Archive through June 21, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(J) Shuttles and Fighters:
Casual fighters in freighter skids:
Archive through June 21, 2005
SPP:
Oh, I absolutely agree. My post is only with regard to the PILOTS, not the fighters. Personally, I don't think there's a carrier commander out there who's going to say, "Sure, take a couple of my fighters for a fly-off, while we're still out here doing our job, I don't mind at all." No way.
More likely, the Mars (or whatever) base will have arranged in advance to have a handful of each type of fighter on hand from supply sources or whatnot, for the specific and limited purpose of the fly-off, which would probably only last a couple of weeks (and maybe with a month to six weeks prep time, alot of which won't necessarily require the presence of the fighters). I seriously doubt taking already operational-and-deployed fighters from a carrier or planetary squadron would occur.
Nope, in the galaxy at large, the pilots would take transportation to the competition other than their "personal" fighters (if such a thing as a "personal" fighters, as a concept, even exists in Star Fleet...).
Richard Sherman:
Well . . . from my standpoint, I sort of have to disagree.
I think they WOULD have to bring the fighters they were "scored in" to the competition. Afterall, Pilot A may be a hair better than pilot B simply because of something abour pilot A's fighter (or about Pilot B's fighter for that matter). Maybe it is something about crew that services that fighter, so I could see bringing that particular deck crew with the pilot as and the fighter for the competition.
So it is a fast trip for a couple of Armed Priority Transports to gather them all in and bring them to the competition site, and if you are sending the APT to pick them up, it is not that hard to have the APT also load up the fighter (as cargo) and the associatd deck crew along with the pilot (roughly a crew unit of passengers either way). Now, bringing heavy bombers to the competition would require some more effort. The bomber has to be packed taking 125 cargo spaces (no problem, the APT can hold 300 spaces), and then you have FOUR deck crews and the flight crew (about two and half crew units of passengers per bomber). That would make for some cramped conditions on an APT personnel-wise, but the other fast transports (like the FTT and EPT) lack the cargo volume to carry the bomber. So maybe you could use a Free Trader for the job? At least it would not be quite so crowded, unless it was picking up more than one bomber and its associated crew and support staff.
Ok... correct me if I'm wrong (or confused). But didn't someone
describe a skid as "coin shaped" because it is about 40 meters
in diameter (same as a cargo pod) and only
about *THREE* meters thick.
If so, CAN you put a fighter bay into one of these?
It seems that an Admin shuttle is about 3 meters wide and
would barely fit. It would seem that the
extra space for maintenance and drone loading just is not there.
Also, a fighter bay or Admin bay would need access to the edge
of the skid for the bay door.
Perhaps that was considered a "design feature" by
the various empires. A skid is too small to put
anything militarily useful in it. It's just big
enough to put "cargo moving" gadgets in it and
that's it.
Another limitation would be the power/control/etc
conduits. If I use a unit of Warp to power something
in the nose of the freighter, it has to GET there.
Now, if you put a skid in the way, the skid still has to
mate-up with the various conduits. So, you
can't block the conduits (with, say, a fighter bay)
and things in the skid that need power/control/etc
have to tap off of those conduits.
Third, the connecting/mounting bolts that hold the
freighter together had to also mate-up to the skid's
connecting/mounting bolts.
So, between these three design constraints, "the
Steves" can just say that something is "too large",
"in the wrong location", or "blocking
conduits or bolts".
...and personally, it seems that a fighter bay is
too large for a skid.
Also, it doesn't take a very large convoy to out-gun
an Orion LR or even most FFs (depends on the FF's
torp weapons).
so, Fighter skids don't seem like a good idea. Convoys
are a better idea, even if you aren't in a convoy the entire
trip. *THAT* would be the place that pirates wait:
locations where a freighter has to leave the convoy
to make the delivery (or before they join up with a convoy).
And those that remember the "CB craze" of the 70s, freighters
probably have as much "non-business chatter" between
them as truckers do. So most freighter captains would
know who else is "in the neighborhood". Pirates would have
to be very careful in which freighters to attack...
and *when*... and how often.
...a couple of old fighters are not going to change a
pirate's plans very much, if at all.
Alan
Just exactly WHAT a skid is physically is being developed now. Nick Blank is working on it but in any case it appears that the shuttle bay isn't going to be one of those roomy ones and I doubt there would be room for a ready rack.
There definately wouldn't be room for spare drone storage or spare parts. A spare shuttle/fighter is right out.
The history might be corrected to make the skid wider but still I doubt it's wide enough for a fighters wings.
That said I do have to wonder if a Standard shuttle might be modified or if a freighter might be capable of operating F7's (isn't that the one where a Admin is given two drones?).
Could a shuttle be modified into a MRS without the electronics capabilities? That is allow one to carry two drones, maybe only type-6's.
I'm envisioning a civilian defense shuttle with two Ph-3's (but no cargo capacity, carries only the pilot) and two Type-6 drones. Cannot be used as a WW, could be a SP if somehow you had the drones available. Appears to be a standard Admin at long range.
CD-Shuttle (civilian defense). The problem with this design is that very few units could actually use one. You would ONLY possibly see one or more where there was multiple shuttles available (you have to have some with cargo capacity) or with a special shuttle skid that adds two shuttles (no ready rack, type-6's are loaded by hand).
Loren Knight:
Uh . . . you have pretty much defined the Shenyang F-7 from Module J2 and the rules under which it already works as provided in Module J2.
Alan W. Kerr:
As to the Skid. SVC designed the LASH skid, and the design included an HTS shuttle. There is no way that an HTS shuttle would be present in the skid if it was not possible to load cargo into it, and for it to take off and land back aboard. Since it is a two-space shuttle, there is no way it can have cargo loaded onto it by landing in the freighter's normal shuttle bay, as doing so would automatically make that bay "overcrowded" even if the normal Admin shuttle was not present (J1.646), and cargo cannot be loaded on a shuttle in an overcrowded bay (G25.222). And having the shuttle dock externally for the purpose of transferring cargo would take ridiculously long and inefficent time (C13.983). So it must be capable of having cargo loaded onto it while in its bay in the skid.
All this means is that the bottom deck of the shutle bay of the Skid is level with one of the decks of the pod, and there is a hatch that connects from the pod to the shuttle bay so that cargo can be moved from that deck directly onto the shuttle. Cargo from other decks would, of course, have to be brought down (or up) to that particular deck, and this is one of the things the crew does while en route from one planet to another, i.e., marshall the cargo for unloading at the next planet.
"Move the 15 pallets/containers of Garbonzo beans that we brought up from planet Zenon which we are leaving to a space on Deck #9, back section. Move the four pallets of type-I drones for the planetary Defense forces of Planet Yezdegerd VI on Deck #2, front section, down to the staging area for transfer to the planet, and then bring down that pallet of Scotch from Deck #1, mid section to the staging area, and . . ."
And so it goes.
What? You thought the crew just sat on their thumbs occassionally trading duty shifts as they flew between planets?
Yes, actually, sometimes they do. That freighter that is moving an entire cargo pod of raw materials to Klinshai's orbit is going to leave the whole pod and pick up a new pod. All they need to be able to do is go through the customs and security and run a verification of the cargo they are dropping off in that pod (or pods if they were a large freighter), then clamp onto a pod of finished goods heading out to the colonies and away they go.
And sometimes when they are marshalling cargo they aer not marshalling it for the HTS to land, but are going to a more settled colony with a Commercial Platform to which they will dock and more speedily (due to the greater automation and the fact that they will not need to offload and load the shuttles) move their pallets onto the Commercial Platform, load their outgoing cargo the same way, and be merrily on their way.
But by definition the Skid has to allow for the efficient operation of both the HTS shuttle (as do the Ducktails) and allow cargo to throughput to the docking ports and out to whatever the freighter is docked to.
SPP: Regarding the loading of cargo, I was visualising the skid layout as similar to a loading dock. The skid would have a cargo staging area with access to the cargo bed of the HTS. Cargo goes into the HTS quickly. However, unless the fighter is specifically designed to place the attachment points in exactly the same position as the HTS cargo area, loading items becomes a much more cumbersome process. The second fighter is almost certainly out of position for fast loading.
As with many things, those were suggestions. I hate the prevalence of special scenario rules that prove very effective but are prohibited from general use.
Loren,
I was thinking along the same line as you with the limited fighter "kit". Perhaps some of the F-7 items could form the basis for a kit. Although I am not sure that ones buys much with such a kit. I would envision these kits for post GW.
Sort of off topic:
A 3 meter SKID seems too small. I found the following for our world inter-modal containers (and there are other types and maybe other dimensions).
Length ----- 9.8125 feet (2.991m) as 10 feet;19.875 feet (6.058m) as 20 feet;29.9375 feet (9.125m) as 30 feet; and 40 feet (12.192m); 20 and 40 foot containers are standard ocean size.
Width ----- 8 feet (2.438m)
Height ----- 8.5 feet (2.591m) standard container; and 9.5 feet (2.896m) high cube container
Cargo payload of 20' is 21,600 kgs; and 40' is 26,580
I picture a freighter pod like a river barge. You all have seen picture of Mississipps River barges, here are some capcities:
The cargo capacity of a standard inland barge.. (180’ X 35' x 15').
One barge = 1500 tons = 52,500 Bushels = 453,600 Gallons
Is 15 times greater than one rail car...
One rail car = 100 Tons = 3500 Bushels = 30,240 Gallons
And 60 times greater than one semi truck...
One semi truck = 25 Tons = 875 Bushels = 7,560 Gallons (close to or same as 40 foot container)
>you have pretty much defined the Shenyang F-7
>from Module J2 and the rules under which it
>already works as provided in Module J2.
Which is, frankly, the first thing I thought of when the whole "casual fighters in skid shuttle-bays" idea came up. i.e. "we've already got that, it's the F-7."
As for skids, I always envisioned skids as being something like the sleeper cabs on a modern long-haul tractor-trailer truck (and the ducktail is the equivalent of those forklifts that attach themselves to the back of a flatbed trailer.)
SPP,
The HTS could carries 50 cargo points; approximately how does that compare to the number of container(s) it could carry? I doubt cargo is just in boxes but would be in some sort of shipping container.
Joseph R. Carlson:
There I can only rely on what SVC has said to me. Basically they have a collapsible flat bed that when erected has seating and a large back door for those times when you are not moving a pallet of cargo. Otherwise the back collapses into the bottom of the bed allowing the back of the HTS to take a standardized cargo module.
Sleeper cab is a good analogy. Seriously, you can't expect to turn cargo boats into warships this way. It ain't gonna happen.
Odd thouught ... can skids / ducktails be mounted on a Q-ship??
Garth L. Getgen
SPP:
Well, I guess I'll have to "disagree" with your disagreement. 
If the fictional "Red Flag" exercise is to test the mettle of the best aircrews (and, yes, including the ground crew, who would have a competition against each other in their own right), then they're not going to allow "tweaked out" or modified fighters (think about, for example, the Formula 1 rules regarding cars). An F14A on the Zhukov should, for competition purposes, be the same as the F14A the crew gets at the competition. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the ground crew might not make some "factory unauthorized" mods to the "competition" fighter when they are there. But then, might that not be a further test of the ground crews' skills?
I would concede (and, looking at my last post, I don't think I originally asserted) that time of travel isn't an issue. But logistics is. In my mind, it stretches reason to believe that a carrier commander is going to give up a significant percentage of his fighter force, forcing his logistics officer to either get replacements to cover the absence, or break out spares, all so a couple of his crews can maybe win some prestige and a little "face-time."
If we were just talking about a couple of fighter jocks "whizzing" over to Nellis AFB from some other base in the US, I'd say no problem and agree with you. But not in SFB; I just don't see it.
I guess a tangentially related question to this would be: would Red Flag still be held during a time of war?
Richard Sherman:
Uh . . . your original post noted "(in times of peace, most likely)", and I saw no reason to repeat the refrain. Nothing I said indicated that these fighters would be gathered for this in time of war. And the closest I would think to it being run in time of war would be various training exercises leading to the graduation exercise of classes of pilots. But you would not be pulling pilots back just to play "Red Flag" during time of war. You would be pulling back experienced pilots to train new pilots. Give the new pilots the benefits of the most up to date front line fighting experience from those that have been there, survived, and succeeded. But you are not going to be stripping the best pilots from the combat units just to "play games" during war time.
Basically, I imagine the Federation ran a Red Flag competition event in Y167 or Y168, and may have run another (or been about to) in Y171 which was cancelled by the Klingon invasion. After that, they would not have tried to run one until after Y185, and maybe not then (trying to save money with the war being over), then the ISC war started, then the Andromedan War, and . . . well by Y202 when "peace was restored" X-ships were the future, carriers were on the way out, and . . . well it does not seem like there would have been any point from Y202 on. So the Federation might have run just one Red Flag exercise to choose the best of the best. And only F-4s, F-8s, A-6s, and B-52s would have been available to participate in it. F-7s, B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, B-36s, B-47s, and B-57s would all have been just to limited to be invited to play.
SPP:
That's what "I" originally said. YOU (emphasis, not shouting) didn't express an opinion until the above on that topic. And yes, I agree that it is highly unlikely to occur in wartime.
But I still have a hard time seeing the Commodore of the Nimitz in Y168 (or whatever) letting one or two of his "planes" go off for "some silly wargame," along with the selected pilots and crews.
Another thought just occurred to me: in SFB, don't carriers actually have TWO sets of pilots for each fighter, kind of like a "blue" team and a "gold" team, that rotates between active flight status and "down" time (like doing training and other administrative and assigned tasks)?
Garth, it is stated in their rules that skids and ducktails cannot be used on auxiliaries. While this is only my conclusion, and I can not give an official answer, I would say that might be a "No".
Still, you'd be best off asking in Rules Questions.
Just on the subject of taking the LR's cargo hold full of cargo.
If the LR "takes" one in every twenty freighters ( level the crew in the freight'e Admin shuttle or on a low population colony planet several hours walk from the nearest com-divice ); then the cargo percentage jumps up from 6% to 10.7% which is one whay the LR can opperate and make a "quid".
MJC,
What is the exchanges of quid into Federation credits?
A truely watered down fighter might take some of the sting out of the fighter equiped skid concept if the freighters ( commercial not military ) could be allowed to carry overgrown attack Admins.
Consider this:-
Take an Admin chasis and reform the structure to be more aerodynamic, taking away the ability to carry CUs and BPs but gaining a +1 DFR.
Take out most of the internal systems, such that, it can not opperate as a WW, SS or SP ( or PSS ) andthe ability to opperate as a lab but leave the fire control of an Admin shuttle.
Mount the Phasers as one 360° Ph-3 and one FA Ph-3. Remove the Admins drone rails such that it can carry no rails and no pod.
The shuttle has an internal bay able to carry cargo, this cargo is the equal of one cargo pod ( but is carried internally and thus doesn't reduce the speed of the shuttle ).
Allow it to mount one WBP and/or one CHAFF ( but not two of either ) on pod mounts that can take those pods and only those pods.
(Speed 6, Damage 6, Cripple 4).
Allow any ship to trade upto half ( rounded up ) of her Admins ( HTS would then count as 2 Admins ) with these attack shuttles ( with a rule that at least 2 shuttle aboard the vessel must be Admins ).
Now maybe with a thoroughly watered down fighter like that, that is so weak it is allowed to be used by commercial bodies, the skid mounted fighters won't be so much of a problem. Particularly since having no drone rails it thus will have no ready racks and thus will not be able to arm an SP.
Michael John Campbell:
I do not know where to start. I really do not. I am literally completely flabbergasted by your proposal. The Shenyang F-7 already exists (although it has two 360 phasers, no cargo capacity, cannot carry boarding parties, cannot operate as a wild weasel, suicide shuttle, scatter pack, pseudo scatter pack, or as a lab). Warp booster packs are not fitted on "pod mounts" and there is no such thing as choosing between having a warp booster pack or a chaff pack, the two are completely different things. A chaff pack, for example, can be reloaded onto a fighter as something a deck crew does while doing something else, like fitting a warp pack. The only time reloading chaff takes a deck crew action is if the deck crew is not doing ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL ON THE FIGHTER. So there is just no way that a fighter would have to choose between having a chaff pack or a warp booster pack.
I just do not see any reason to reinvent the wheel. The Shenyang F-7 already exists.
Richard Sherman:
During peacetime I could see the Commodore of a carrier group TRADING his best pilots, their fighters, and deck crews for replacements of same. No one would want the carrier operating "short handed" during a competition that, as noted (with the travel times) could take six months or a year. The APT that arrived to pick up his "top phaser" team would have the replacements on board and would leave them with the carrier. It is one of those "prestige things" that matters so much in peacetime militaries. Having his fighters win the competition would look good on his record, i.e., he did a good job of overseeing their training.
But, no, in wartime it just is not going to happen.
SPP:
Trading or getting replacements? Yeah, I can see that. Ok! Making notes for a story arc to take place with the USS NELSON CVSG (with a squadron of NG F4 fighters) on the Klingon border in Y171.
Story will also involve how NELSON got her F15s. Any problem if I write to establish that NELSON was the first carrier to receive NG F15s as part of the final (combat?) trials of the fighter in Y171? (I know that operational squadron service is Y172.)
I know I should know this, but exactly what day did the Klingons invade the Federation in Y171? (that's a date I bet every F&E player knows...)
Richard Sherman:
Published background in Captain's Log #9 says Nelson got her F-15s in Y170. This would be the "limited number up to two years earlier" allowed in the notes section after Annex #4 of the Master Fighter Chart since the F-15's squadron service date is Y172.
Captain's Log #9 also notes that the day the Klingons ". . . crossed over the border in the hour before dawn . . ." was 2 August 171, also known as "Fall Y171" to Federation and Empire Players.
Ok, thanks. I might have to pick a different carrier. I'll give it some thought...
Captain's Log #9 says Groshkov was completed in Y170, initially deployed with F-4s to the Romulan front, then returned to Earth after only a few months to receive F-15s "shortly after the Nelson received them." The USS Sam Houston was completed in Y171 with F-15s. As of Captain's Log #9 there were no other CVBs. I do not think anything on that score has changed.