This ship was inspired by an offhand comment by SVC in the AO
responses topic about the Hydran SITs and another type of Hydran
frigate.

R9.DK1 Hydran Archer Frigate (AR):

The frigate version of the third weapon system, Stingers, in the
Hydran weapon system triad. It is considered a hybrid carrier
(despite the fighters being its primary weaponry). This design was
built after the fall of Hydrax in Y170. With the acute shortage of
ship hulls and the Hunter's reputation as a suicide ship, this design
was put into service to help preserve frigate hulls (the Old Colonies
were not immediately able to build Hellbores, making the long ranged
Cuirassier unavailalbe). With most of its firepower in the fighters,
the Archer did not need to close with enemy ships to contribute in a
fleet battle.

A half dozen or so were built over the next three years at the Old
Colonies starbase as replacements for Hunter frigates. They were
found to survive much better in fleets while still contributing to the
battle. Unfortunately, they were much less successful in most other
frigate missions (in particular independent partrols, but also as
convoy escorts). The Archers found themselves either outgunned or
tied to their fairly slow and fragile Stingers. Inbetween their light
weaponry and few fighters, the Archers were unable to make standard
Hydran fighter tactics work. The single tractor beam was found
particularly inadequate.

It appears that the design dates to Y134, the introduction of the
Stinger and first generation fusion ships. There is even some
evidence that a prototype Archer was built at that time. But the
design was not considered successful--unable to operate alone and even
when paired with a Hunter the two did not match the performance of a
Lancer. This did allow the design to be introduced immediately when
it met a perceived need. The Scythian CVE was later designed as based
on the Archer experience, representing a more successful expression of
the idea.

Once the Scythian was introduced, the surviving Archers were used as
ad-hoc escorts for the CVE. The resulting increased fighter strength
more than made up for the weaker defensive capabilities (especially
since the CVE's weapon layout are already similar to an Aegis Hunter).
Plans for upgrading the Archers to a true escort (replacing two ph-2
with ph-G and adding Aegis) were disussed but never implemented--more
due to other priorities than any particular technical difficulty.

Names: Most Archers were named after heroes and heroic units
(primarily fighter squadrons) from defense of Hydrax.


MSC:
AR 10 4 48/34(?) 6 0.33 1+1 4 A DK1 170 4 7 3 L,Y2


SSD:

Start with the Hydran Hunter SSD. Replace the Fusion beams with
Phaser-2 (FA+L/R). Remove the side phaser-2s (LF+L/RF+R). Arrange
the 5 box C-hull as in the CVE (ie across above the imp between the
two 2-box parts). Put in a 3 fighter box (= ready racks) shuttle bay
above the C-hull (where it is in the CVE, but only 3 boxes, not 7).
The figther bay has 2 launch tubes (stright right and left from the
end boxes). Reduce the boarding parties to 4, add 3 deck crews,
remove the fusion overload table and reduce the fusion beam table to
range 10 max (label it fighter fusion table). Add three Stinger II
fighters. Change the name, "Type", "Reference" and BPV (48/34 is my
current guess--maybe 38-40 for the combat BPV--it looses 2 fusion
beams when compared to the HN, although its phasers have slightly
better arcs).

F&E guesses:

1-4(2)/0-2(0); Conversion from HN/CU: 0.5+1 (or should it be 1+1);
Subsitution (for HN or CU): 1.5+1 (hybrid fighter factor)
same salvage as a HN; can only be unconverted to a HN (and then
converted to any desired variant).
Note that I played with the fighter factors to give it the same cost
and uncrippled COMPOT as the HN (I realize the HN is also a bad
deal). An amusing special rule could allow the ship to be used as an
ad-hoc escort to a CVE without losing any COMPOT (so that the CVE+AR
has the same O-compot as the CVE+AH). On the other hand, this is
probably too fancy for a single, rarely used, ship.
Historically, the Hydrans built ~6 Archers at the off map starbase
(substitutions for HN/CU) while rebuilding the shipyard.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:47 am: Edit

Be merciful...

Give it 4 fighters, or it's really pointless - fighters arn't so good that the hydrans would be able to afford to lose 1pH-G, 2Ph-2 and 2 fusions (HN-load) just to have 3 fighters in the fray instead (archer holding back).
Don't forget that this conversion costs money, probably better used for (cheaper?) conversions that replace escorts lost from carriers.

I think this is also too similar to the Scythian unless you introduce it as a really early ship - actually *built* in 137 (or earlier). That way, you can say it was a precusor or addition to the hybrid LNs and RNs, later removed as ineffectual because it was too fragile and valuable to stay in the main battle. The Scythian is introduced later as its carrier mentality and escort gives it more durability in main battle, or it has more fighters to feed forward if it is out of the battle.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:02 am: Edit

I would actually go the other way. Remove the side Ph-2s and replace them with Fighter boxes. This still leaves it with the close range crunch of the gat and fusions, but with far less phaser firepower. The two fighters is half the load-out of a LN; ship firepower is about half as well. This is more, IMO, in keeping with the Hydran Fighter/Fusion doctrine.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:41 am: Edit

Andy.

Yes, but the ship would be bad at either mission. It doen't have enough firepower except at point blank (at least Ph-2s give the hydrans *something* at R8). Neither does the ship have enough fighters to emulate the Archer concept - staying away from the battle.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:56 am: Edit

David. The Hydran Fusion/Fighter doctrine involves the Fighters being within 3 hexes of the ship and forcing opponents to choose between the fighters and ship. Having an "early light escort carrier" is not consistent with Hydran fighter doctrine at all; the "dedicated carrier" concept is relatively new for them and always involved 25-33% more fighters for the same class of carrier.

With 2 fighters, the AR can fire 6 fusions at range 10 (18 damage) or can close. With equal BPV, I don't know of any ship that can take out both a HN-hull and 2 fighters in one turn.

Now, admitedly, this will not greatly increase the survivability of the ship but will have some definite addative factors in squadrons (6 ST-2 and 3 AR; or HN, CU, AR, etc.).

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit

Andy

True

But the orginal proposal implied that the Hydrans could not afford to lose even frigate hulls - hence the "Archer". I have no doubt that your proposal will still be effective for BPV, just not effective at preserving the ship or effective from a "archer" point of view.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:24 am: Edit

I like this idea. It would be an interesting footnote to Hydran ship history.

42

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit

David,

I debated a 4 fighter version (expand the 3 box bay to a 5 box shuttle bay with 4 ready racks and 4 launch tubes; replace the current admin shuttle bay with a second tractor--see the CVE). I was worried that this version would be too powerful, especially in duels and squadron actions. Four fighters, tow two is much better than three fighters, tow one. The former can probably defeat the Lyran FF or Klingon F5 (and is probably a match for a Lyran DD or possibly even an F5W). And yet the improvement in a fleet battle isn't that big. Its also much closer to the CVE design (only lacking 2 fighters and 1 APR).

In a fleet battle, the Archer's expected damage over 2 turns (fusion cycle) at range 15 (no EW shift) is 5.33. The standard HN would produce 6.33 (realistically, the HN can only get two ph-2 in arc). At range 24, the AR averages 2 damage while the HN averages 2.33. Thus the long range firepower loss should be more than offset by the three fighters. Inside range 8, the fighters contribute 6 fusion and 3 ph-G, compared to the 2 overloaded fusion, 2 ph-2 and one ph-G--the Stingers will score more damage at just about any range. The HN is more flexible and a bit more surviveable (although 30 points of damage is close to a mission kill on a HN). On the other hand, at close ranges, the fighters can fire their fusion beams on successive turns (assuming they survive:-). I'd argue the two are comparable in a fleet battle.

Remember that the Scythian is not introduced until Y175--five years after the AR goes into service. I did give it the Y2 note so you could have an AR (the lone prototype) appearing much earlier if you wanted it. Its early idea was that HN(fusion) + AR(fighters) = LN(fusion and fighters), but that the theory didn't work out. Finally, the design of the Scythian probably started around its Y170 introduction (remember the first real Hydran carriers only date from the year before), but why not build something useable in the intervening years?

The AR weren't conversions of HN (I agree those would have been converted to Escort Hunters), but were new construction as substitution for HN. The AR costs the same to build as the HN, both less than the EH (both in SFB and in F&E).

Andy, that's a neat FF idea. Actually it isn't really much of a firepower loss, effectively one ph-2 (the arcs on the side ph-2 are so restricted). Its heading a different direction than I wanted to go (and makes for a very powerful, but fragile little unit). My only concern is that it looks to actually be significantly more powerful than the standard HN (most of the weaponry, plus 2 fighters!), especially in squadron and duels. Maybe it is an upgrade started around Y175 but then supersceeded by the DWF upgrade. Do we have the start of a short article "Alternative Hydran Frigate Designs?" Now you just need to come up with a new name for your frigate...

The AR's history is based on the fact that under 20% of the Hydran pre-war fleet escaped to the old colonies historically (I realize that in F&E as played, this is closer to 80%). 20% was lost in the Expedition and another 60% went down over Hydrax (plus whatever was lost over the border BATS and fleet SBs). And the Hydrans won't be building much for 3 years (the time it takes to replace the shipyard in F&E--yes I know about the Guild shipyard, its still pathetic compared to their normal production).

Robert, glad you liked it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 04:52 pm: Edit

General Comment:

I would tend to oppose four fighters. That is the same number found on the larger Lancer.

I also tend to shy away from three fighters as just too close, but maybe.

Hydran Warships of the non-leader Fusion (or mixed) Classes:
Ranger 9
Horseman 6
Lancer 4
Hunter 0
Gendarme (2)

Tends to make me think a Hunter with fighters would only have two.

Dedicated carrier versions of the above:
Cavalier 21
Trooper 12
Uhlan 16
Scythian 6
Gendarme-V (Did we publish one in Module J2??? I cannot remember, but I think it had) 10.

I fear given the above, I cannot support more than two fighters on a Hunter variant.

But that is just me.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I am all for interesting footnotes, but why wouldn't they just build Scythians which can keep out of range and send six fighters forward?

By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 10:16 pm: Edit

SVC, they can't build Scythians because the ship design has not yet been introduced. It has a YIS date of Y175, I'm discussing Archer production in Y170. Even assuming prototypes, that only puts the Scythians in Y174 (by the usual one year earlier rule). Note that the first Hydran true carriers (of any size) are only introduced in Y169. Basically they wanted a frigate design with fighters now, not in two years and had the old Archer design sitting on the shelf already tested and buildable. I would argue they didn't start the Scythian design earlier because they did not see the need for a fighter carrying frigate until after the fall of the capital.

SPP, my reason for going with 3 fighters and not two was that the Archer has no fusion beams (as compared to all the other fusion+hybrid ships that still have both weapons). My other concern is that at 2 fighters, I'm not sure the design has any utility (it would make more sense then to build more Gendarmes and give them their fighters--they have 2 fusion and 2 fighter).

Note that with 3 fighters, AR+HN has 2 fusion, 3 fighters, 2 Ph-G and 6 Ph-2. This compares with a LN which has 3 fusion, 4 fighters, 2 ph-G and 3 Ph-2...

I would agree with 2 fighters for a mixed weapon frigate (such as the one Andy proposed).

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

I'd still like one thats hauling around a pair of Howlers... B-)

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 10:49 am: Edit

So, David Kass:

What is your current thoughts on this? I liked the idea (phaser only 3 ftr cv) when I first read it, but it looks as though you may have been considering a different version (2 ftr fusion cv). ⁴²

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

The 2 fighter, 2 fusion version is Andy's.

I currently still like the 3 fighter version. I've been looking for time to do some more testing before I submit anything. Given SPP's comments, I need to look at a 2 fighter (no fusion) version to see how it would go (I especially need to compare it to a GEN).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 19, 2012 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Seems too small a number of fighters to matter, available for too short a period of time before it's obsolete. It's a valid idea, just doens't seem like something anybody would fly.