This was prepared for submitting to SVC as a fiction thing for Captains Log, but on reading it, I see it has many problems that would prevent it from be published in "real history" of SFB.

I offer it here for those stout of heart who are willing to read a very long and (some might say) boring post.

There is an extensive quote from John Sickels article from Cap Log #31. any typographical errors or misspellings are my responsibility.

The B-17 “Flying Fortress” Bomber, In service with United Federation of Planets PDU’s (Planetary Defense Units) from year 158 (YIS 160 but prototypes available up to 2 years earlier) was one of the most underated designs to ever see wide spread use across the entire UFP. With more than 300 units produced (See Cap Log#31 A Short History of the Federation Bomber Program, by John Sickels, pages 24-26...”The B-17 design was based on the triple sized cargo shuttle...(edit)... (R1.f13). The B-17 was produced in the hundreds and sold to various colony planets; most were found to be useless in combat and converted back into cargo shuttles for commercial use. “ And further, the article went on to say “The B-17 ...(edit)... had no cargo capacity when operated as bombers. If you leave the drone rails empty, they have 1/3 of the original cargo capacity (by utilizing the external cargo pods carried by shuttle craft).” and also made the observation of “The primary distinction between the “kit Bombers” (B-32, B-24 and B-26) and the purpose built bombers (B-17, B-25, B-29) was that the kits, being designed for rapid installation, could not add phasers to the shuttles.”

Further analysis of the source data has revealed a more detailed history of the B-17 program than reported in Cap Log#31. Improved variants of the B-17 design included letter models “A” thru “G” (with the majority of the production being model ‘F’s and ‘G’s. there was also a special anti fighter model “B-40" (more information on that later).

The decision to begin production of the first model B-17A’s was a political one, and not the result of combat or military experience. It should also be pointed out that the first request for proposal was issued in early year 159 (see Cap log#31 page 24, first col). A number of corporations (including Boeing, Shengyang and Theral) had been ‘tipped off’ that such a RFP was going to be issued and started bomber development in anticipation of the actual announcement.

All of the companies participating in the process hoped to profit immensely by foreign sales of their bomber designs to non-UFP member aligned worlds as well as export and licensed sales to the Kzinti Hegemony and Gorn Confederation.

The Name “Flying Fortress” was not actually coined by the Boeing Corporation at the first roll out of the B-17. At that time, the craft did not have a name. A reporter covering the event (not having any prior military or defense experience, and never having been in the Star Fleet or National Guard in any capacity) pronounced the design to be “A Flying Fortress”, the story having been picked up for wide distribution thru the popular media networks created a huge pool of public support and enthusiasm for the bomber. The result of which was colony planets demanding “B-17 Squadrons” for local defense to protect the homeland from all threats.

Contracts were signed, and Boeing/Mikoyan/Gurevich Consortium on Earth began producing a line of Bombers that would continue for decades (including the B-47, B52, B-70 and the B-1(aka B-80).

There is an old saying to the effect that “haste makes waste”. This was especially true of the first model B-17A. In order to get a working design flying, the BMG Consortium made a number of ill conceived decisions on the Model A. First being that (with the older shuttle engines from the original HFS) the engines simply did not generate enough energy to move both the shuttle frame and the ordinance loaded upon it at the desired speed . The B-17A max speed is 5, (not 6 as was common on virtually all following models. The DFR was -2, and the Damage capacity was only 12 (inspite of being a 3 space shuttle). Also, available energy did not allow for 2 phaser 3's to be mounted (and powered) at the same time and the 360 degree firing arc required additional equipment, so a single phaser 3 (FA) was fitted in the nose of the bomber frame, just ahead of where the pilot sat. Lastly, the drone load of the early B-17A only had 4 standard drone rails (type I’s) instead of the 6 available on following models.

When the PDU’s officers finally received delivery of the initial B-17A’s, they were not impressed. They let their local politicians know about the lemons they had purchased, and the politicians (predictably) vented their ire upon BMG.

By June year 159 BMG announced that the “improved B-17B” was available. The “New” bomber had improved engines, capable of speed 6, still had but one phaser 3 FA and 4 drone rails, but allowed the Marketing department of BMG to hail the new variant a “quantum improvement” over the B-17A. Unfortunately, it still had a DFR of -2, and the Damage capacity was only marginally improved to 13.

Combat officers at the various NG bases grudgingly admited that a 20% increase in speed was good but did not address the major combat deficiencies of the Bomber.

By November year 159, BMG again rolled out a new model, this time a B-17C. Again with more powerful engines, it allowed for the installation of a 360 degree phaser 3 and the original phaser 3 FA, drone rails increased to 5 rails, and speed remained the same as 6. It still had the DFR of -2 and the damage was increased to 14.

By this time watch dog media reporters had finally stumbled on the story, and rumors of a defense procurement scandal were beginning to reach the general public. In response, BMG announced a “Squadron upgrade” to a new type, the B-17D model that alledgely would resolve the issues. The B-17D again retained Speed 6, the phasers would be changed to 2 x 360 degree types, and the drone rails would be increased to 6. The DFR was improved to -1 and the Damage was again increased to 15.

The UFP Senate held hearings on the matter in year 161, and in anticipation of being “grilled” by angry senators on the Armed Service Committee, the BMG Consortium officers made an announcement of “yet another” improved B-17E. The only major change was an increase of the damage to 16.

In Year 162 (Fall) the BMG Consortium again tried to improve both its image (and the image of the B-17 program) by introducing the B-17F model, (and fully 25% of all production was of this type). The major change consisted of increasing the damage to 17.

In Year 163, the B-17G finally appeared, with a Damage capacity of 18, a BPV of 12, and this is the model that became the most common design in service with 50% of all production.

The entire episode consumed an enormous amount of resources, time and money. The Defense of the UFP was not enhanced as the combat ability of the B-17 models were indeed virtually useless in combat and the life expectancy of the personnel assigned to flying the B-17's (in combat) was estimated to be about 50%.

On the plus side, most planets populations during the years the B-17's were in active service (please note the difference between “front line service” and “active service”) were ignorant of the relative value of the B-17's and the image of the Bomber became an Icon of the years representing military preparedness. Such is the power of the popular media to shape the expectations of the general population.

One subscript of the B-17 story concerns the little known “B-40" program. In years 165 to 168, a series of fighter raids on a number of B-17G equipped PDU colony worlds illustrated the vulnerability of the B-17 design to contemporary single space fighters (mostly Orion’s flying off of CVL’s(which had a YIS of 170, but there was a record of early encounters) and fighter sweeps by Kzinti and Klingon fighters on the borders. (Given the slow speed of fighters in service at the time, this is something of a mystery), but the records do show combat losses prior to the General War.

In a last ditch attempt to vindicate the B-17 program (and to provide cover for the BMG efforts to sell advanced (at the time) B-47's and (later) B-52's BMG offered a limited production run of the B-40 upgrade to the B-17G models.

At this point, the last thing BMG wanted was to put the B-17 name back in to the public and the media so the B-40 designation was adopted to “cover” the upgrade. The change was comprehensive and inexplicable at the same time. First, in the “nose” of the B-17 frame, a single round ADD launcher was mounted in the void left when the original phaser 3 FA was removed in year 158 from the B-17A. Secondly, a pair of RA phaser 3's were mounted in the tail assembly of the bomber, new engines again fitted but instead of increasing the speed of the bomber, all of the additional energy was used to power the additional phaser 3's. the drone rails were retained but type VI drones were mounted on each rail. The addition of more phaser 3's also reduced the speed of the B-40 from 6 to 5 (with use of mid turn speed changes, 6 could be attained, but given the size and lack of "handiness" of the design, it was a very difficult manuver to perform).

The intent was to make the B-17 type into a “fighter killer”.

The result was disappointing as the changes virtually disarmed the bomber when faced with non fighter threats (such as a raiding Orion Pirate). Production of B-40's was limited to 24 to 48 units (the record is not clear as to the exact number... it is possible that not all were competed once the first units were evaluated in year 168.

The Cap Log #31 article also made note that most B-17's were converted back to commercial service, (eventually, and almost always after newer bomber types became available and were deployed to the various PDU’s that were equipped with B-17's.

In this role, the Converted commercial B-17's were less than successful. The conversion yeilded only a 25 cargo point capacity (normal 3 space cargo shuttles normally have a 75 cargo point capacity. And the space frame design did not allow the craft to increase speed in the absence of the 360 phaser 3's and the drone guidance systems were fully integrated into the avionics of the design. The result was a expensive, costly and maintainance hog of a shuttle that cost 3 times as much to operate as a 1 space admin shuttle would cost.

Most such retired bombers spent years sitting around the fighter and bomber facilities while newer designs (F-4 , F-8 and B-52's, for example) provided the majority of the Federation fighter and shuttle defenses until the Klingon invasion of August year 171. On those planets in the territory that the Klingons attacked, many Coalition Fighters attacked the retired bombers in the early attacks as targets of opportunity. Much ordinance and phaser charges were used to demolish the old veterans.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 01:34 am: Edit

Addenda on this.
It should be noted that many planets used their B-17s valiantly in defense of their worlds when they were faced with lack of availability of more modern bombers (or spare parts to keep them flyable). It should also be noted that while the death rate is the fortress was horrific, there were countless documented cases where the crew (or what was left of it) testified that they would not have survived if not for the ability of their craft to keep going despite damage that made the craft a "mission kill". While most of these were picked over for parts (what parts made it home) the craft earned the love and respect of their crews.

Jeff-
Interesting & enjoyable (then again I think an evening with Janes aircraft of WWII is just that!).

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Hi everyone:

John Gale had a great SSD of a B-17 a few years ago on his Galactic Domination Website. It is a pitty that he wouldn't conform to the online policies of this GREAT WEBSITE nad keep his website up for all to enjoy but oh well. I still have the SSD somewhere in my Science Fiction Folder on my computer, I will see if I can dredge it up for all to enjoy.

How about an SSD of yours Jeff Wile?, willing to give it a go?. A lot of people would love to see it I bet.

Until next time from GHDAR PRIME, "THE GODZILLAKING".

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:34 pm: Edit

JEH:

I beleive the B-17 bomber shuttle has been published.

Any changes to the variant that a player would care to "fly" would mostly rquire crossing off those items that are "missing" from the published design.

The one significant exception would be the B-40 variant.

not sure anyone would want to fly such a beast... or even if preparing a profile would be worthwhile?!?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 02:22 pm: Edit

While reading a history of US Bomber aircraft, I came across references to the B-18 Bolo.

For those not familiar with it, it was a contemporary of the B-17 based on a popular (for the time) commercial passenger aircraft. 2 engines, and significantly smaller than a B-17, the B-18 was adopted for frontline service with the US Army Air Corps.

The reason was cost, the isolationist US Congress looked at the per unit cost of a B-17, and found they could buy two or more B-18's for the same cost. (never mind that 2 B-18's couldnt carry more bombs than 1 B-17, wasnt as well protected and had a fraction of the defensive guns of a B-17, the Congress critters prevailed and so there were B-17's at Pearl Harbor, the Philipine islands, protecting Panama, and were counted as part of the "air Force" defending Alaska from invasion.

If a B-17 is based off of a 3 space shuttle, I wonder if there could be another "cheap" kit bomber in the SFU reflecting the "competition".

The thing is, the medium bomber from the Cap Log was (IIRC) the B-25... and frankly, the B-25 was far superior to what the B-18 was (as a bomber shuttle).

Just wondering if the United Federation of Planets Senate and council would take a similar opportunity if offered like the US Congress and Senate did in the years before the US got involved in WW2...?

A civilian based design originally intended for cargo and passenger service might be convertable back to a utility shuttle... just like the B-17's were... and if that were true, the B-18 might end up with the same cargo capacity (or greater) than what a B-17 could carry.

If a B-17 has a cargo capacity of 25 cargo points (compared to a normal cargo shuttle (3 space type) which is 75) then a B-18 would (in this context) have the same 25 cargo point capacity on a 2 space shuttle frame.

just a thought.