A-10 and A-20 assault fighters are limited to the number of carriers that they can operate from due to the need for warp power to reload the photons carried by those types of fighters.

This proposal assumes that a CVT has been modified in such a way so as to allow the CVTB to operate photon armed fighters as part of its fighter group.

Changes to the P-CVA include:

1. Replace the 2xdrone racks (labled #2 & #3 on the SSD, page 42 of Captains Advanced Missions SSD book), and the 2xAUX CON with 6 WPR.

2. change the 2xBTTY to 2xAUX CON.

3. Upgrade the existing APR to WPR.

4. modify 12 fighter shuttle boxes to have A-10 ready racks and connections for reloading the A-10's photons. (note: if A-20's are carried, the same 12 shuttle boxes would have to be configured to handle A-20's.)

Fighters carried:
12xF-18, 12xA-10.

All other data same as P-CVA.

Comments:

the resulting P-CVB has 2 less Drone racks, and 2 less BTTY than the vanilla P-CVA, but has a total of 10 WPR.

While it might be preferable to have 12 WPR for use in charging the fighter photon charges, 12 can not be made available without further reducing the Pods existing systems...which means sacrificing phaser gatlings, tractors, Hull or impulse power.

The loss of both drone racks and the two batteries will reduce the combat ability of the carrier tug somewhat, but it is felt that the ability to operate photon armed A-10s or A-20's more than compensates.

Limits:

It is suggested that such a modified carrier pod would only be produced after the loss of 1 or more CVA class ships.

the P-CVB is subject to the existing F&E limits on how many P-CVA pods may be in service, and is further considered to be a "CVA" interms of F&E production. (counts as a CVA variant).

By John Pepper (Akula) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:01 am: Edit

I like the idea of lighter A-10 platform because the CVA is a pain in the butt to play. However, I'm not sure this is it. I believe that if a CVA gets destroyed I can already replace the F-18's with F-14's/A-10's?

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:02 pm: Edit

John, (R2.22) has a provision to replace 12 F-18s with F-14s if a CVA has been lost. The existing rule doesn't talk about putting A-10s from a lost CVA on a CVT.

Jeff, I don't know that you would get SVC/SPP to bite on replacing those boxes with additional AWRs, but I agree with you that the existing APRs on a CVT would need to be upgraded to AWR if it was going to support A-10s (or A-20s), even in a hypothetical/conjectural case. If only that was done, the CVT would at least be able to come up with the 24 power needed to arm the photons (its speed would be pretty restricted though). Adding the AWR as you suggest would let the ship move at a reasonable battle speed. On the surface, the CVT looks like a better A-10/A-20 hauler than the CVH (41 vice 38 power), but when you consider the price of being a size class 2 ship (1.5 movecost/6.5 HK) its understandable why the existing ship description for a CVT pod omits A-10s in favor of F-18s.

Seems reasonable enough to me. If the Feds lost a CVA, I could see them at least considering your proposed modification as a way to keep the A-10s in the field. The only other alternative I can see would be to field something like the CVH earlier than Y177, and operate A-10s from it rather than A-20s.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Yea I want the CAV(CVH with A-20s internal) to be able to operate A-10's prior to Y177.

Jeremy anyway I can talk you into doing the SSD? If you want I have the CAV info from R-11.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 03:39 pm: Edit

John, Unless you are going to build a heavier pod (the existing P-CVA is IIRC a double weight pod) I don't know that you would be able to find a combination that allows you the luxury of 24 fighter shuttle boxes (note there are no admin shuttles on the vanilla P-CVA), and still be able to retain 8 Tractors, 4 phaser Gatlings, 2 impulse, 2 Drone racks, 2 BATT, 4xAPR and 2 Aux Con (I know there is hull, but I don't recall if it was 2 or 4 boxes... I think it only had 2 hull) and still be able to increase the number of APR/WPR by a meaningful number.

The ability to operate F-14 fighters off of a P-CVA is very important, but I was looking at the photon armed A-10/A-20 squadron... and extra power for reloading the photons seemed to be an important requirement for it to beable to operate photons armed assault shuttles.

Jeremy, yeah I understand that the steves have held the line on certain proposals. It just seemed that for photon armed fighters a higher WPR capacity is a basic requirement.

A lot of players don't seem to understand/(appreciate?!?) that fighteres/carriers/escorts form a kind of symbiosis... that the whole group has to work in cooperation for maximum effectiveness.

the CVT operating F-18 and F-14 fighters have sufficient drone capacity... but the missing photons of the A-10/A-20 squadron means that it (the Tug+P-CVA+fighters) is not an exact substitute for a CVA group with F-14s and A-10s.

Just my $0.02

By John Pepper (Akula) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Jeff I agree with you. Thats why a long time ago I proposed a NCL carrier with Photon's replaced with AWR. Kinda a NVL designed to operate A-10's and the topic turned into a debate on cargo boxes. Ships in SFB tend to be designed to be "balanced" rather then you need X to correctly operate Y. Photons really scare a lot of players, not just on the board, for some reason.

I think the most realistic way to get another A-10 platform approved is that early CAV with A-10's.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 07:14 pm: Edit

R2.R3 (BS, pg 165) AWR refit states most Federation ships were modified to AWR replacing the APR. The refit began in Y170 until Y174. There is one stipulation that it was ships armed with Photons.

You could apply the refit to the pod, determining that the Photon shuttle boxes fullfill the requirement of "armed with photon torpedoes." This will at least give your unit some warp.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Ken, I considered just specifying a AWR refit for the CVT... but then realized that just 4 more warp power boxes wouldnt be enough to satisfy 12 photon freeze boxes in the A-10 ready racks.

Ideally 12 would be better on the pod, but I just don't see how you can get that much without giving up some other vital system (like Impulse power, phaser G, or tractors.

As Jeremy observed earlier, the proposed 10 AWR P-CVB pod helps, but trying to rearm an entire squadron of A-10's is going to take more power.

A-20s with mega packs are even more power demanding...

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Jeff,

The R2.R3 rule give you a place start. As a minimum it gives you justificaiton for when your refit would happen.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 10:52 am: Edit

Ken, thats good, as far as it goes...

The problem I see is that prior to the loss of the MacArthur and the Turkey shoot scenario, the Federation (accrding to SFH) didn't need a heavy carrier pod that could support A-010s (and later, when available the A-20s).

It was after the the Mac fell into Remus that another CVA would have been needed... and Admiral Radey's Carrier (had it been lost or seriously damaged) would have left the Federation short on CVA class ships.

Remember that according to Star Fleet History (the production choices of F&E players not withstanding) only three CVA class hulls were completed (the fourth was completed as a SCS and atleast one of the CVA's was also converted IIRC).

It might be fun and what all to have a P-CVB available as year 170... but the preceived need for such a pod wouldng have occured until after year 181-83 events had transpired.

if it took 6 months to build or convert a P-CVA to the P-CVB configuration, the first (only?!?) CVTB might not have commisioned until the Fal of year 183 or later.

and that still leaves us with the power deficit for operating A-20Ms.

I wonder if a CVTB could operate with a light power boost pod?!? say that such a device could hold 25 AWR plus the hull, bridge, impulse and perhaps some defense weapons as well?

that would add 27 or 29 total power to the 41 on a CVT... 25 of which is warp power.

using all of tugs availabe warp power for movement, the resulting ship would be slow perhaps 15 or 16 hexes per turn... but it would still have 29 points of warppower (assuming a vanilla P-CVA with a AWR refit for the 4 power reactors) for reloading the photon freezers.

if the proposed P-CVB pod were used with its 10 AWRs, then the CVTB would have 35 points of warp power for reloading the photon freezers.

still short of power for reloading all of thephotons that a A-20M squadron has, but better than most existing A-20M carriers that I can recall off hand.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Jeff,

SVC has at least entertained the idea that more CVAs were built (#4 being the Ceaser as early as Y176) based on the draft Fed carrier article: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/12099/cl37b2fedcvhistory.pdf

I like the idea that more CVAs existed. One, I like the name Julius Ceaser and use it for the CVA in my campaign. Two, more than three CVAs tend to happen in any F&E game.

Just a side note really. Bottom line comes down to how badly to the Feds need a ship (or tug+pod combo) to carry a CVA's carrier group on a single hull. I would think the most important window would be between Y171 (the year the CVA, F-14, and A-10 appear) and Y177 (the year we start to get dedicated A-20 carriers). Once Y177 hits, if the Feds are using CVBGs (I can't remember the date they become possible), I think they would just combine a couple of carrier groups to get a CVA equivalent. But before that date, nothing but a CVA can carry a photon armed fighter, and there might be a dire need for a replacement.

I don't have any real beef with the idea by the way. Just pondering where it would fit best historically.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Well, I don't have any intrinsic objection to a tug-based A-10 (or A-20) carrier. But I do object (if I correctly understand what he is trying to do) to Jeff's attempts to give the thing horrendous amounts of power. The tug-based version should be somewhat under-powered compared to the CVA, or especially the DVA.

I actually think ADB has gone a bit too far in the direction of allowing tugs with pods to do real warship roles. Assuming comparable technology in both ships, a Battle Tug should be inferior to a true Dreadnought, which was designed specifically to be a heavy warship. The tug was designed for logistics support rather than to be a warship, and while it can adopt warship roles through the use of pods, it should have inherent limitations reflecting its "jury rigged" nature. So an A-10 or A-20 carrying CVT; yes. But it needs power limitations or it is just a munchkin ship.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 03:52 pm: Edit

I should add as clarification to the last post that an A-10/ A-20 carrying CVT would reasonably have some kind of power upgrade. But Jeff's suggestion that

---

Quote:

I wonder if a CVTB could operate with a light power boost pod?!? say that such a device could hold 25 AWR plus the hull, bridge, impulse and perhaps some defense weapons as well?

that would add 27 or 29 total power to the 41 on a CVT... 25 of which is warp power.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Alan, the problem is trying to fit a carrier with enough power to adequately move at something more than a crawl (lets just assume less than 8 hexes per turn or warp 2) and have enough power to power up all or most photon torpedos (and the associated charges) on a CVA/CVB pod.

Just looking at the A-20M I see it listing as having 2 photon tubes and 2 charges each.

in a combat situation, that means (assuming all 6 A-20M's are pressent) there are 6x4 photons needing to be charged ... thats 24 photons, at 2 points of warp power each for 2 turns... which means that the tug (or whatever carrier has the A-20M squadron on board) needs 48 points of warp power per turn.

There are two issues heere... a P-CVB pod with 10 AWR on board... and an open question as to the possibility that a carrier pod tug combination can use a power poost pod.

I think it would be easier to discuss each separately and not just assume that both need be present to evaluate the proposal.

IMO 10 AWR is a "drop in the bucket" when the carrier needs to find 48 points of warp power for two turns.

as to the power boost AWR pod, that was a question I was asking in passing... feel free to be critical of it, I'm not that connected to it that I'm actively fighting for it... just a question that occured to me while posting about the other.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Jeff,

The DVA, published in the latest CL, generates 57 points of power (going from memory here - I may be slightly off) and carries 6 A-20s. If it's hanging back out of the battle (therefore not arming its own weapons) while moving at speed 8 while paying housekeeping costs, it is spending (10.5 warp plus 1 impulse) for movement and 6.5 for hk, leaving 39 power for the A-20s. It cannot generate the photons for an A-20M squadron in only 2 turns and it is the top of the line non-X Fed carrier; the best of the best. And that's assuming its not arming its own weapons. If the DVA is fighting directly in combat as well, the power situation is even grimmer. Difficulty in rearming the fighters is an inherent limitation of A-10/ A-20 carriers. Some effort to mitigate the problem is justified. For example, the suggestion of an A-10/ A-20 carrier based on a BCV rather than a CVS strikes me as reasonable. But simply giving the carriers so much power that the problem disappears... is not reasonable. the fact that you see a "need" is no guarantee whatsoever that the technology exists to meet that need.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Where is this Fed light power boost pod? What's its designation? I'm not familiar with it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Tos,

I don't think it does exist. I think it's something Jeff is proposing.

And I say again, based on the numbers in his 10:52 am post ("... 25 AWR plus the hull, bridge, impulse and perhaps some defense weapons as well.") it's not by any stretch of the imagination a "light" pod. It's huge. It's a behemoth. It's podzilla.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 05:34 pm: Edit

And just to be completely clear here, Jeff's initial proposal:

---

Quote:

Changes to the P-CVA include:

1. Replace the 2xdrone racks (labled #2 & #3 on the SSD, page 42 of Captains Advanced Missions SSD book), and the 2xAUX CON with 6 WPR.

2. change the 2xBTTY to 2xAUX CON.

3. Upgrade the existing APR to WPR.

4. modify 12 fighter shuttle boxes to have A-10 ready racks and connections for reloading the A-10's photons. (note: if A-20's are carried, the same 12 shuttle boxes would have to be configured to handle A-20's.)

Fighters carried:
12xF-18, 12xA-10.

All other data same as P-CVA.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Ok, to be fair, the idea of a power boost pod was just a passing thought... and is not an active proposal... sort of a trial ballon.

its light incomparison to a double weight CVA pod...which makes it similar to the light battle pod or the light CV pod (the one with 12 fighters, not 24).

And frankly... if you just towed a light battle pod in the after setion of the tug pod combination, it wouldnt be able to use its photon torpedos... but It should be able to contribute warp power from its AWR's to the P-CVBs photon freezers...

heck, (just going by memory here, havent checked) if the light battle pod has 4 phton torpedos and 8 AWR, a modified power boost thingee could be fabricated just by changing the phtonos to AWRs, give the whole thing 12 warp power... plus the legacy systems of the LBP.

Again, just a thought.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Yeah, to be fair I was going overboard to belabor the size and call it a "behemoth" and "podzilla". It's not that large. Though I don't think it can plausibly be called a "light" anything either.

My fundamental objection remains the notion the the Feds ought to be able to field a carrier that can rearm a full squadron of photon-equipped megafighters in 2 turns, while moving at high speed. Looking at the best existing ships for rearming photon fighters, we have the dreadnought-based DVA and the X-cruiser based HVX. And neither of those can maintain speed-8 in a combat environment while rapidy rearming fighters. Heck, even the Fed battleship-based BBV and Stellar Domination Ship (had the Feds actually built any battleships) would only be able to make a speed of about 12 if they had to rearm a full squadron of photon megafighters in 2 turns. And that's still without arming the battleship's own weapons.

But again, I have no objection to your basic concept; only to the idea that through the magic of "pods" it should be able to do what dreadnoughts, X-cruisers, and even battleships cannot do.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Alan, I dont think the CVT with a single weight LBP (modified power boost thingee) is particularly fast... flat out, I think its maximum tactical speed is 15 or 16 hexes per turn... and even at that, its only going to have the 10 AWR of the original P-CVB to rearm the A-20Ms...which will require what? 5 turns almost?

If the LBP/modified power boost idea is added in, you are looking at 12 more AWR (the original 8 APR upgraded to AWR status, and converting the 4 photons (which can't be used when the LBP is in the rear position)... that's a total of 22 AWR for use in reloading the A-20M photons (all 24 of them).

if the tug pod combo had used some of its engines to add in just 2 more points of warp power, the carrier could power up 12 photons a turn (two points of power for each photon freezer), 2 turns each means that it still takes 4 turns to finish loading up the whole squadron... not something that will help in a serious short range combat situation.

the "Magic Pods" in this case aren't... and while they may compare favorably to the ships you mentioned, they are still not trapesing around at warp 3.2 and fully loading all of the photon freezers at the same time.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Well, perhaps now would be a good opportunity to restate the proposal:

Changes to the P-CVA include:

1. Replace the 2xdrone racks (labled #2 & #3 on the SSD, page 42 of Captains Advanced Missions SSD book), and the 2xAUX CON with 6 WPR.

2. change the 2xBTTY to 2xAUX CON.

3. Upgrade the existing APR to WPR.

4. modify 12 fighter shuttle boxes to have A-10 ready racks and connections for reloading the A-10's photons. (note: if A-20's are carried, the same 12 shuttle boxes would have to be configured to handle A-20's.)

Fighters carried:
12xF-18, 12xA-10.

All other data same as P-CVA.

The new Carrier Pod is to be designated a: P-CVB.
the CVT, when converted to the P-CVB standard is to be referred to as: CVTB.

One question that hasnt been answered yet, is should the Fighter Group remain composed of 12xF-18 and 12xA10 fighter shuttles?

For the P-CVB to be a true replacement of the (presumed lost) CVA class, it would need to operate the CVA Flight Group.

IIRC, the difference really impacts F&E as much as it does SFB's, as the F-14&A-10 combination is worth 15 COMP (compared to 24 x F-18 fighters from the vanilla CVT, which has IIRC a COMPOT of 12 for its Flight Group).

Plus, if the A-20FM (fast mega pack) is substituted for the A-10's, (YIS 179 I think) the more advanced F-14 BM would be added as well, and both of those upgraded types are a significant improvement over the originals.

If this CVBT was a "late War" conversion, the better fighters would be part of the ship, and between the huge number of photons and Gatling Phasers, it would have to be considered a major threat to the coalition. Certainly a reasonable replacement for any combat losses in the CVA force.

By Dal Downing Rambler (3deez) on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Reading through this way late to the disscussion I have to ask why the thing must carry Photon Armed Fighters. I could see a CVT carrying F101 or F111 and F14s but I can not see why a Tug Heavy Carrier would carry power robbing Photon chunkers. We know the Tug already is hobbling as it is. But in reallity being a Late War Hail Mary stunt wouldn't you just take a CVT and Battle Group it with a NVH.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Dal,

You could, but I would advise looking at the last couple of sentances of the original proposal:

"Limits:

It is suggested that such a modified carrier pod would only be produced after the loss of 1 or more CVA class ships.

the P-CVB is subject to the existing F&E limits on how many P-CVA pods may be in service, and is further considered to be a "CVA" interms of F&E production. (counts as a CVA variant)."

Basically, this would be a cheap CVA replacement that would allow a player to field a A-10 or A-20 squadron without having to build a new CVA hull or wait for a damaged CVA to be repaired.

YMMV.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 05:49 pm: Edit

I thought there already *was* a CVA pod...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 06:00 pm: Edit

There is, but it is not configured to handle A-10s or A-20s.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 06:02 pm: Edit

John Trauger:

What Jeff Wile is trying to do is move the A-10 squadron of a damaged CVA to a CVA pod. Right now Federation CVA pods just operate drone-armed fighters. These were usually two squadrons of F-18s, but (as is noted in the pod description and repeated in Module G3A) when a CVA was out of action for a period one (never both) of the F-18 squadrons was replaced by a squadron of F-14s.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Steve Pterick:

To be fair, there is also a Game Players issue involved.

A CVT operating a P-CVA with a squadron of A-10 or A-20 fighters is somewhat less complicated than operating a Full CVA (ignoring the escorts, for the moment)... fewer systems, somewhat less warp power available... it would allow a player (or a home run campaign group) to concentrate more time and effort on the Assault Shuttle operations and comparatively less time on running what is (after all) a variant DN hull. Not all players are necessarily ready for the challenge of running a CVA or SCS group,

Just another $0.02 worth.

Respectfully,
Jeff Wile