While BC production was limited to one a year plus any converted, they may have given some thought a fast variant of the BC. This may be nothing more than a design study as the hot warp engines needed for this ship would be competing for those needed for the CF.
The advantage of the BCF would be that it is has a little more firepower than the CF, putting closer in line to the firepower of CC, with the advantage of being a fast ship. The draw back would be taking away a potential CR 10 BC to create one.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 12:36 pm: Edit

It would have a lot more firepower than a CF, presumably 12P-1 2P-3 4ESG and 2 Disr.

The Lyrans would have to design a new fast warp engine for it - as it uses three 10 point engines.

I don't think fast ships use 'hot warp' - that is what CWs and such use.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 07:02 pm: Edit

That would depend on wether it's based on the BC or BCH, the BCF would be either 9-10F (BC) or 10-11F (BCH) [10-11FP if upgraded with PFs - BCPF)

Probably the FA disruptor were downgraded to PH-1s instead of the FX disrurtors...course the hard part would be the 12-box engines althopugh one might use two CA engines with a FF or DD center engine (36/38 warp)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 07:17 pm: Edit

I think all three engines would have to be upgraded for it to be a fast ship.

A BCHF is not going to fly I would think, as by that point X-ships are available, at which point fast ships are completely obsolete.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 07:20 pm: Edit

it would be a BC not a BCH variant.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 09:10 pm: Edit

If the CF has 2x18pt engines, and MC=1, presumably the BCF would have 3x12pt engines, so they would both have 36 warp, and MC=1.

Not too far fetched, but having 4xESGs and all that speed would make it a "ram daddy" ship.

So weapon wise, how about sacrificing an ESG, and downgrading an FX-Disruptor to FX-P1.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 09:40 pm: Edit

I think outright removing 2 ESG and having the FX disruptors changed to phaser-1s would be a reasonable representation of the class as a fast BC. It would still have a lot of firepower for a fast ship but not be a ramming monster like the normal BC is.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Essentially, I propose that it be convertible from a CL, with three 12 point engines, but a modified center section with no ESGs and replacing the center disruptors with phaser-ones.

It should be command rating nine, as is the DNL.

Historically, it was possible to build BCXs, which had three 12 point engines, so it would probably have been possible to make a BCF.

I don't think they'd actually do it though and it would be a good ship for the next R-module.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 07:08 am: Edit

For F&E purposes this could be built in place of the DNL only. So you can build the DNL or the BCF but not both. Like the DNL it would be a CR9 ship.

Only 2 ESGs. 4 would be way too powerful.

It would not have the 2 center Phaser-1 360 or the two center ESGs. Their would be no cargo or repair boxes. While it could carry 4 PFs this ship would be a casual PFT and not a true PFT.

Power Packs would not be available for use on this unit because of the design differences between the BC/BCH and this ship.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 07:17 am: Edit

It would have to have power packs, or it would have LESS power than a BC (with packs) - which would seem weird. Removing both phaser one 360 as well as two ESGs seems excessive.

I don't see why it would have to be built in place of a DNL. BCs aren't built in DN slipways and aren't an allowed down sub of a DN, they're not related in any way. The engines of a BCE would not be DNL engines either.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 07:47 am: Edit

I have to agree with Richard. Turtle wants a bit much of cutting.

It does present an issue in that no one else has a fast ship between the CF and DNL ranges.

Is the Lyran CF especially weak compared to others? The DNL especially good? How do they compare in the larger scheme?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Keep in mind this is a design study for a one off build at best. Because of that I'm purposely underarming/underpowering it to try and keep it at 9-10F/5 rating for F&E purposes. Power Pack(s) may be needed to balance it, but the "initial" YIS should be Y170.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 08:46 pm: Edit

Michael, the federation does have the FBC from CL 28, granted not official, but there.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Just removing two ESGs and downgrading two Disruptors to phaser-ones should do the trick. It's more than a CF loses. Fast ships are NOT under powered, so doing that is not a good idea, imo.

By Donovan Willett (Ravenhull) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 07:55 am: Edit

As for engines, just the fact that designing and building 'fast warp' engines for this ship could be the official reason it never got built. The only way they could have justified it would have been if they were building FCLs (which brings the question would the internal mods on a fast light cruiser prevent conversion mandating that all fast BCs had to be scratch built).

Could be a fun conjectural design, though if it were to go through, I am sure we would see equivalent versions of all the BCs in short order...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 08:36 am: Edit

The BCs of the other empires can't be considered for a fast BC design as they took the cruiser hulls to the limit. I believe that the reference is in the federation BC notes. (rulebook not available at this time). The Lyran BC has a little bit of room because it did morph into the BCH. That bit of room is what makes this a unique unit for the Lyrans, and then only as a design study or one off at best.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 08:46 am: Edit

I suspect that a Kzinti CV hull might be doable, if they had ever built any as standard warships, which they did not.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 01:45 pm: Edit

At this juncture all I can see is that this may have been a "competitive proposal" for the CF design, which the CF design won and this ship was never built, i.e., is conjectural. SVC, however, notes that you, the players, do not like conjectural ships, so perhaps something different background wise would need to be done to make it "real." Right now, I have no concept of what that would be as the ship seems much to expensive to build as a "one-off."

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 09:07 pm: Edit

I'd say that making "production" versions of the 12pt engines for the Lyrans could be justification enough.

The CL/BC uses 10pt, the CA/DN uses 15pt, the CF uses 18.

Maybe they were a maintenance nightmare, that wasn't worth overcoming, compared to the 18pt engines the CF utilized (they might have been less of a nightmare, 2x larger engines, verses 3x smaller).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 09:48 pm: Edit

One could have been built for a fly off. As SPPs suggests it was rejected in favor of the cheaper and slightly less capable CF because of maintenance costs.

The Lyran Triamaran design does help give this one some single empire flavor. The closest thing to this would be the ISC CF.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 09:55 pm: Edit

As SPP also suggested, it seems it would be much too expensive to build as a "one-off".

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 10:07 pm: Edit

In F&E terms, the Y168 OOB assigns a DNL to the Far Stars fleet if using the Advanced Operations rules. That ship, the Heartseeker, was sent to the Far Stars Duchy in order to serve its peculiar need to project force over a vast territory with relatively open borders.

Perhaps the same motivation driving Heartseeker's assignment could lie behind the construction of this ship; in that it was intended to be sent off-map as a substitute for a "standard" battlecruiser.

Under this proposal, the first battlecruiser hull that gets assigned to Far Stars historically would turn out to be the BCF, rather than a standard BC. Only later, once the BC/H hull type became more widely available (and once more Far Stars ships were being brought back onto the map for use in the General War), would the Duchy gain access to its first (and second, and subsequent) non-fast battlecruiser hulls.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 10:57 am: Edit

Gary makes an intersting point. A second one could have been ordered but was changed to a standard BC when the GW breaks out. Or it could have been sabatoged beyond repair.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Gary Carney's point is no point.

Sorry.

The Lyrans begin the war with a DNL and two CFs. The DNL is assigned off map. There is no particular reason that the Far Stars needed a second Fast Ship, and no reason that even if it did, that second fast ship would not have simply been a new CF rather than an entirely new design. Inventing reasons to have another fast ship in the Far Stars does not justify that ship being a new design.

By Donovan Willett (Ravenhull) on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Besides, if the Far Stars needed a new Fast Ship, an SRF would be more likely. ;)

(Though, I wonder if it would lose tug capability in order to mount the fast engines... most likely yes.)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 09:03 pm: Edit

I don't think survey ships have a special need for fast engines. So, imo, no.