The ships we need to review for technical feasability are the DND and BF.

The BF mounts a D-Rack and a pair of Ph-3 directly to the hull, no pylon. Y165.

The DND has a D-Rack and a single Ph-3 on one pylon, plus a welded D-Rack and three Ph-3 in back. Y176.

Basically, the engineering is available to do anything we want, but its probably easiest to slap the BF hull mounted racks on since they would have been designed at the same time.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:32 pm: Edit

****. You guy just kill me.

Here I go to all the trouble to start a discussion on a plain 'ole early BCH variant... nothin special... now you are campaigning for a Legendary Drone Chucker (LDC) that can eat the Kzinti CC for a snack and then comback looking for more.

Ok guys, any bright ideas on how to present this to SPP in such a way that he doenst start complaining of shortness of breath and chest pain?!?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Easy, have someone other than me submit the SSD.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Tos, I think that ship has sailed... its not like the powers that be won't be able to see your finger prints all over this thing!

At this point I can't comprehend the kind of heroic back story that would have to accompany this monster (the LDC)... it would have the Noble class drooling and falling over each other to get command of one of these little bad boys.

Lets look at the current incarnation of this beast.

I'm guessing were going to go with the 4 x D drone Racks, 1xADD, 3 cargo, no B or C racks, and CR rating 8?

Comparison BCHe2/CC

System	BCHe3	CC	Diff
Sh#1	34	30	4
Sh#2&#6	28	28	0
Sh#3&#5	24	22	2
Sh#4	24	22	2
Br	3	2	+1
Flag	0	2	-2
F Hull	5	5	0
Ph1-LF&L	0	0	0
Ph1-FA&L	1	1	0
Ph1-Rf&R	0	0	0
Ph1-FA&R	1	1	0
Tran	5	5	0
BTTY	7	5	+2
EMER	1	1	0
Trac	3	2	+1
APR	6	5	+1
Disr-LF&L	0	0	0
Disr-FA&L	2	2	0
Disr-RF&R	0	0	0
Disr-FA&R	2	2	0
Ph3-LS	2	2	0
Ph3-RS	2	2	0
Drone A	0	0	0
Drone B	0	2	-2
Drone C	0	2	-2
Drone D	4	0	+12*
Probe	1	1	0
Shttl	4	2	+2
Cargo	3	0	+3
A Hull	16	12	+4
Ph1-360d	3	2	+1
Ph3-LR&L	2	2	0
Ph3-RR&R	2	2	0
Imp	4	3	+1
ADD	1	0	+1
L Warp	10	10	0
C Warp	10	10	0
R Warp	10	10	0

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 10:28 pm: Edit

You should just settle for 4xC in the pylons and 2xD racks in the body, with 3x Cargo boxes filling up the void spaces.

\cloakengaged

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 01:39 am: Edit

This is what the CDS looks like to me.

Fits between a CC and an NCC. Lots of phasers but light on power.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Tos,

I like it!

It is exactly what I suspect it would have appeared as refited post year 168 (after the Kzinti's joined (were forced into?!?) the General War.

A couple of comments, though:

1. the YIS of the prototype is assumed to be year 164... with a YIS date of 166 had the ship gone into full production (and again, this assumes no Carriers built so the CV hulls would be available for this class).

2. SPP's comments are the driving guidelines for the proposal... and as such, are some what different from what you have prsented.

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, I'd advise that the D racks be the year 168 CDS refit of the BCHe2 design.

1. That means 2xB and 2xC drone racks until year 168, when they were converted to the 4 x D rack configuration you have shown.

2. The Command rating would be dumbed down to F&E cmd:8, and no Flag Bridge. (side issue, the BCH has a 3 box Flag Bridge, not the 1 box shown... you might consider increasing the CDS to match the BCH facilities).

3. I suspect that the CDS refit should also include the 3 cargo boxes. (thus giving the huge D Racks a suitable drone stock pile for use).

Thus, (If you don't mind my comments!) the CDS refit would take the BCHe2 and replace 2xB and 2 x C drone racks with 4xD drone racks, add 3 x Flag Bridge, and 3 Cargo boxes.

This could even improve the "Back Story" as it takes a unique non command hull, and gives the ship a purpose... Drone Command Ship for the Classic DB missions.

I think that might be a better sounding story than just ending with the Nobles vs the down trodden commoners angle suggested by SPP. We could combine the narratives, and make the point that while "peace time" concerns prevailed, the "class conflict" was the main issue for the Nobles... but once a war was declared... the war effort became the primary consideration.

Comments?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Or we could justs adopt Scotts comments and make the standard drone config 4xC drone racks and 2xD drone racks?

It would be a significant drone capacity, either way.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Only concern I'd have with it would be a refit to add Cargo and D-racks would probably be a bit more extensive than switching out a similarly sized A rack for a B or C. Not to mention clearing room for cargo holds. Such a major change in the hull design almost seems to be more like an extensive remodel than a Refit. Almost comparable to changing a FF to a Drone Frigate or Scout Frigate.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Agreed. Swapping pylons for hardwelded D-racks isn't something one would undertake lightly.

Don't compare this to a BCH, compare it to a CVS. The CVS has the exact same fore section, including the flag. Ignoring SPP for the moment, what logic is there in removing it?

I can't think of any reason the ship would have 4C racks when 2C and 2B is the Kzinti standard. Put the pylons back on and the ship should have 2C 2B 2D, which is cool, but more powerful than I was shooting for.

This was a major combat ship that was planned for production, started, then converted in the yard to a carrier after the Klingon invasion. War requirements forced all future hull production to be carriers, hence none of these combat varients ever reached production.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 11:37 pm: Edit

Tos, I'd think the chronology of the ship tech would be the determining factor.

The YIS date for the CVS (and the C-14 refit) was 170. If a hull were available in Year 170, I could see it having the full CVS configuration.

Year 168... I could see it go either way (the CVS with the 1 box Flag Bridge included) or the CC clone which didnt get the Flag bridge box (but still has the 9 F&E command Rating). (this would be anticipating the CVS version using the 2 years earlier date under the prototype exception).

Year 166 (or earlier, possibly as early as year 160 if I understand what SPP was talking about a few days ago in his comments) the model has to be the CC option. That means 2xB and 2xC drone Racks, no D Drone Racks, No Flag Bridge, No Cargo and the 10 box warp engines.

I guess what this boils down to is where Kzinti ship design define weapons and command ratings in the ships forming the battle squadrons in the years before the General War.

The CDS is a War design for high risk/lethal environments where "normal" DB vessels based on Frigate hulls can't survive or complete the mission.

The problem I have with that, is there is IMO zero chance that a Carrier (CV or CVS) hull will be diverted to a non carrier role during the early GW years.

The one shot of getting a CDS, requires that there be an existing hull not used as a carrier... and the only scenario that anyone has suggested such a thing could have happened is SPP and his 'Nobles vs down trodden commoners' backstory.

If a BCHe2 were constructed to test a new mainline combat hull in year 160 or so... it would have been available for conversion to CDS by year 170... otherwise the CDS would have to wait for the regular BCH production run... and that doesnt occur until year 180+... and that is atleast 10 years past the point where a CDS design actully makes sense.

I see this as a symbiosis... the CDS cant exist unless there was a BCHe2 available before hand. and the only way a BCHe2 could have existed, is if there were a prototype/test of concept thing done... and that has to have happened between year 160 and December year 169.

Otherwise, both hulls are conceptual at best, and Unbuilt Variants under most conditions.

I suppose, if a carrier were so badly damaged that it could nolonger serve as a carrier... it could be availble for a conversion to the CDS... I'll have to think about that.

Any serious damage that was enough to prevent a hull from functioning as a CV or CVS would likely also preclude it from being able to function as a CDS...

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 11:45 pm: Edit

So you are trying to make this historical? I'm fine with UNV.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 12:03 am: Edit

The back story would be historical... not saying that they were built... but there has to be some consistancy.

I still haven't got a clue as to what SPP considers to be a "heck of a backstory".

The difference in the time period litterally makes it difficult to connect the two proposals, unless there was some common elements for both hulls.

What ***I*** wanted was to write a back story that includes both the CDS and the early BCH ideas.

If one type dates back to year 160-66 and the other is a year 170+ design, it gets more difficult to reconcile.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 08:11 am: Edit

I wonder personally how much control the Kzinti Nobles have over ship construction and conversion. I mean I know on the F&E level that fleets belong to a noble, in name if nothing else. Marquis's Fleet, Baron's Fleet, Count's Fleet, Duke's Fleet. And the civil war that kicked those who would be WYN out suggest that the nobles have control over their fleets, rather than some centralized military brass outside of the noble lines.

What I'm working at is wondering if some noble might have looked at the performances of the AS, Long Lean, (And was it Typhon that got ate by Andros?), and start to doubt the viability of the Carrier battleline. Sure, good for bases and planets, but not mobile fleet elements. Hell, back in the AS days the lack of drone control on the fighters makes it sound reasonable enough.

Thus some noble decides to take the one CV he might have ability and go the BCHE and CDS idea. One ship wouldn't be enough to impact F&E. Just say it was one of those ships not in the game, like Gorn CVs, off doing... whatever during the War.

Maybe get a story where, during the time where the fleets acquire AASes as mainline units the noble in question has some "Proof of Concept" testing and trials with another noble's CV (Rivals? Political opponents?). CV idea with the new fighters wins out. He grudgingly refits it back and accepts the standardized designs and fleet tactics.

Later, CDS and round two after his CV gets mauled. He has the technology. He can rebuild it, he can make it better. Doesn't like Fighters. Fighter jocks get all the "honor" and prestige. And hell if he'll be flying a deathtrap just so they'll make Tri-vids about his dogfights before a T-bomb kills him. No, he'll take his largest hull and make it into a proper warship. One he can command, and one that will make a name for himself.


I dunno, spinning out ideas. Kzintis are tricky on the history because I can't quite wrap my head around it. Probably because all their leaders don't have names, just job titles.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

[duplicate post]

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 12:47 pm: Edit

OK, I'll throw a design into the ring...

Kzinti Heavy Strike Cruiser

Please be aware, the SSD is missing a bunch of notes. Posted without them to save time.

Background:

Following the 4th Klingon-Kzinti War (Y158-162), the Kzinti leadership began to recognize the need for more powerful warships. DNE losses had outpaced the limited construction of these ships, and the Hegemony was left to rely on the venerable CC to bear the brunt of the fighting. It quickly became apparent that a ship larger then the CC would be somewhat cumbersome (higher turn mode) so an early, somewhat peculiar set of decisions lead to the design of a heavier strike cruiser to be commanded by non-nobles. Additionally, improvements in drone technology promised to greatly increase drone expenditure in combat, and a cruiser with more drone stores for both itself and its squadron mates was becoming desireable. This lead to the inclusion of a large drone magazine and cargo bay for drone strorage, further increasing the size of the main hull. While larger, the ship's weaponry would still be marginally inferior to the CC, and its many limitations would force it to rely on the higher command rating, better drone control, and heavier firepower of th CC in fleet battles.

Uncertain of the ship's ultimate performace, production of the Heavy Strike Cruiser began slowly, with the first ship appearing in Y164. It was feared that CS engines would prove unable to move the bigger hull efficiently, and it was feared that the new heavyweight would turn out to be a complete failure. After more than year of testing, it became clear these fears were unfounded, and more ships were ordered.

Meanwhile, the Kzinti experiments with the DDV and the AS fighter had proven successful. By the mid-Y160's the Kzinti's began to explore options for larger, more capable carriers based on warship hulls. A squadron of 12 fighters was desired, but design studies that lead to the CVL and CVE failed to achieve that mark, largely due to Kzinti inexperience in build ships with such cavernous shuttle capacity. The CSH became a natural contender for the big carrier hulls, as it offered even more internal space. The large D-rack and drone cargo storage were sacrificed, and the CV design was born. CSH production was shifted to the CV in Y165, after only three CSH hulls had been completed.

Initially, the original CSH were used in cruiser squadrons as a heavy cruiser, with a CC and standard CS/CA. In this role, they performed adequately, but their high turn mode made them somewhat of a hinderence against maneverable opponents. With the C-14 refit becoming more common, and DN production lagging well behind expectations, the CSHs were converted to defacto flagships to fill in for DNs on less active fronts. During the period from Y168-Y171, the three CSHs underwent refits which included both the "Flag" upgrades and the "C-14" refit. On at least a few recorded occassions, a ship operated for a period with one refit and not the other (Flag without C-14, C-14 without Flag).

By Y172, it appears some or all of the CSH hulls had been lost or converted, but the concept would be revived years later in the BCH.

My thought is the ship gets extra disruptors, 10 box engines, and better disruptor arcs with the C-14 refit. The drone races, shields, and drone control don't get upgrade until the Flag refit. There is room for a drone cruiser conversion of one of the orginal hulls to match the design Tos posted.

By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 10:33 am: Edit

I like it.

I'd rather have a CV, but there is a logical reason why this was in the pipe. Its like the Iowa.... we couldn't be SURE that the Essex class was going to win WWII for us, so we built what we knew would work.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Its a good design for the early war years, but I can't accept the flag as a seperate refit. The flag should be included with the C-14 refit.

The other problem is the ship can either have 2xD 3xShut or 1xD 4xShut. Its going to be hard to write a back story where you can replace 1xShut with 1xD.

Here's a heavy DB version.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Gee, I don't know Tos... 3 cargo boxes of drone spaces may not be enough to satisfy all of the Drone D racks on that puppy.

With 6 Drone D Racks, the ship would normally have 1 drone reload until the year 175 refit.

At that point it gains another reload...so all told, it would have 150 spaces of drones in the 3 cargo boxes, 72 drone spaces loaded in the racks to begin with, and 1 reload for the drone racks... a further 72 spaces of drones.

the year 175 refit adds another reload, of 72 spaces for a grand total of 72 + 150 + 72 + 72 = 366 spaces of drones after year 175.

There are Carrier class ships that havent got that kind of storage capacity.

All you would need is to add Aegis, and make it the heavy escort for a SSCS group!

JSW

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Type-D drone racks do not have reloads. All of the drones a type-D normally has are already loaded into its three magazines. There is no Y175 refit for type-D drone racks.

A single type-D drone rack has 12 spaces of drones. Six of them would have 72 spaces. Three cargo boxes gives you another 150 spaces, so the ship would have (barring purchasing spare drones with Commander's Option Items) 222 spaces, or 111 type-IIIXX drones for a bombardment mission.

A Kzinti CD has six type-B drone racks holding 36 spaces of drones. Each type-B has one reload, for an additional 36 spaces of drones. The ships has six cargo boxes holding another 300 spaces of drones. Even without the Y175 refit (and again not using Commander's Options to purchase additional drones) that gives it a capacity for 186 type-IIIXX drones, or 75 more than Tos Crawford's design.

I am sorry, but it seems more than apparent to me that the CD has a greater drone throw-weight than this design by slightly more than 61%. I cannot see the Kzintis building this thing as a drone bombardment platform for that reason (if no other). It is too much hull to do a job not quite as well as a (proven) smaller hull (the CD).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 09:47 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Drats.

I didnt realize that the D racks had no additional reloads.

Thank you.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Tos-

The DB varaint is not a carrier.

It no longer needs the third tractor beam. I suggest replacing it with cargo (that makes 4 cargo boxes... and 200 drone spaces.

For actual symetry, you might consider moving the probe to where the flag bridge box is... and make the probe space a 5th cargo box.

that takes you to 250 cargo spaces, and when added to the 72 spaces in the D drone Racks, adds up to 322, which is 22 more than the Kzinti CD.

That takes the DB version to the point where it can "out CD the CD".

Not saying that it would be a planned addition to the fleet... more like an emergence replacement for a lost CD. the DB could be easily refitted from the BCHe2 in less time (and possibly cost) than a brand new CD could be produced.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

For the size of the hull (compared to a CD) is just eleven more bombardment drones (remember that type-IIIXX is a two-space drone) really worth the hull? And remember that the CD DOES yet a Y175 refit, and will pick up another 36 drone spaces (18 type-IIIXX) for a total of 708 spaces (600 in cargo, 72 for the two sets of reloads, plus the 36 in the racks) (or 354 type-IIIXX).

The investment in the hull for just eleven more bombardment drones than the pre-Y175 CD just does not seem worthwhile to me.

I mean, sure this thing is better than a DF (148 drone spaces or 72 bombardment drones), but two DFs are better than the original design (296 drone spaces or 144 bombardment drones). With the Y175 refit a single DF would have 208 drone spaces (104 bombardment drones), and two of them would have (obviously) 208 bombardment drones (and 416 drone spaces).

NOTE: Again, I am NOT trying to shut down discussion, nor am I declaring the Tos Crawford variation dead. I am only, I say again ONLY, making observations. I neither support, nor condemn the effort in this topic.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Its a fun hull to work with. So many opportunities, but boxed in by the history of the BCH. Its tough to keep this thing from being too good.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

The issue (I respectfully submit) is not money. (I'm loosely equating BPVs as a form of currency, in this context).

It is neither the amount of drone spaces carried by either hull (the DB or the CD or combinations of 1 or 2 DFs) or the relative value of a given year 175 refit on either of the designs (the DB or the CD).

The issue I was pointing out is time.

While SFB rules haven't defined the length of time required for construction on various hulls (the CDH did give suggestions, but I have no idea if you or SVC consider those suggestions "written in stone"), F&E does clearly indicate that construction is "on the order of" 6 month turns... and the designers notes make some mention of construction rates IIRC... the point is, that there are firm production limits... and firm limits on the number of drone ships that can be built in any given F&E turn.

If we assume that an emergecy replacement CD is needed, I am suggesting that a refit of the BCHe2 to a Tos inspired DB design might be somewhat faster than programming the next BC hull in 6 months as part of the normal ship production process.

In that case, the fact that the DB "is not as good" actually illustrates the idea that "something now" that can complete the Drone bombardment mission is superior to the perfect ship (meaning a brand spanking new CD) half a year later.

You and SVC have made the point that "Throughout history, many decisive battles were fought with "outdated" or "inappropriate" weapons because the new ones were not available in quantity."

(trivia question: who can identify the source of the above quote? answer in white: Rule FD2.3) Selection of Drones. Last paragraph, notes section. Page 73, Captains Basic Set.)

The General War was not fought in issolation, and Star Fleet history is full of situations where "perfect" was the enemy of "Good Enough".

Just pointing out that Tos' proposed ship isnt perfect... but it very much fits into the spirit that led a Federation Police commissioner (serpico, scorpio?!? sp?!?) to strap a pair of fjighter hanger pods onto the side of a police cruiser... the DB could be another "unique" ship that never entered into full production, and the one example that did get into combat... did so because the Kzintis were hard pressed during the GW and desperately needed a substitute CD.

On that score, having 11 more bombardment drones than a non-available CD might very well be "worthwhile" to a Kzinti admiral who needs a "CD stand in".

Of course, I may be wildly off base here. These are Unbuilt variants that we are talking about... and if (by some miricle) the Kzintis did build a "test of concept" hull to the BCHe2 standard (with its F&E command Rating of 8)... the ship wouldn't be convertable to a CV configuration without tearing out the entire command bridge deck (and all the EMer Bridge and Aux Con facilities)... I could see the test vessel sitting around collecting dust or used on less stress full missions... but when a DB were needed... the lower command rating wouldnt be a problem for a ship intended for independent operations (such as Drone Bombardment).

Just a thought.