convoy escorts. They were able to sweep a wide area and give air cover in the gap that land based carriers couldn't.

on top of that they were cheap and easy to produce compared to fleet carriers meaning you could build a lot of them. A single squadron of fighters can pack as much firepower as several corvettes.
When combined into flights they can generate a pretty dangerous punch. even if a corsair was dealing with a portion of the carriers fighters it would be in a lot of trouble.

Like the previous comment said they can streak in check out a suspicious ship, and then call in for more fighters while they keep out of weapons range and track a target. This would force the ship to split up it's fighters and dilute the striking power of the squadron.

16 thrust 12 30 ton fighters would have roughly the same mass, and weapons load of a 500 ton corvette, but twice the speed...

A thrust 10 or thrust 12 fighter isn't a stretch. its expensive for it's size but The speed of a fighter would allow the a divided squadron to cross large distances very quickly. A pair of fighters detecting a threat could back off out of weapons range. Call in the rest of the squadron could meet up, form up into a flight before a corvette, or merc cruiser, could even reach the target vessel.

In a Traveller game they would be the last thing a pirate ship of any type would want to see show up on sensors. at best the ship could jump out of system before fighters got to it...at worst the ship would be pinned in and the fighters would shoot it to pieces.

 

[Ulsyus]

I remember playing in a small BCS-based Star Cruiser campaign where everyone loaded up on drones and detonation missiles, with fighters to help screen and protect from incoming detonation missiles. Since then I've always been a big fan of drones forming a screen for vessels

 

[mike wightman]

That's pretty much how LBB2 plays out if you go with 1000t+ships carrying as many fighters as they can.

Using the SS3 missiles rules to increase the damage capability of your missiles means a typical engagement becomes:
intruder and defender launches fighters and missiles at range against opponent.

Fighters close and try to intercept as many missiles as they can and/or plough on to enemy vessel to launch their own missiles and lasers.

Capital ship uses ecm and antimissile fire to shoot down as many missiles as it can, lasers target fighters.

It reminds me a lot of nBSG

 

[wbyrd]

Which is also a reflection of naval history, battleships and surface actions gave way to naval airpower. small inexpensive (compared to battleships) carriers could strike at longer range, with less loss of trained men.

the crew of an entire squadron of fighters is smaller than the crew of a single destroyer. and dozens of factories could turn out hundreds of fighters a month.While fighter pilots have to be highly trained only one or two pilots are needed per aircraft.

this makes fighters a very attractive option to both bean counters and strategists. In a Traveller setting The fact that fleets train large number of fighter pilots who then leave the service gives an Local, or independent group a large reserve of trained pilots to draw on.
For a Mercenary or hired escort vessel risking 5 fighters worth 100 Mcr, rather than a 200 Mcr vessel in a fight makes more sense.

if you loose half the fighters, and their crews it's still less of a lost than loosing a Gazelle.


And BSG....yeah a good example of a hybrid battleship/carrier. Both Battlestars and Base ships still mounted some pretty heavy direct fire, and missile weapons, but they tended to stay out of range and launch swarms of fighters.

 

[Ulsyus]

That's pretty much how LBB2 plays out if you go with 1000t+ships carrying as many fighters as they can.

Using the SS3 missiles rules to increase the damage capability of your missiles means a typical engagement becomes:
intruder and defender launches fighters and missiles at range against opponent.

Fighters close and try to intercept as many missiles as they can and/or plough on to enemy vessel to launch their own missiles and lasers.

Capital ship uses ecm and antimissile fire to shoot down as many missiles as it can, lasers target fighters.

It reminds me a lot of nBSG

Yup, that was a bit like having HG vessels available without spinal mounts. Bay weapons and piles of fighters with a few nuke missiles ploughing about the place.

Makes you wonder doesn't it: that sort of HG battle would go on for a lot longer, but as we've seen on BSG offers a lot more cinematic effect...

 

[Timerover51]

Which is also a reflection of naval history, battleships and surface actions gave way to naval airpower. small inexpensive (compared to battleships) carriers could strike at longer range, with less loss of trained men.

Inexpensive HOW? Crew size of your carriers is significantly larger, when you include the ENTIRE CREW OF AN AIR GROUP, and not just the pilots. Add in the cost of the pilot training, and the continued replacement cost for aircraft, and your carrier becomes a very expensive proposition. There is also the cost of the aviation fuel to consider too, and the fact that a WW2 carrier was good for only about 2 to 3 days of intensive operations before running out of aerial munitions and aviation gas. As for less loss of trained men, where do you get the idea that pilots are not costly in terms of training.

the crew of an entire squadron of fighters is smaller than the crew of a single destroyer. and dozens of factories could turn out hundreds of fighters a month.While fighter pilots have to be highly trained only one or two pilots are needed per aircraft.

If you only count pilots, yes. However, the manning for a squadron requires a LOT MORE than just pilots. Take the number of aircraft and multiply by between 8 and 10 to get an idea of what a squadron had in terms of manpower, and add in that a lot of the manpower is going to have to be trained in electronic maintenance and engine maintenance. In rough terms, the full manning of a carrier air group in WW2 for 72-80 aircraft was about 1300 men. A destroyer would need about 300, a lot of them less trained than the air group personnel.

this makes fighters a very attractive option to both bean counters and strategists. In a Traveller setting The fact that fleets train large number of fighter pilots who then leave the service gives an Local, or independent group a large reserve of trained pilots to draw on.

The cost of a current US navy F-35 is more than the operating costs of an Iowa-class Battleship for a year. That is ONE plane. That does not include the full cost of a year of operating said plane, and the carrier that carries it, which has a crew about 4 times that of an Iowa. I will not get into the politics of the retirement of the Iowa-class ships. The Marine Corps was NOT AT ALL happy to see them retired.

For a Mercenary or hired escort vessel risking 5 fighters worth 100 Mcr, rather than a 200 Mcr vessel in a fight makes more sense.

Only in the Universe of Traveller are fighters going to be so cheap, and the crew costs so totally ridiculous. Where are the maintenance crew for your fighters? Oh, I forgot, in Traveller, that is handwavium.

if you loose half the fighters, and their crews it's still less of a lost than loosing a Gazelle.

See above.

Edit Note: The escort carrier, USS Guadalcanal, which captured the U-505, had a complement of 860, and a capacity of 28 aircraft, a mixture of F4F Wildcats and TBF Avengers. A fair chunk of that crew was the personnel of the carrier air group. As for combat capability, I would suggest reading a bit about the Battle of Leyte Gulf. A Fletcher-class destroyer had a complement of 273 by comparison.

 

[HG_B]

That does not include the full cost of a year of operating said plane, and the carrier that carries it, which has a crew about 4 times that of an Iowa. I will not get into the politics of the retirement of the Iowa-class ships. The Marine Corps was NOT AT ALL happy to see them retired.

I know that this is kinda silly but I always thought that they shoulda put a low cost reactor like the Toshiba 4S in place of its conventional engines so it could have unlimited legs and freedom from oilers.

Oh well :nonono:

 

[aramis]

[m;]The retirement of the USN BB's is very much a political topic, and very much post WW II.[/m;]

[m;]Let it drop, please.[/m;]

 

[Timerover51]

[m;]The retirement of the USN BB's is very much a political topic, and very much post WW II.[/m;]

[m;]Let it drop, please.[/m;]

I will do so.

 

[Patron Zero]

No intentional hijack here but is piracy really driven by direct profit, the booty and swag taken from unsuspecting ships that are so preyed upon ?

I would tend to accept a greater possibility that piracy and hijackings of vessels might be more politically driven actions in systems wanting the coin from a naval base being established within such. Even if the presence of a naval group is only 'temporary', the local economy will benefit from revenues made off shore-leave of said ship's crews and the materiel purchased supporting the vessels on patrol.

There's also the possibility of only a particular category of ship being targeted, perhaps such flying a particular 'flag' or registry code victimized to cause strife and financial ruin for the parent-home company operating said vessels.

I just don't see piracy as a long-term career choice or such being a stable foundation for establishing a 401K.

 

[Carlobrand]

I...Where are the maintenance crew for your fighters? ...

Below 1000 dTons, Book-2 rules apply, which means no maintenance crew. 1000 dTons and above, High Guard rules apply, which means one maintenance tech per craft and one flight control officer for the ship. I could wave my hands and make up some reason why small ships don't need a separate maintenance section but ships suddenly do at 1000 dTons, but that would quite literally be handwavium.

Put simply, Book 2 was intended primarily for players' ships and other civilian craft and suchlike encountered by the players during roleplay, at a guess someone didn't want to burden them with an additional crewman for just one or two boats, and - while it seems obvious in retrospect - it didn't occur to them to consider what would happen if someone tried to use the Bool 2 rules to make a carrier.

 

[Carlobrand]

No intentional hijack here but is piracy really driven by direct profit, the booty and swag taken from unsuspecting ships that are so preyed upon ? ... I just don't see piracy as a long-term career choice or such being a stable foundation for establishing a 401K.

My understanding is that most folk who flout the law are not doing so as a consequence of carefully contemplated career planning.

 

[aramis]

Below 1000 dTons, Book-2 rules apply, which means no maintenance crew. 1000 dTons and above, High Guard rules apply, which means one maintenance tech per craft and one flight control officer for the ship. I could wave my hands and make up some reason why small ships don't need a separate maintenance section but ships suddenly do at 1000 dTons, but that would quite literally be handwavium.

Put simply, Book 2 was intended primarily for players' ships and other civilian craft and suchlike encountered by the players during roleplay, at a guess someone didn't want to burden them with an additional crewman for just one or two boats, and - while it seems obvious in retrospect - it didn't occur to them to consider what would happen if someone tried to use the Bool 2 rules to make a carrier.

One could extrapolate and note that the minimum drive sizes is 1Td and 4Td, thus 5Td, plus the 1Td for turret, and 1Td for fuel, and figure that the cockpit is 2Td and see that the computer is 1Td... and thus every 7 fighters requires an engineer and guarantee that there is plenty of surplus. (note: the 10Td 6G fighter is the smallest small craft in CT published designs, except for the 9Td ones in Bk 5 HG-79.

But it also obviously has a smaller PP, as it can't drive a second laser... so... it's probably far less crew than one per 7 fighters.

 

[Carlobrand]

One could extrapolate and note that the minimum drive sizes is 1Td and 4Td, thus 5Td, plus the 1Td for turret, and 1Td for fuel, and figure that the cockpit is 2Td and see that the computer is 1Td... and thus every 7 fighters requires an engineer and guarantee that there is plenty of surplus. (note: the 10Td 6G fighter is the smallest small craft in CT published designs, except for the 9Td ones in Bk 5 HG-79.

But it also obviously has a smaller PP, as it can't drive a second laser... so... it's probably far less crew than one per 7 fighters.

Meh, careful about that extrapolation. By extrapolation, a 50 dT 4g cutter uses the same size power plant / maneuver drive as a 100 dT scout or a 200 dT free trader, one of which does not require an engineer while the other does. Perhaps you only need an engineer if you have 200 aggregate dTons or more of boats.

 

[wbyrd]

Inexpensive HOW? Crew size of your carriers is significantly larger, when you include the ENTIRE CREW OF AN AIR GROUP, and not just the pilots. Add in the cost of the pilot training, and the continued replacement cost for aircraft, and your carrier becomes a very expensive proposition. There is also the cost of the aviation fuel to consider too, and the fact that a WW2 carrier was good for only about 2 to 3 days of intensive operations before running out of aerial munitions and aviation gas. As for less loss of trained men, where do you get the idea that pilots are not costly in terms of training.

The estimate i found is that a fighter pilot costs 6 million to train. so 18 x 6 = 108 million US,( or 27 Mcr) to train an 18 man unit to pilot the fighters of a fighter squadron.


You are correct on the expense of the support crew, I may have expressed my point poorly.I was referring to the number of people exposed to direct fire not the entire crew.( this of course is assuming the carrier itself remains out of the engagement.)

If you only count pilots, yes. However, the manning for a squadron requires a LOT MORE than just pilots. Take the number of aircraft and multiply by between 8 and 10 to get an idea of what a squadron had in terms of manpower, and add in that a lot of the manpower is going to have to be trained in electronic maintenance and engine maintenance. In rough terms, the full manning of a carrier air group in WW2 for 72-80 aircraft was about 1300 men. A destroyer would need about 300, a lot of them less trained than the air group personnel.

Yes, once again correct, and I will restate that I am comparing the personnel exposed directly to fire. compared to risking a larger ship to direct fire....

however lets compare two battles, one using carriers, one using warships in direct engagement.


Casualties at midway
Japanese: 2500 Men
TOTAL CARRIERS LOST: 4
TOTAL CRUISERS LOST: 1
TOTAL DESTROYERS LOST: 0
TOTAL AIRCRAFT LOST: 292

United States: 307 Men
TOTAL CARRIERS LOST: 1
TOTAL CRUISERS LOST: 0
TOTAL DESTROYERS LOST: 1
TOTAL AIRCRAFT LOST: 145

Battle Of Jutland
British (14 ships and over 6,000 lives)
Germans (9 ships and over 2,500 casualties).

The raw number of men lost, and ships sunk in a direct fire combat of the same scale seems to favor carrier/fighter operations.

The cost of a current US navy F-35 is more than the operating costs of an Iowa-class Battleship for a year. That is ONE plane. That does not include the full cost of a year of operating said plane, and the carrier that carries it, which has a crew about 4 times that of an Iowa. I will not get into the politics of the retirement of the Iowa-class ships. The Marine Corps was NOT AT ALL happy to see them retired.

the F-35 is a terrible example...it is an overpriced aircraft that has way too many bells and whistles for it's own good. Modern US fighters are a lot like a German Tiger Tank...over engineered resource hogs with a price tag way out of proportion to their combat ability( and Me and you may sing a duet when we complain about the Iowa fiasco....)

A Better comparison might be an f-15 or f-16, which isn't so outrageously over priced.

American aircraft and carriers are hugely expensive because the US would rather spend money on a few High tech wonder toys, versus less money per unit on a larger number of aircraft and ships. A US carrier might as well be a dreadnought /Battleship class ship.

However the effectiveness of a Modern carrier is such that it can control entire regions, sink and entire fleet of surface vessels, and if using it's full arsenal...destroy an entire city.... a modern aircraft carrier may be the most expensive(overpriced) force ever put into the field but compared to how much it can do..it's a bargain.

When ONE US carrier battle group shows up, everyone gets nervous.

Only in the Universe of Traveller are fighters going to be so cheap, and the crew costs so totally ridiculous. Where are the maintenance crew for your fighters? Oh, I forgot, in Traveller, that is handwavium.

One second please....let me do the math....

Fighter Squadron/ Support Section
30 ton fighters, 18 craft.
Base cost of fighter Mcr 29.151
Total cost Mcr 524.718
Maintenance 18 craft for one year.... 0.524718
Life support: 18 pilots 432,000 per year
wages: 18 pilots 1,296,000

Total expenses: Mcr 526.970718
Purchase + 1 year operations expense.

Ground Crew 5 per fighter, paid as per engineers, I went with an all human ground team instead of using to support crewmen so this would be a better compassion

Wages: 4.32 Million per year
Life support: 2.16 Million per year ( 2000Cr per month ea)
6.46 Million per year.

Total squadron expenses purchase and one years operation
Mcr 533.430718

4000 ton carrier sufficient to carry 18 30 ton fighters
crew
12 command 720,000 Wages
8 engineers 384,000 Wages
10 gunnery officers 240,000
4 service crewman 96,000
18 Ships Troops 432,000 per year
Total Price for vessel minus software and munitions Mcr 1207.75
Upkeep Mcr 14.493 per year
Life support: Mcr 1.248 per year
Wages: Mcr 1.872
Total cost for purchase and one year operation 1225.363

I cant find operating costs for a US f-16 squadron, using it instead of the f-22/35 since that program is a financial scam if ever there was one.

f-16 14.6 million (1998 dollars)
A US fighter pilot makes between 30,000 and 80,000 a year.(2014 dollars) rough guess based on info I could find, depending on assignment and time in service...not including bonus payments.

Budget of a US F-15 Fighter squadron 35 Million (65th Aggressor Squadron )
Operation Expenses of Traveller 30 ton fighter squadron Mcr 6.113718 ( approximately 24.454872 Million to 30.56859 million US dollars 2014) not including life support costs for pilots and ground crew.



I used a 1977 dollar as the base value of an imperial credit..I think this is what the value is set at.... Multiply costs by 4 to 5 to get 2014 Us Dollar value.

So, a Traveller squadron is slightly cheaper, but US defense department contracts are notoriously bloated.

totals 18 pilots + 18 f-16s = 360 Million US (2014), or 90 Mcr
Arliegh Burke Destroyer :approximately 900 million

Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for construction of 4 new destroyers in fiscal year 1997 and gave the Navy authority to procure a total of 12 destroyers in fiscal years 1998 through 2001 using a multiyear acquisition strategy. In its biennial budget submission for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Navy requested about $2.8 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively, for a total procurement of six destroyers.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm

Edit Note: The escort carrier, USS Guadalcanal, which captured the U-505, had a complement of 860, and a capacity of 28 aircraft, a mixture of F4F Wildcats and TBF Avengers. A fair chunk of that crew was the personnel of the carrier air group. As for combat capability, I would suggest reading a bit about the Battle of Leyte Gulf. A Fletcher-class destroyer had a complement of 273 by comparison.

Cv-6 Enterprise	2919 crew (at peak)	Displacement 25,500	8.73 men Men per ton
Gambier Bay	860	displacement 7,900	9.18 men Per ton
Fletcher class	329 Crew	Displacement 2,500	7.59 Men per ton

So it looks like an escort carrier needed 2 additional men per ton of displacement, over a destroyer. While the Enterprise only needed one more man per ton.

Do ya want to compare relative firepower per ton of displacement of the two??? 90, fighters from the Enterprise pack considerably more punch than a Fletcher class.actually I think 28 fighters off the Gambier bay would probably pack more of a punch than a Fletcher.

Even considering the 10 torpedoes carried by the Fletcher class, you still have more men exposed to danger for it to bring it's torpedoes to bear than a single squadron of TBDs. A single sixteen plane torpedo attack carried 16 torpedoes, and risks only 48 men. if the entire attack is destroyed it still costs less than a single Fletcher.

I Know the battle of Leyte, compare the size of the Japanese fleet to the US fleet which was an escort formation... if you add up the tonnage of the entire Taffy 3 force it wasn't even a match the tonnage of the Yamato alone...and the carriers won ... they shouldn't have but they did.

The Leyte engagement is a departure form the norm, the carriers came under direct fire from HEAVY warships. this was the result of a very bad tactical decision by a certain Fleet commander....and some very clever deception by the other guy.

and at leyte...

Musashi was sunk by an estimated 19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits from American carrier aircraft on 24 October 1944 during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

compare the expense and loss of life risked by the aircraft group compared to the loss in life and cost of the Musashi... risk to return balance goes to the carrier force. I am sure that the Japanese spent more on construction, wages, and material support on the Musashi than the US did on the Enterprise.
The strike risked only a small portion of the carrier crews. I would imagine the entire fighter group sent to engage the Musashi didn't weigh or cost as much as a single turret on the Musashi....i'm also fairly sure the crew of the Musashi's turrets was larger than the crew of a fighter squadron.


I don't mean to totally dismiss your argument out of hand, and I am trying to back up my opinion with some numbers.....

 

[Timerover51]

Going back to the original question of who builds corsairs, that will depend on your Traveller Universe. If using MegaTraveller or The New Era, then you would have a lot of planets building corsair ships for raiding planetary commerce. I am not sure about Traveller 5.

If you are playing Classic, then it depends on your universe. Groups that would be building specifically corsair ships would be the Vargr, the Aslan, the Sword Worlds, maybe the Darrians, and probably the Solomani with the understanding that raiding would take place in the Imperium.

Against that, it was a very rare pirate ship that was really built as a warship, vice privateers. Generally, they were adapted fast merchant ships with a heavier than normal armament. If you use that as the basis for your corsair ships, then a lot more possibilities appear. Balkanized planets eager for cheap Imperial goods become likely candidates, along with independent asteroid belts. Failed revolutionaries would be good candidates as well. You also have the possibility of a down-on-its-luck armed merchant deciding that the way to improve things is do some discrete piracy. Ships do disappear in jump you know.

 

[wbyrd]

Going back to the original question of who builds corsairs, that will depend on your Traveller Universe. If using MegaTraveller or The New Era, then you would have a lot of planets building corsair ships for raiding planetary commerce. I am not sure about Traveller 5.

If you are playing Classic, then it depends on your universe. Groups that would be building specifically corsair ships would be the Vargr, the Aslan, the Sword Worlds, maybe the Darrians, and probably the Solomani with the understanding that raiding would take place in the Imperium.

Against that, it was a very rare pirate ship that was really built as a warship, vice privateers. Generally, they were adapted fast merchant ships with a heavier than normal armament. If you use that as the basis for your corsair ships, then a lot more possibilities appear. Balkanized planets eager for cheap Imperial goods become likely candidates, along with independent asteroid belts. Failed revolutionaries would be good candidates as well. You also have the possibility of a down-on-its-luck armed merchant deciding that the way to improve things is do some discrete piracy. Ships do disappear in jump you know.

Add in organized crime, less than ethical mercenaries between jobs with their own"transport". corporate sponsors trying to muscle out the competition, and Nobles looking to destabilize an area so they can sink their fangs in a bit deeper...and you have a good list of possible sources of "part time" Piracy.

any large group, organized crime, mercenaries, corporations, Nobles, or fairly populous worlds could have access to either their own ship construction facilities, or suitable hulls on the open market.

Getting their hands on the weapons,and armor would not even raise an eyebrow in some regions. Also for groups with any sort of connections, specialized electronics to alter a ships transponder codes wouldn't be much of an obstacle for any of the above groups as well.

 

[Timerover51]

The following is an application for a Letter of Marque, made during the US Civil War to the Confederate Government, taken from Series 2, Volume One of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies.

Know all men by these presents: That we, P. G. Cook, captain; John M. Hollingsworth, K. A. Hiern, P. O. Foster, J. M. Brainard, L. Merchant, and G. W. Boyd, owners, and Chas. P. Gage and Thos. LeBarron, are bound to the Confederate States of America in the full sum of $5,000, to the payment whereof well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators jointly and severally by these presents.

The condition of this obligation is such that, whereas application has been made to the said Confederate States of America, for the grant of a commission or letter of marque and reprisals, authorizing the steam tug called the A. C. Gunnison to act as a private armed vessel in the service of the Confederate States on the high seas against the United States of America, its ships and vessels, and those of its citizens, during the pendency of the war now existing between the said Confederate States and the United States.

Now, if the owners, officers, and crew, who shall be employed on board of said vessel when commissioned, shall observe the laws of the Confederate States and the instructions which shall be given them according to law for the regulation of their conduct ; and shall satisfy all damages and injuries which shall be done or committed contrary to the tenor thereof by such vessel during her commission, and shall deliver up said commission when revoked by the President of the Confederate States, then this obligation shall be void, but otherwise shall remain in full force and effect.

Signed, sealed, and delivered this 25th day of May, 1861, in presence of —

P. G. Cook. [seal.]
P. O. Foster. [seal.]
James M. Brainard. [seal.]
J. M. Hollingsworth. [seal.]
L. Merchant. [seal.]
R. A. Hiern. [seal.]
Geo. Wm. Boyd. [seal.]
Thos. M. LeBarron. [seal.]
Chas. P. Gage. [seal.]
Witnesses:

W. Frobos.
Geo. W. Thater.

The following is a description of the ship proposed for use, again from the same source.

Mobile, May 25, 1861.

The undersigned proposes to fit the steam tug A. C. Gunnison as a privateersman. She is about 70 feet long, 15 feet beam, T foot hold, has two 16-inch cylinders, working up to about 75 or 80 horsepower. Her registered tonnage is 54 tons. She is owned as follows : J. M. Hollingsworth, one-third; J. M. Brainard, one-sixth; P. O. Foster, one-sixth; E. A. Hiern, one sixth; and Boyd & Merchant one-sixth. We propose to carry when cruising 10 to 15 men, armed with muskets and revolvers, and one or two pieces of a cannon ; say 6 or 8 pounders. I therefore solicit letters of marque. All residents of the city and county of Mobile.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. M. Hollingsworth.

Hon. T. Sanford,
Collector of Port of Mobile.

Basically, who turns privateer? The person or persons who own a suitable vessel, or what is perceived to be a suitable vessel in war time. They are not the crew however, but the owners, who the crew works for. It is a straightforward business proposition.

Edit Note: Interestingly enough, the Letter of Marque was not issued by the Confederate Department of the Navy, but by the Confederate Department of the State.

 

[Enoki]

With the original question, builders could also be polities that are inclined towards piracy and such. These would have every reason to allow construction of corsair / pirate ships and even give them a veneer of legitimacy with possibly letters of marque and such.

 

[Timerover51]

With the original question, builders could also be polities that are inclined towards piracy and such. These would have every reason to allow construction of corsair / pirate ships and even give them a veneer of legitimacy with possibly letters of marque and such.

Basically, a Traveller version of the Barbary States of the 1600s through early 1800s.