Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	CONSOLIDATED LIST OF PROPOSAL NUMBERS	2		03/27 08:55pm
	Working Proposals 001-010	22		03/28 10:34pm
	Working Proposals 011-020	28		04/08 07:39am
	Working Proposals 021-030	19		04/08 07:48am
	Rejected Proposals 900-910	16		03/26 02:37pm
	Rejected Proposals K2-911-920	6		03/29 11:30pm
	Working Ship Proposals for K2	8		03/30 02:30am
	Archive through March 30, 2026	17		03/30 11:26pm

I am not sure that a standard AuxPFT isn't already doing the Sustainment Tender job. But if it's just one or two SSDs, we might.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Oops.

---

Quote:

... while nominally not as powerful as the true PFT...

---

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 05:43 pm: Edit

SVC, I think Alan and I are approaching the same idea from different directions. Yes, AuxPFTs are good enough to do the job most of the time, but there enough times when something more capable of operating at or near the front would be useful.

I’m thinking of something along the lines of the NCA strike PFT, but perhaps trading out some weapons or other capabilities for a small increase in support capacity (and a possible off-SSD bonus). Something meant to stand in the battle line and allow a few more PFs to be used when there otherwise wouldn’t be enough true tenders to support that concentration of gunboats.

What Alan is describing sounds to me like a ship or pod that provides “just behind the front” repair and refurbishment for damaged PFs to better keep tenders supplied. Something that isn’t vulnerable or slow like an auxiliary, to support action where it is the most intense.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Alan's concept of a "sustainment tender" sounds similar to the "aircraft maintenance carriers" operated by the Royal Navy in WWII all of which were converted carriers that couldn't actually operate aircraft in combat but had aircraft repair facilities superior to those of standard carriers.

I'm thinking such a ship would not have special sensors (probably replaced by cargo) and would not be considered a "true PFT" but, nonetheless, would have mech links and repair facilities for a full flotilla. These ships would likely have a higher repair limit than what is listed in K2.612.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 30, 2026 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana:

You might want to verify your statement about maintenance carriers unable to operate aircraft in combat…

Specifically, H.M.S. Unicorn (not the Leda class frigate built in 1824, and operated as a depot ship for 140 years.)

The one that participated in the Salarno landings in 1943 if I recall correctly.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 01:11 am: Edit

Alex, the concern there (and digging deep into my military education) is that the situations where you "need this thing" are going to be few, and the time it takes to get it there will be long. The best you would be able to do is predict that Operation Pegasus (or whatever) is going to be so wicked that you need to send this and other unique support ships to that theater before the need.

I will grant that strategically it might be useful in a real world situation. Other than a scenario where a raid targets it, I don't see much use for it on the game table. This is not even close to being a "tentpole"; it is a page-filler at best used only strategically or in one special scenario.

I am sure the Marines have a "mess kit repair auxiliary cruiser" but I don't see anybody being excited about paying for the SSD.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 01:21 am: Edit

The F&E rule for the sustainment tender is going to be very short. "For every six individual PFs lost in battle in that hex, you get one of them back for free."

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 09:43 am: Edit

So far as the prospect of dedicated HDW PF tender configuration SSDs is concerned:

If there is enough room taken up in the SSD book without them, or if it was best for them to be set aside for a dedicated "HDW (and/or HWX) configurations" module later on, well and good.

But, if it turns out that there is a use for HDWP SSDs here after all, I might have two questions:

Firstly, would this also be an opportunity for the Federation to get a dedicated SSD for the infamous "HDWZ" (two special sensors plus 4 F-111 mech-links) configuration, not least for use against Andromedan RTN nodes?

And secondly, would it be best to keep any HWXP (and, in the case of the Feds, "HWXZ") configurations aside for, say, a future Module X1B - or should they go in this product also?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 11:25 am: Edit

I agree the sustainment tender is more of a scenario target then something to include in a patrol force

Any thoughts on the flotilla control ship concept?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 02:07 pm: Edit

The flotilla control ship isn't defined well enough for me to have an opinion but it doesn't sound like something people would be excited to buy.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 01, 2026 - 11:53 am: Edit

For a "sustainment tender", why not use a variant of the fast naval transport? It was made to more rapidly deploy cargo. Make it into a PFT and you get a faster AuxPFT. That way you cover everyone with a single ship.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 01, 2026 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I don't know that sustainment work for the FNT but a FNPFT has some merit.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, April 04, 2026 - 12:24 pm: Edit

A Sustainment Tender seems more like a F&E proposal than a SFB one. It sounds like a rapid DLR ship if it in a battle hex, but not one to put in a battle group.

I'm not advocating for or against it.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, April 05, 2026 - 02:17 pm: Edit

I'd suggest that there are sustainment tenders based on free trader and frigate hulls. Both can flush engines and do repairs that "casual pf tenders" cannot.

So the FFT based ones can maintain fleet speeds and accompany aquadrons or second echelons of fleets (where the fighter conveyor ships, tankers, Commando ships, mine sweepers and such live). Not exactly in the line of battle, but close enough to come forward as needed without counting against command limits...

The FFT ones wander around the "sorta safe zone' behind the immediate front and accompany convoys. Feed new PFs forward as damaged ones are brought back from the front/ combat squadrons... Maybe they have a crew unit of trainers that travel between local detachments...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 05, 2026 - 04:17 pm: Edit

An all-PF version of the "Planetary Control Base". Not sure what it should be called. "Planetary Patrol Base" doesn't sound quite right to me.

Delete the fighter squadron, add six more mech-link tractor "Landing Pads" and a few more Repair boxes. It would be an analog to the Gorn and Lyran "Space Patrol Ships"; essentially SCSs with the fighter squadron replaced by a second PF flotilla; and would only be deployed to very important planets.

Also, this might fit better as an all-PF version of the X-tech "GPCX" from Module X1R. With 12 PFs on a single ground base, I wouldn't expect to see these until PF production had been going on for a while, i.e., after the X-tech era had already started.