I propose that prior to building the GVX Colin Powell the Federation built a standard technology version (GSV).

The ADW with 3xF-111s was built Y176. The NVH, CVH, and DCS classes followed in Y177-Y178. I suggest a GSC was either built in Y179. The survey cruiser class history in CL#41 says the last Byrd class survey cruiser was the NCC 1810 Columbia.

A GSV wound need to be based on a different design. I suggest a special sensor arrangement like the CAD Agincort. Instead of drone it would retain the four photon tubes. The rear hull would be similar to a CVH/DCS. Combat experience gained was used to build the GVX.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Joe:

type	hull#	name
GSC GALACTIC SURVEY CRUISERS:	-	-
-	1800	Byrd
-	1801	Columbus
-	1802	Darwin
-	1803	Lewis & Clark
-	1804	Magellan
-	1805	Marco Polo
-	1806	Cousteau
-	1807	Sagan
-	1808	Armstrong
-	1809	Challenger
-	1810	Columbia
-	1820	Discovery
GSX:	-	-	-
-	1820	Einstein
-	1821	Sakharov
-	1822	Teller
-	1823	Fermi
-	1824	Feynman
GVX:	-	-	-
-	1783	Colin Powell

Not sure why hull#1820 is duplicated, but I assume its already been reported.

Joe, are you suggesting that one of the Byrd class hulls couldnt have been available? I'll have to check, but it looks like there are some unused 18xx hull numbers left unused.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Yes I checked and 1811-1819 appear to be available. However on page 17 in CL# 41 it says the Columbia was the last Byrd-class survey cruiser. Further the Colin Powell was the first advanced technology version of the Byrd-class. I am not seeing a way at this point to create a byrd-class GSV.

You have an idea how to fit one in?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Joe,

Perhaps.

What if the 1811-1819 number hulls were originally scheduled as replacements for the original Byrd class hulls? IIRC the Byrd class were originally constructed in the year 142+. If we assume a star ship has an anticipated 30 year life span, that means the first of the original Byrd Class GSC's would have been ready for retirement or replacement after year 172.

If the Federation had remained at peace (ie not been invaded by the Klingons), the next 9 hulls for the replacement GSC's would have begun some time after year 172.

After 30 years, it might have been reasonable for the federation to commission a new GSC design that reflected 30 years of operational experience with the Byrd class GSC's.

In any event, what if the first of these "newdesign/standard technology GSCs" were in process of construction at peace time rates (ie slow) and in the midst of the Klingon invasion were set aside to begin war construction using every available slipway?

There have been a number of examples over the years where such things happened (the Prometheus strike cruisers, the DN hull based CVAs for example).

Is it so difficult to anticipate 1 , 2 or even 3 improved Byrd Class hulls were stored in mothballs at the start of the war? Basically, you'd have the warp engines, a stripped down saucer (partially assembed) and the shell of a secondary hull awaiting installation of its components (deck plates, SSD systems turbo lifts etc)

A conversion of these hulls to a GSV might be on a Byrd class style hull... but given the state of thet war in year 179, perhaps some systems might not have been available... such as the absence of special sensors.

A GSV with out special sensors would be a carrier, not a scout.

just a thought.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, August 05, 2012 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Perhaps there is room. A stored partially complete GS part of another contract that was cancelled due to other wartime needs. In Y179 a GSV was completed. It would have a similar rear hull as the GVX except it would have 4xPH-3 360s.

Should such a ship actually come into the SFU I propose she be named after a Swedish viking explorer. "Garðarr Svavarsson (modern Icelandic: Garðar Svavarsson, sometimes anglicized as Gardar/Garthar Svavarsson) was a Swedish man who is considered by many to be the first Scandinavian to live in Iceland, although he is said to have stayed only for one winter" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardar_Svavarsson .

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 05, 2012 - 06:22 pm: Edit

joe,

Lets wait until SVC looks it over... he may have other ideas!

At the very least, with up to 9 hull registry numbers, some might have been completed to other (wartime) requirements. Certainly, more commando ships might have been built, even replacement CVL types to replace wartime losses on a 1:1 ratio...

The GSC/COM/CVL type hull was popular enough that any combat losses would have people demanding replacements as needed, IWT.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 05, 2012 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Joe,

Another idea...

If there were a new GSC class, what "improvements" would a peacetime survey command have requested as part of an up dated "Byrd" class?

What if the secondary hull layout changed the shuttle bay from 2x4 shuttle SSD boxes to 3x3? (possibly to allow for the use of a 2 space cargo shuttle instead of 8 single space shuttles?

What if the secondary hull, had a larger Aft hull number of SSD boxes? (those hard working survey scientistss and explorers do need their space!)

No improvements to weapons or power systems, but quality improvement in some non weapons non power systems that might improve the ability of the new improved GSC to conduct survey missions.

Just a thought.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Joe,

I just realised that if the original Byrd class GSC class survey cruisers were ready for retirement during the early years of the General War, circa 172. That means they would have to either be sold, scrapped or stored in the mothball fleet.

Now obviously, that wouldnt happen after the Federation entered the General War (August, year 171 IIRC).

Star ship construction doesnt happen over night. if NCC 1800 USS Byrd (assuming it survived to year 172) would have scheduled to be decommissioned about the same time its replacement (lets call it the NCC 1811 USS T.B.D. (To Be Determined)) would have been built and commissioned. (construction started atleast by Spring year 170 or earlier).

That also means that the USS Byrd (NCC 1800) would have to have been scheduled for whatever fate awaited her. As I see it, that could be one of several options:

1. Scrapped.
2. Sold.
3. refitted.
4. Mothballed.

Option 1 should be obvious.
Option 2, could be open to interpretation, but I assume that means sold to either a Federation Member Planet for duty in the National Guard or other Reserve organization (how about "demilitarized" into a civilian survey ship?!?)
Option 3, refitted into a combat ship (removal of special sensors) and counted as a heavy cruiser variant?
Option 4, refited as in option #3 and mothballed as a 2 photon armed CA.

What that gives us is a reason production of the NCC1811 to NCC1819 hulls was started either in year 169 or year 170, and would have made a few hulls available that could later be used for your GSV variant.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Check the Class History of the Federation GSC's in Cap Log 41 which will give you some notes on the production and use of the GSCs.

A reason not to build GSC's or GSV's vs. standard CC's or CVS's is cost. The GSC's are much more expensive.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Ryan,
Read the archives of this topic.

the original Byrd Class YIS was (IIRC) year 142. if the estimated life of a starship is on the order of 30 years (could be extended by SLEP or other serious rebuilding efforts), then they would have been ready for retirement or replacement starting in year 172.

The assumption is that the GSC class (NCC1800 to 1810, hull numbers) was ready for retirement at about the time the Federation got into the General war.


Your point about the cost of GSC's or GSV's vs CC's or CVS's is an apples to oranges comparisson. The types are not interchangable for the mission that each type was designed to perform.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 01:28 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

if the estimated life of a starship is on the order of 30 years

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Terry,

It seemed appropriate to use 30 years as an average. I freely admit that some ships last a great deal longer than 30 years. the USS Enterprise CVN65 would be an example of that. But even she had a major rebuilding period in the ship yard during the 1990s.

The point is that the original GSC fleet (2nd fleet) started with about 10 GSCs. after the COM and CVL variants were diverted to other duty, there were nolonger 10 GSCs available.

Now you observe that the warp engines need to be replaced after 30 years, which means an extended time in a ship yard for all of the survivors, the only solution is do with out, or build a few replacements to help out.

Remember, Joe is only asking for 3 such hulls. seems small considering Star Fleet has already assigned 10 additional NCC hull numbers to the new construction.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 09:46 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

It seemed appropriate to use 30 years as an average.

---

---

Quote:

the only solution is do with out, or build a few replacements to help out

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Quote: "By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, October 07, 2012 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Quote:
It seemed appropriate to use 30 years as an average.

There's nothing in the data to support the idea that you must replace the entire ship when the engines wear out. That's my point. "

Terry, if Star ships never wear out or be come obsolete, why have new designs? The fact is, you are wrong in your idea that Starships never wear out.

Quote:
the only solution is do with out, or build a few replacements to help out

Not with proper scheduling. You know that the engines need replacing. You schedule things so that they are coming in to the shipyard for their engine replacements one at a time as they get near the due date. There's never any period when you have a bunch of GSCs out of service at once. No competent project manager would ever do that."

False:

The point is that the General War created an emergency situation where atleast 4 GSC hulls were diverted from both survey duty with the second fleet AND removed from the normal overhaul schedule. three became CVLs in Combat with the On F&E Map Federation forces, and atleast one was diverted to Commando Missions with the Ground forces.

What that means is that the remaining 60% of the GSC force (that is to say 6 GSC's) represented both the ships still performing the survey missions AND ships in overhaul and repair and refitting.

Schedules change due to military and political considerations, repair and refitting schdules do not generally drive policy. the 6 GSC's were left to handle the survey duties of all 10 originally assigned GSCs. And thats not even taking into account ship losses over the 32+ years the ships were in active commission. Just because F&E states that there were 10 GSC hulls assigned to the second fleet, is not proof that they were the original 10 hulls (NCC 1800 to NCC 1810) (actually 11, it appears that atleast one of the 11 GSCs was either permanently transferred to other duty or lost prior to the start of the General war).

Quote:
That isn't to say that the non-X galactic survey carrier idea isn't a good one, or a fun ship to fly. It's just that this justification for it is not holding water."

You forgot to add, in your opinion. for these and other reasons, I suspect you are in error.

Quote:
"I note that they Federation are the only empire to build X-tech survey ships. What would a successor to the Byrd-class GSCs look like if they had not decided to go the X-technology route?"

Which is the point originally made by Joseph R Carlson.

And it also emphasizes the point made earlier that there are a number of NCC hull numbers NOT used for either Byrd Class GSC hulls OR X-Technology XGSC cruisers that are available for use.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Terry didn't say starships never wore out.

If you actually bothered to read people's words instead of jumping to stupid conclusions you actually might find more people paying attention to your proposals instead of writing them off as spam.

Also, yes, just what the game needs, ANOTHER Fed carrier design based off the GSC.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 11:47 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

You forgot to add, in your opinion. for these and other reasons, I suspect you are in error.

---

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 11:22 pm: Edit

I have though about this proposal. My restated proposal is: The GVS is an earlier (Y179) standard-tech version of the GVX. Originally additional ship were to be built every two years. The CB Vincennes was successfully convert to a CX in Y181. The next GVS was was delayed and built as a GVX.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 11:43 am: Edit

Joseph,

Seems reasonable to me.

I hope you will forgive Mike Strain's rude comments. I think he intended to insult me, not your proposal.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Joseph,

have you changed your mind of what the actual changes between the GSC and the GSV SSDs are going to consist of?

I know you said before A GSV wound need to be based on a different design. I think you suggested a special sensor arrangement like the CAD Agincort. Instead of drone it would retain the four photon tubes. The rear hull would be similar to a CVH/DCS. You also stated that the Combat experience gained was used to build the GVX.

What exactly does that mean to the arrangement of the SSD boxes on the form?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 05:11 pm: Edit

This could simply be the ship as it started construction (the intended design) and then it was converted to X-Technology while still under construction.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 12, 2015 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Steve,

Something seems odd about the background of the USS Colin Powell (GVX) NCC 1783. Why was it built under the 17XX number series instead of 18XX as was the rest of the GSC "family" of hulls?

There certainly were enough unused hull numbers available.

By making it a part of the 17XX hull number series, it makes it appear to have been a conversion of a regular cruiser hull instead of a additional GSC type hull.

Does this mean any replacement GSC hulls must be conversions of a heavy cruiser instead of new construction?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 12, 2015 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Not answering for SPP but why would it mean that?

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Monday, January 12, 2015 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Jeff,
I think you are making an erroneous leap in logic.

IF the USS Colin Powell was a Heavy Cruiser hull converted to a GSC hull, it does not mean that all GSCs were conversions. It is possible that the USS Colin Powell was a unique conversion an the other GSCs were purpose built GSC hulls.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 05:50 am: Edit

Captains log#41 (page#17) said that the USS Columbia was the last Byrd class survey cruiser.

That means the USS discovery NCC 1820 must have been of a modified or possibly a different design (unless for some reason it was built before the USS Columbia...)

It also may mean that the unused hull numbers #1811-1819 were for a (as yet) unpublished General War era class of survey cruisers.

It also does not explain why hull number NCC 1820 was used twice (by both theUSS discovery and the USS Einstien GSX)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 05:39 pm: Edit

The NCC list PDF seems to have addressed that by re-designating the Einstein as NCC-1825. However, the CL41 article leaves the Einstein as NCC-1820, and instead lists the Discovery as NCC-1020; which according to the NCC pdf was a number already assigned to the "CA Old" USS Oriskany.

Both the Einstein and the Discovery are still listed as NCC-1820 in my copy of the FMSSB, however.

According to the CL41 article, NCC-1020 USS Discovery, "this half-sister of the GSCs", entered service in Y160, having been converted from an "unfinished" Constellation-class cruiser. (She would not be further converted into a light carrier until Y168.) Perhaps the hull was initially laid out and provisionally assigned a name and NCC number as the Oriskany, was put into storage for some reason while still in an incomplete state, and then eventually had the mothballs dusted off so she could be re-purposed and formally commissioned as the Discovery?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Gary,

Which is all well and good, so far as it goes but still hasn't addressed why the USS Colin Powell GVX NCC 1783 was assigned an NCC number in the cruiser lists instead of with the half sisters in the GSC / GSX NCC 18XX listings.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 06:30 pm: Edit

According to the CL41 article, the only Federation survey cruiser (as in, for actual use with the Second Fleet on the survey mission) built during the course of the General War was the NSR NCC-1699 USS Ibn Battuta. And she was only built to replace the lost USS Marco Polo.

Plus, there is a note in the FMSSB under (R2.16A) which suggests that the crews which served on the surviving CVLs after the General War had essentially forgotten their original designations, as they themselves had entered Star Fleet Academy after the war began. (The onset of the Andromedan War not long after would have made such a viewpoint that much harder to shake.)

I might say that, at the time the Powell was built, her primary purpose was to serve as an X-raider or heavy scout (akin to the Klingon D5PX or the Romulan FireHawk-EX) and not as a "true" survey cruiser. That her hull happened to be based on the old Byrd template was likely deemed incidental at the time.

It would not be until the end of the General War before Star Fleet would decide to swap out the Powell's F-111s with heavy transport shuttles and re-assign her to the Second Fleet - and only then afford themselves the luxury of using the success of the GVX hull to start thinking about building brand new GSXs for their own sake.

So the use of the 182*s on the NCC list for the GSXs would perhaps be a conscious decision taken in the post-war (or perhaps inter-war) period; when the Federation could, for a brief moment, choose to believe that the advent of peace would allow these ships to pursue what those in the Second Fleet would consider to be their "highest calling".

(Ironically, they would be both right and wrong in thinking so. While the first four GSXs would mostly operate under the shadow of the Andromedan invasion prior to Y202, the success of Operation Unity would see the class unlock an unprecedented new wave of exploration and discovery which no-one in Star Fleet could have imagined possible back in Y186.)