Heavy Scout Cruiser, HSC.
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module R13 Ships With ZING!:
Tranche Two:
Tranche Two:
Heavy Scout Cruiser, HSC.
Heavy Scout Cruiser.
Proposed by Jeff Wile, USS Minnesota.
Obvious Variant. Apply to a Vanilla Fed Heavy Cruiser the Same Scout Refit applied to the Vanilla DD that resulted in the SC.
Replace Port (or Left) phaser 1's labled #3 and #4 phasers with Special Sensors.
Replace Starboard (or Right) Phaser 1s labled #5 and #6 with Special Sensors.
Replace all four Photon Torpedo launchers with Special Sensors.
YIS date would be the same as the SC.
The ship would (before any refits are applied) would have 2 phaser 1s (labled #1 and #2) and have a FH firing Arc.
It would have 8 special Sensors, and 34 power (and 2 batteries), ands a Movement Cost of 1 (just the same as the CA.
The HSC would have the same number of Special Sensors as the vanilla SC, but it would nearly double the power available. (the SC has, IIRC 15 Warp Power, 4 Impulse, and no APR. It also had 2 Batteries).
Comments to follow.
They did this already. It's called a GSC.
Also, you are giving up a HEAVY CRUISER to do this. The Feds decided to use the OCL when they finally built a scout cruiser (CLS).
I can see this being part of the development that led to the GSC, however.
"As long as we are reducing the weapons suite and ripping out heavy weapons, lets stretch the secondary hull a bit....."
I doubt they ever built one, unless it was a prototype that eventually evolved into the GSC.
Clearly a Conjectural Ship, the Federation could have produced it at the same time as the SC.
While it might be obvious tht the HSC could have been a substitute for the later GSC (YIS 142) the HSC shared many of the same short comings as the SC (atleast from the POV of Fed Survey Command). Not enough Shuttle Craft (4 instead of the 8 the GSC has), not enough Cargo space (0 vs 10 cargo boxes), and insufficient Labs (8 vs 10).
It was also deficient in Probe launchers (1 vs 2 in the GSC) as well in Drone racks (the GSC had 1 vs 0 in the HSC).
At the very least, the HSC (as proposed) is 18 SSD boxes short of the requirements before we even compare the phaser and photons armaments (the GSC had retained 2 photon torpedos, the HSC zero. the phaser suite, ah well....)
The point being, the HSC is a Combat Scout that suffers from poor weapons for defense, but a sufficient power level to satisfy most Federation Fleets EW support requirements and is, frankly as capable as 2 SC or 3+ FFS class ships with regards to power/ special sensors.
Later refits (AWR/WPR, Plus, Rear Phaser) all improve the HSC (just as the various refits improved the SC).
The best use of the HSC would be in a full Fleet engagement, or any assault against seeking weapons equipped enemy forces (such as the Drone using Klingons or the Plasma Torpedo using Romulans).
A secondary consideration is the effectiveness of a vanilla Destroyer siege squadron (4 photon armed destroyers) could be materially improved with support from a HSC. (consider, a vanilla SC trying to provide 6 points of EW support to 3 DD class ships would require 21 points of energy to 3 special sensors every turn they use photon torpedos. Since the vanilla SC has only 15 points of warp power and 4 points of impulse power, and 2 batteries, it would be unable to do so with out 1) having no power left for life support, 2)no energy for shields, and 4) unless it paid for Fire Control (1 point of power) be unable to use the special sensors at all.
The HSC could provide maximum EW support via its special sensors, but also have power available for all house keeping functions, movement, as well as EW support of its own ECM or ECCM functions.
its even conceivable, that during the 2nd Kzinti War or the General War, a damaged CA could have been repaired and refitted to a full or partial HSC configuration if there were a shoartage of photons (such as occurred to the USS Agincourt) or even, (another option) the USS Agincourt could have been refitted as a HSC instead of as a Drone variant.
Given that the Federation destroyer and the heavy cruiser have the same saucer, just swap a CA saucer for the SC saucer and you're done.
If it is an obvious variant (which it is), why propose it? It is incredibly obvious that you can replace the same weapons on the CA as the DD to get a CA-SC instead of a DD-SC. I am sure that SVC has had this suggested since the day after the first version of SFB was published. The fact that such a ship is so obvious and yet has never been published should be a major clue that it isn't going to be published.
Besides, there is already a Fed heavy scout in the game. It is the (R2.114) NHS. It should be exactly what you want. (Though without the early introduction date.)
Terry,
Sounds simple, but isn't.
the SC saucer has a number of additional systems that the CA saucer doesnt have.
(Going from memory, don't have the SSD infront of me, so might forget a few things...)
for instance, the SC has a probe launcher, 2 Admin Shuttles, and 2 AUX CON boxes that (in the case of the CA) appear in the secondary hull.
using the SC saucer on the HSC would give the HSC aatleast 5 more SSD boxes than the proposal called for.
that means the HSC (with the SC saucer in place) would have 2 probes, 4 AUX CONS (2 separate locations) and 6 admin shuttles (also in 2 different hangers).
I suppose you could relable the extra 2 AUX CON FLAG Bridge... thus making it a 9 F&E Command Rating Scout command cruiser. (grin)
I dont recall how many transporters and tractors that would add to the proposal, but there might be some additional one added, and IIRC the secondary hull of the CA had 2 batteries, so by using the SC saucer, you double the number of batteries that the HSC would have.
Not bad.
actually brings the HSC closer to what the GSC has... though its still missing 10 cargo boxes.
Hummm, I'll have to think about your suggestion, terry. It seems like a major improvement to the HSC as proposed, and when added to the various refits (AWR/WPR, Plus, Rear Phaser refit etc) may just result in a decent scout.
Might be too good a deal.
Mike West:
I look at is as a development design.
We know that the GSC is superior, we know that the GSC has many more systems than can do or did appear on the similarly sized CA.
The most I would expect is that it was proposed and supersceded by the GSC design after year 142.
IMO the biggest single flaw for the HSC (as I propsed it, anyway) is the near absence of offensive/defensive weaponry.
for a hull (particularly a heavy cruiser hull, as Strain noted) is far too valuable to risk with only 2 FH arc phaser 1s.
Just saying there is a story to be told here.
Given how important the GSC later became in the survey, colonization and the exploitation of resources (planetary surveys, mineral, metal ore deposits, dilithium crystals etc) that allowed the Federation to survive the general war.
In essence, the failure of the HSC could be the reason why the Federation decided to spend the money on a whole succession of Galactic Survey cruisers. Not Just the GSC, but the first and second Generation X ship versions of the GSC as well.
Just saying.
By the time the necessity of having HEAVY SCOUTS was apparent (ie the frigate and dd versions were getting popped like balloons) everyone had an alternative.
Just convert a NCL based scout to the NCA based version. And IIRC some of these (all?) are already out.
There is no story here.
No one figured out they needed heavy scouts until after the General War started. No one had heavy scouts, much less the Federation. In fact, the Federation SC outclassed pretty much every scout the Federation would have to face.
Ergo, there was no scout version of the CA because it wasn't needed or perceived to be needed.
By the time they realized they needed a heavy cruiser based scout, they used the NCA instead of the CA. That heavy scout is already in the game, as I have already mentioned.
So, there is no story here. Or, more properly, there is a story and it has been told.
Now, if you are saying that everyone should have a heavy scout during the Middle Years, then fine. That is a change to established history, but fine. But trying to shoe-horn in an extremely early heavy scout for only the Feds just isn't going to fly.
As for mixing and matching saucers and rear hulls, don't you think ADB has literally hundreds of these already? From putting the DD saucer on the CA rear hull (or SC or DE or whatever), to putting the CVS or CS saucer on the CA rear hull, to putting the DN saucer on the CA rear hull, to even putting the CA saucer on the DN rear hull (seriously, I saw that one). I really don't think there is a tinker-toy suggestion that ADB has not already seen. (Heck, I think someone even suggested putting a Fed CA saucer on a Gorn CA hull, or some such!)
If we were going to see any of these Frankenstein monsters, don't you think we would have seen them by now? There have been twelve R-modules published. That is twelve opportunities for these types of ships to be published, and exactly zero of them have made it. Why is there a belief that they will suddenly make it now? Do you think the Steves are that desperate for ship designs?
Quote:Heck, I think someone even suggested putting a Fed CA saucer on a Gorn CA hull, or some such!
Why not? You're replacing one round thing with another round thing.
An old idea, on file for decades. Gee, why has it never been published? Now, there's something to ponder.