COMM ID:Admiral Alan Polstari TARGET ID:Hoover Station Directorate SUBJECT:Friendly Fire ENCRYPTION:Medium PRIORITY:High
Greetings.
It has come to my attention that the automated defense grid of Hoover Station does not currently incorporate registration of Liberty Navy Primary Fleet vessels in its friendly affiliation database. In the past few days errant rounds from our vessels in combat have made contact with Hoover's shield grid and the automated defenses have triggered a response to include firing upon our personnel.
While we hope that this has been an oversight on your part, we are formally requesting modification to your database to override the automated response for our vessels. We also strongly recommend including, but not limiting to, the head office of the Liberty Police, Inc., the Secondary Fleet Core, Liberty Navy registered secondary fleet vessels, and the lead representatives of the "Big Three" corporations. A station that does not recognize its allies is a detriment, not a boon, to the security of Liberty.
COMM ID:Agent Brandon Bunnett TARGET ID:Admiral Alan Polstari, Liberty Navy Primary Fleet SUBJECT:Hoover Automated Protocols ENCRYPTION:High
Good evening Admiral Polstari.
I'm Agent Bunnett of the LSF, authorized to reply on behalf of the Department Chief of the department of Homeland Security. Hoover is currently ongoing upgrades and changes within its superstructure, as per security reasons, docking is restricted to LSF operatives and vessels contracted for supplies and resource acquisition, this will not be changed until construction is complete.
As for the technical bit, there is no operational difference between the Primary and Secondary fleets within Capital Defense Protocol, that is, the defense of Manhattan, therefore there is no differentiation between the two Naval IFF tags, since it is not required, the automated defenses see every Naval vessel as just that, a Naval vessel. This does not however mean that Hoover's mainframe will not switch to hostile in case of fire directed at it, the automated defenses were set that way for reasons pertaining to the sensitive data that is stored on Hoover's data banks, in order to ensure full security, even against internal threats that may arise.
Which brings me to the specific event you yourself are probably talking about. According to Hoover's operations archive, a Liberty Navy Primary Fleet Dreadnought, the [LN]-LNS-Defensestrator, was logged as "hostile" due to a shot to Hoover's own shield grid which ended with the response of the automated defenses opening fire on said Dreadnought, which reportedly was heavily damaged before it could get out of range.
There was no reported sighting of any hostiles within the perimeter at the time, so now let me turn that spotlight on you. How exactly did a Primary Fleet Dreadnought disengage its weapon safeties, get a firing solution on Hoover, whilst in an allied and safe perimeter and then, open fire?
I understand that technical issues may occur even on such a vessel's systems, but, while we hope that the issue was indeed a technical one, we are formally requesting that you order a maintenance check on your Dreadnought-class vessels' targeting systems and to ensure your personnel's competence. A capital vessel that does not show competence and operational security is a detriment, not a boon, to the security of Liberty.
COMM ID:Admiral Alan Polstari TARGET ID:Agent Brandon Bunnett SUBJECT:Friendly Fire ENCRYPTION:High PRIORITY:High
Greetings Mister Bunnett.
First, it is good to have a person to discuss this matter with. Directing communications to a faceless organization is difficult when talking over matters such as these.
Now then, to your response.
When I reached out to the directorate of your station, I was looking to overcome a potential general issue we noticed with your defense mechanisms. I am well aware that standard IFF security protocols prevent your station from auto-firing at any Liberty Force vessel for merely being near by. What I was referring to was possible friendly fire incidents where in combat a burst of fire from a fighter or an errant round from a warship struck your station's shield grid while pursuing a hostile through Manhattan orbit. Please review the following demonstration comparing the responses of Long Island Station to a burst of fire from a controlled drone to the reaction of Hoover Station to the same test.
As you can clearly see, Long Island Station's defense grid has software that prevents retaliation over friendly fire incidents. This allows our forces leeway in pursuing hostiles in and around the station with the understanding that our station is able to weather such fire if necessary.
The same cannot be said for Hoover Station. As you can observe, the reaction was nearly instantaneous destruction of the drone used for this test. Had this been an actual combat incident with a fighter chasing a Reaver or Xeno fighter through Manhattan space for example, the additional fire turned upon the Liberty Force pilot would have made the situation nigh impossible to deal with in that area. The potential for extensive damage being inflicted upon a Liberty Navy Ship or an Liberty Police gunboat in a similar situation involving capital class enemies can be easily extrapolated.
Such a possibility poses a threat to the well being of Liberty Forces in the zone defended by Hoover Station. We simply seek an adjustment to your station's defensive protocols for the safety of Liberty Force personnel operating over Manhattan.
As to your claim of a Liberty Navy Primary Fleet vessel locking onto Hoover Station and opening fire with subsequent heavy damage inflicted upon the vessel, I find your computer's report lacking appropriate evidence to be able to properly evaluate it. I'm not aware of any Liberty Navy Primary Fleet vessels having undergone extensive repairs from any such incident. As an agent dealing with intelligence operations, I'm sure you're aware of the necessity of providing viable evidence before action can be taken.
Finally, the rather blase manner in which you submitted such a report is concerning. Your apparent lack of concern for the property and personnel of your allies is not encouraging. I can only hope that you have misread one of your facility's many wargame scenario reports in your attempt to explain your station's behavior.
COMM ID:Agent Brandon Bunnett TARGET ID:Admiral Alan Polstari, Liberty Navy Primary Fleet SUBJECT:Hoover Automated Protocols ENCRYPTION:High
Admiral Polstari,
If the LSF wanted to go to any length to a rather political aggressive stance with the Navy by using the [LN]-LNS-Defensestrator, we would already have done it, but why would we? Exactly, no reason to, I had only mentioned it to prove a point, I didn't actually think the LSF's word in the matter would be questioned about it. So now that I know our...stance in the matter,
I'm going to make it simple for you. Hoover's defensive protocols state that any vessel without authorization to dock and/or moor with the station is considered to be a possible-threat to the data banks inside, it will open fire against -any- hostility shown. From the answer given to myself from the LSF Directorate, this will not be changed. Exceptions, if any, would be for specific Liberty Naval Primary High Command personnel only.
The reasoning is quite obvious, as you say, Hoover's defenses might present a danger -just like any other station or ship armed with lethal weaponry- to our own forces but you go over the fact that they are a danger to any enemies within the area, Hoover's defenses will make a 4 click area inhospitable to any hostile forces, period. There is no need for any weapons fire near-enough to the station to present a danger of "friendly fire" to the station.
The only other possibility of errant rounds would be a weapon's test. And no personnel with the Liberty Armed Forces should be conducting a weapon's test near Manhattan.