Wide-body Police Cutter

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: R02: FEDERATION PROPOSALS: Wide-body Police Cutter
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, August 10, 2012 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Inspired by miniature kit-bash posted by "semperatis" on the FedCmdr board. See photos here.

In an effort to increase the Police Cutter's combat abilities, this design widened the aft hull section by cutting the cylinder down the middle and adding some six or seven meters of decking. The forward section was left as is. Two ships were converted to this configuration in Y173.

Unfortunately, after the first wide-bodied cutter was finished, it was discovered that it could not properly dock in the berth designed for the standard cutter. The forward airlocks were too far away from the dock and thus the docking clamps could not connect, which in turn put too much stress on the aft docking clamps. The cost of modifying the berthing station was prohibitive, so these ships were forbidden from docking at Police Stations. The second ship's conversion was too far along to stop the process, but the order to convert 25 or more cutters to wide-bodies was scrapped.

SSD: Forward section, shields, warp drive, damage control/sensors/scanners/excess damage all same as POL+.

Aft section: Widen the outline by one full box width. Add: a third cargo Box, a third Shuttle, a second drone G-rack, a second Ph-1 (360), a second AWR, one Tractor, a sixth C-Hull, and a third Impulse.

Add two crew-units and two boarding parties.

The aft section will look like this (I hope this makes sense):


C= cargo, 1/3 = Phaser, D = drone, S=shuttle, E=Emer, B=BTTY, T=Trac/Trans, H=C-Hull, I=Impulse (off-set by one-half box width to center them).

Garth L. Getgen

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 10, 2012 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Since the original scratchbuilt mini was intended for use by the Federal Republic of Aurora, perhaps any "wide-body" modification could be intended for their use instead?

While the original frigates (and variants) had served the Republic well since the Y130s, things were changing for the FRA by the latter half of the century. With the newer Fed-Klingon hybrid hull Destroyers entering service in Y173, and a timeline entry referring to the first true war destroyers emerging in Y187, the "legacy" fleet of frigate hulls in the Auroran Navy may have been starting to show their age; even before one considers the heightened external pressures from the Andromedan and Souldra invasions of the Sixth Cycle.

While the Federation might have dealt with this sort of issue by fielding police frigate upgrades of their POL hulls, perhaps the Republic instead went with the concept of bulking up the fleet of existing hulls as a means of bolstering their home defence.

(It's already bee nnoted that ships like the Destroyer were originally intended to help patrol Mæsron space; a role for which frigates were too small, and cruisers too valuable. If the frigates were intended to be kept in FRA home space to bolster their defences, it would seem more logical for them to convert these ships into platforms that traded an operational range they would no longer use for an increased combat capability they would be pressed to make the most of.)

Indeed, such a conversion might give the wide-body hulls the change to imcorporate some of the later FRA technologies (disruptors, short-range cannons, tachyon missiles etc) which the older frigates (save for the frigate escort prior to its ESG refit) don't currently have available to them.

With such a setup, the wide-body idea would be able to serve a more prominent historical role than a Federation counterpart might do; plus, it would allow the ones which semperatis has already painted up to still serve the Republic whose livery they bear.

(Actually, I could also envision a similar set of "system" refits to the FRA's remaining CLs by the Y180s and Y190s; in order to maximise their use as local defence units in the face of enemy incursions.)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, August 10, 2012 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Wide body POL? I smell the local donut shop:O

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 02:36 am: Edit

Gary, that's possible. In fact, more likely.

And before anyone asked "why not widen the forward hull segment, too, so the ship can dock at Police Station berths?" -- it won't work. Making the segment wider causes it to become longer, due to the pointed nose. This makes the ship too long to fit in the berth due to the gangway that clamps to air-lock / docking port in the bow.

Being forced to use Star Fleet docking stations causes all sorts of logistical and administrative headaches. This was a problem for the PFF, but one that they decided to live with for the increased capability of that ship.

Garth L. Getgen

By David Young (Semperatis) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 07:13 am: Edit

I personally like to think on the 'wide body' FRA ships as having the Omega version of the Alpha Quad +refit. When you also consider,that the FRA only have a very limited number of base hull designs to work from,it's more probable that these designs will have more variations about them than say an Alpha Fed ship hull will.
Although the POL FF's may be shorter and wider than the equivalent Alpha Pol,I wouldn't be surprised if the internal volume wasn't very nearly the same.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 11:14 am: Edit

there were wide body GORNS a in the past

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Garth Getgen:

The pointy end is not an issue preventing expansion in a normal engineering sense. You just split down the middle of the point and do not extend it. It just becomes a "flat" end along the front. Instead of it being a "\/" point it is a "\___/" front.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 03:02 pm: Edit


Personally, though I greatly respect the work you've done with your scratchbuilt frigates, I personally prefer that the "standard" FFs retain the hull factor of the POL; if only so that the pre-existing Starline 2400/2500 POL minis can be used to represent them.

(The R-section for the FF does say that the amount of space used to convert the Middle Years POL into the frigate is the same that the Federation later used to add their own plus refit.)

Plus, that would save any future wide-body conversions for the kind of "system" ships which the Aurorans could convert their older ships into once they start falling out of front-line service.


In terms of logistical support, the Aurorans would have their own set of limitations to deal with.

Originally, the Aurora system had a minor yard capable of constructing POLs, as well as a maintenance dock that could service CLs, by he time of the transfer in Y130. While the Republic was able to jury-rig the dock in order to allow them to build more CLs (and other classes like the CLA and CVS), that was about the extent of their capabilities until Y172.

At that point, a new agreement signed with the Mæsron Alliance saw a series of mechnical improvements added to the yards, allowing them to be expanded and refined in scope. This allowed the FRA to start fielding larger ships, like the BC and DN; and likely helped with production of the hybrid DD (and the yet-to-be-published CW and DW).

Now, it's not quite clear if these improvements saw both slipways enhanced; but it would seem reasonable to assume that the Aurorans would want to ensure that both of their slipways could handle the new ships they'd need to start building. (If, say, the DD was too big to be built in the old POL/FF yard, that would put more pressure on the cruiser slipway, and reduce the amount of larger ships the Republic could construct.)

And in any event, even if there were to be some sort of "system" refits to the older FFs and CLs, the trick would be to find a way to do so without taking up too much time and space in those precious slipways that would otherwise be spent on fielding new ships.

So, perhaps the key would be to see what kind fo ancillary facilities there might be in FRA space by then? The only fixed installations we know about that are outside the Aurora system itself (not counting fighter ground bases) are the pocket battlestations; which have repair facilities, but no fab or works set up. However, we don't yet know what, if any, kind of orbital installations were at Kraknora or PX 123 when those systems were brought over; and nor have we seen the other kind of bases and orbital installations the FRA may have installed in their home systems.

But even if one such facility was available that could at least handle the kind of conversions requred (akin to how the isolated ISC cantons were still able to build the dorsal hull modules needed to convert their ships into "system" units), that could allow the older fleet to get its upgrades without impeding production of the ships intended to supersede them.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 03:17 pm: Edit

SPP, true, but it still doesn't solve the problem. And if this is a very rare or never built ship, there has to be a reason. Rather than say the ship is unstable (although that "could" be why, due to its shift in center of gravity), I choose a different background explaination.

In my mind, when the POL docks at the base's Police berth, it pulls in with the port-side towards the dock and four clamps connect to the airlocks: on the bow, at mid-way of forward hull, mid-way & high up on aft hull, near the tail lower down on aft hull. Even truncating the pointed nose, the bow airlock will not line up.

Also, I'm looking at deck plans still in draft. I don't know if SVC showed you what I sent him, but splitting the aft hull would be far easier than splitting the forward hull, given how the rooms are laid out.

Garth L. Getgen

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 03:33 pm: Edit

I forgot to note that the Aurora system also had an incomplete Base Station in Y130; they rushed to complete it after the transfer. It's not clear if it needs a new SSD or not; but its on-board facilities might be of use in some capacity or other.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 03:39 pm: Edit

RE: POL to POL+ refit. In my deck plans, the Drone takes up space now assigned to (not sure yet) spare parts storage, fuel tanks, or HVAC equipment. The Ph-3s mounts are added to the "attic" space about the shuttle bay, and their control room takes one of the redundant shuttle-bay control rooms. There is no need to widen the POL to make it the POL+, so I would presume the same is true for the Aurora ships.

Garth L. Getgen

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 10:01 am: Edit

To add a practical question: wouldn't it be easier to cut the hull in half the other way, and add a full deck (or two), rather than a series of partial decks? You would also have to convert one of the existing rooms to the 360 degree phaser, but still.

I imagine the plan view on the SSD and counter could still be left wide, to show the difference.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Jack, yes and no. One could add another deck, but you would not gain the same systems as listed above. The shuttle bay is on Deck 1, and the cargo bay is on Deck 8, and the AWR is on Deck 4. Cutting the hull open your way adds a deck between 4 & 5. Unless you want to gut and re-arrange the entire back half of the ship, you can't get the same results.

Also, that would move the aft airlocks up/down, so they won't line up with the berth's docking clamps.

Garth L. Getgen

By Dal Downing - Rambler (3deez) on Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Garth due the varying sizes of Civilian Hulls I really can not see the oh, it won't fit in a standard docking port argument working.

A more reasonable argument might be it was a competing design for the Police Frigate design. By the time a handfull of conversion were made Starfleet started seconding actual frigates to the Marshal Service and they were considering any construction upgrades dollars would be better spent looking into a "Battle" (Police) Frigate or a "Battle" Police Flagship design.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 13, 2012 - 02:05 am: Edit

Dal, maybe. What's in Steve's mind may be totally different, but in my mind, the Police Station berth has standard gangways and docking clamps set up for the Cutter because that's all they ever put in those berths. Putting something like a civilian freighter in a Cutter berth is a huge security risk as it's inside the firewall.

In my mind, if they have to bring in a Free Trader, Armed Priority Transport, or other small civilian ships, they would dock in a nearby Customs Inspection berth (or take it to the impound lot). Even there, the gangways, although adjustable, have preset configurations to accommodate all the most common civilian ships. If they brought in something unusual, they'd have to manually configure the gangways. Sure, they can dock the wide-body or PFF in the freighter berth, but it causes all sorts of logistical headaches for them.

If you go to the court house or police station, you don't park your personal car in the police car parking lot, and the police rarely if ever park in the general public lot.

Garth L. Getgen

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 13, 2012 - 02:08 am: Edit

By the way, Dal, the Police Force and the Marshal Service are two totally separate agencies. Trust me; I've been down that road with SVC. They work together a lot, but the Marshals have a completely different mission objective.

Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 13, 2012 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Guys, don't forget that some civilian designs are operated by the police. infact, star fleet also operates APTs as auxiliary ships in the police order of battle lists. (infact this has been covered in a coulple fiction things in captains log magazine.) There is a Prime trader variant corvette IIRC, but I dont have my SSDs available to quote the name and rule number.

Given the size and docking port differences, I wonder if there isnt some sort of flexible docking arrangement... sort of like real world airports have so that they can handle different aircraft designs in the same terminal access points (gates).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 13, 2012 - 11:51 pm: Edit

You know, that's all background fluff. any comments on the SSD itelf?

Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 08:53 am: Edit


you are adding 8 SSD boxes of systems.

I think it was the medium endurance cutter topic
where the steves pointed out that removing 7 SSD boxes worth of SSD boxes would reduce the movement cost of the POL from 1/3=0.334 MC to 1/4=0.25MC.

I wonder if the increase in mass of the wide body refit would increase the MC to 3/8=0.375MC?

If it did, the warp engine power required for speed 30/turn (SFB tactical speed) would increase to 11.25 points of warp power.

could you add a "bobtail" warp necelle with 2 points of warp power (two SSD boxes) in the center warp location? changing the 5 point POL warp engines to 6 point FFG engines would also work.

By Dal Downing (3deez) on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 10:02 am: Edit

I think swapping the engines for standard frigate engines seems warranted if there is a movement cost increase. Garth what would that do to your fuel storage? With the added mass your creeping into Frigate Tonnage any way right?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Federation Frigates have 2x6 point warp engine nacelles, for a total of 12 warp power points. (just talking engines only here, not impulse or APR etc). that effectively makes them "hot warp" like the NCL.

Is there anything published that says we can't convert them to "regular warp" in Garth's "wide body POL" design?

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Jeff, how does that make them "hot warp"? Federation frigates predate hot warp by decades.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 04:34 pm: Edit

I know it adds 8 boxes, but only one of those is a powered weapon (Ph-1), which is offset by the extra AWR & Impulse.

I had thought of changing the warp for FFG drives and move costs, but I just didn't see that one more Ph-1 was worthy of that extra power.

Dal, I'll have to build a spreadsheet to cruch the numbers, but I think the POL+ volumn is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 that of a FFG.

Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Terry, thats the question.

perhaps the original Fed Frigate should be nerfed, just like the Fed Destroyer was with the publication of the DDM.

if there was no Hot warp, perhaps the original Fed middle years frigates had 5 point engines instead of the 6pointers.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Frigates are not "hot warp." You can drop that line of discussion right now. You do not get to redefine the rules to support your argument. No where has it ever been recorded that frigates were the original hot warp engines, and nowhere is that going to change, and no, we are not going to produce new frigate SSDs with five box warp engines to support your theory.

Game Over, Drop It.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 03:39 pm: Edit



I think it was the medium endurance cutter topic where the steves pointed out that removing 7 SSD boxes worth of SSD boxes would reduce the movement cost of the POL from 1/3=0.334 MC to 1/4=0.25MC.

You might want to go back and re-read that topic very closely. YOU were they one advocating a reduction of movement cost, not the Steves. When SVC said that taking out five boxes wasn't enough to justify reducing movemnet cost, that you'd have to lose at least a couple more, you assumed that seven would be enough. In a way, you put words in his mouth that he never really said.

Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 05:10 pm: Edit

I think this can continue to run, but I am not convinced we need another "limited run" of police cutter variants after we did the Pol-FF and etc.

Add a Message

This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation