The HTS with the type-H on top, that still leaves room for the B-26 add-on package, yes?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 07:43 pm: Edit

No, putting a type-H on a drogue is not "mounting it on a ship". No, I have no plans to change the existing rules and cancel type-H drones on drogues. FD21.11 sort of says no to the "on fighters or bombers" question. I will certainly agree to no fighters. Bombers, let's say "no" and not worry about it, but that Tu=22 is kind of cute.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 08:27 pm: Edit

SVC: So I guess the Silo Ship (pod) thing is fully dead too?


That's fine with me. It was an interesting discussion and seemed to be something other than "NO" but perhaps that's what it should be.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Loren, that comment (and perhaps copies of the last few posts here) should be added to the Silo ship/pod thread... just so the record is complete.

Might also request that the silo ship thread be closed as well...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:10 pm: Edit

An answer from SVC should come first.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Ya, for what its worth, I hope its not truely dead.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:14 am: Edit

Martin

---

Quote:

Launching an H-drone from a drogue is not like launching one from a ship.

---

---

Quote:

1. roll the drogue out at least four impulses before you want to launch the drone, taking the risk that your opponent will shoot it down before you can launch the drone.
2. be moving at speed 12 (or lower) from the moment you roll out the drogue until the moment you recover it.
3. allocate power to maintain your tractor-tether.
4. give up an admin shuttle to have the drogue in the first place.
5. accept that your opponent might vaporise the drogue before you get to launch the drone.
6. not be in a nebula or other tractor-negating terrain.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:10 am: Edit

Launching an H-drone from a drogue is not like launching one from a ship.

Yep, correct, it's nothing like it.

Silo ship: Not a new idea. I had it (and decided not to publish it) before any of you ever heard of type-H drones. Maybe someday, when I need to fill pages. It would, obviously, require special work to be done to the ship to make it possible.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:56 am: Edit

SVC: Thanks. I sure you had to have thought of such a beast during H-Drone developement. How could you not when you decided to not allow thim on ships a flood of predictions of player proposals must have hit you. Oh, maybe not back in 1980...

Anyway, that does tell us where we're at and there really no discusion left.

On to newer ideas then.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:03 am: Edit

I've never really understood the mystique of the type-H drone. That is I’ve never chosen to purchase one over some other drogue type. Can someone who has used one in combat validate that this really is the best thing since sliced bread and that I am simply lacking tactical imagination?

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:41 pm: Edit

1) When you are throwing HUGE waves of drones and the number of seeking weapons channels are limited.

2) To make drone identification just that much more confusing.

3) When you want to max out the seeker wave in conjunction with serial SPs...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 01:05 pm: Edit

I wrote a Term Paper that illustrates a good use.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I know I'll probably be kidnapped and ransomed for this, but here it goes (and I realized this after all the hoop-la with the F-101 proposal).

Should the Fed A-10F (that everyone is clamoring for) really be a speed-15 fighter, or should it be limited to a lower speed?

The A-10 is a spd-10, 16 damage fighter (1-space)
The Z-D is a spd-10, 10 damage fighter (1-space)
The G-1 is a spd-10, 8 damage fighter (1-space)
The G-2 is a spd-12, 12 damage fighter (1-space)
The G-3 is a spd-15, 12 damage fighter (1-space)

So everyone would probably like a A-10F that is spd-15, 16 damage fighter. Presumably using the same engines as a F-18B fighter with has an YIS=177.

BUT if you account for the extra damage that the A-10 takes (ie armoring like a 2007 A-10 has) this should presumably reduce the maximum speed of the A-10F as it has such better durability compared to the F-18B (16 damage vs 10).

So I think the A-10F should have a maximum speed of 13, and not 15 that everyone would, presumably, be hoping for.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Too bad we couldnt build a "streak" photon fighter...(sorta like the difference between the Kzinti AAS and the SAS) Only instead of dropping drones the "streak version" of the A-10 has 25% fewer damage points, maybe no phaser?!? and only carries Type VI drones... and a photon...

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 05:10 pm: Edit

On the issue of a higher speed A-10, I see it one of two ways. Either ships like the Fed CVA (which some have suggested should be prohibited from operating A-20s) should eventually have access to a speed-15 A-10 or the A-20 and A-20F should be treated as the single evolutionary path of the photon armed Fed fighter and be allowed to replace A-10s when the time comes. I'm OK with not having a faster A-10 so long as A-20s and A-20Fs can be used later to fill their shoes. But, if the CVA cannot carry A-20s for some reason, the speed-10 A-10 will become PF and plasma bait in the late Y170s and Y180s.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 06:24 pm: Edit

The thing is, by the time PFs roll around, the Feds are presumably turning their CVA into SCS (which don't operate A-10.) And let's not forget Megapacks; an A-10M is vile.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Fed SCS doesn't historically appear until after the General War...Y186. An A-10M is still speed 20. Good luck out running those Pl-Fs. Not to mention the fact the fighters are at a serious disadvantage vs PFs in the EW department. Y180-Y184 is not happy time for A-10s vs PFs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Speed 12 would be good and the Mega version would be 24. It would be right there iwth the A-20 (but not the A-20F).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 10:39 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Too bad we couldnt build a "streak" photon fighter...(sorta like the difference between the Kzinti AAS and the SAS) Only instead of dropping drones the "streak version" of the A-10 has 25% fewer damage points, maybe no phaser?!? and only carries Type VI drones... and a photon...

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Mike?

You mean go to all the trouble to invent a A-18?

heck no! man, I ain't THAT crazy!

No, I meant exactly what I posted... a fighter with no phaser, 2 type VI drones and one photon (no second charge), speed 15 and 10(possibly 12) damage points.

Maybe this was the F-12(the A-4 skyray?) before they ripped out the part with the photon so they had room to install the phaser emiter? THere must have been some changes before the Federation sold the production facilities to the Gorns!)

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 10:16 pm: Edit

OFFICIAL MENTION OF SHIP IN ANOTHER TOPIC.
#########################################
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: R0.0: PROPOSALS FOR NEW CLASSES: Other races equivalents to the Fed ADw
Michael C. Grafton December 13, 2007
Race: Kzintis
Time: ?
Type: ?
Hull: ?
General outline of idea: SVC: I can see the Kzintis doing one of these in R12. (Somebody go post a note in R12 that I said so.) #########################################
PER SVC DIRECTIVE, COMMENTS ON THIS SHIP
SHOULD GO IN ITS OWN TOPIC, NOT THIS ONE.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 02:46 am: Edit

Fed DVA "Attack Carrier". Proposed as an alternate rebuild of the Star Tiger (the other two designs being the DNM and the DVL.) The design was similar to the DVL, but had increased firepower and carried six A-10 strike fighters. The larger ship would be slower (standard DN move cost) and no longer able to conduct deep-strike raids; it would be considered the equivalent of a CVA.

It was intended to operate 12xF-14 and 6xA-10, but chronic shortages of the former type meant that it likely would have flown 12xF-18 instead. (Since the ship had more combat power than the CVA, this would not be seen as a great disadvantage.) The shuttle bay would not have been large enough for the ship to operate F-15. If the ship had been built, then after the loss of the MacArthur and the damage to the Napoleon it likely would have been issued F-14 and upgraded to a full CVA-type escort group.

The DVL design was selected instead, because Star Fleet doctrine still involved extensive raids of enemy commerce and logstical operations. The DVA concept was partially revisited, much later, in the design of the BCV/BCS.

Design: As DVL, but add (to rear hull):
2x Btty, 1x Drone-G, 2x Rear Hull, 2x PH-1-360, 2x AWR, 2x Trac, 1x 6-box Hangar with ready racks for A-10 in each space
remove (from rear hull): 3xAdmin from the existing bay (keeping 12xFighter, 2xAdmin, 1xSWAC.)

Special: Both hangars have Large Doors, but neither is a Tunnel Deck. The forward (superiority-fighter) hangar has a six-place balcony. Either bay can drop T-Bombs.

Escorts/Fighters:
Pre-Y181: NEC/NEA or NAC, FFE/FFA or DWE/DWA. 12xF-18 (best type available), 6xA-10.
Post-Y181: 2xNAC, FFA or DWA. 12xF-14 (best type available), 6xA-10.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 02:07 pm: Edit

OFFICIAL MENTION OF SHIP IN ANOTHER TOPIC.
#########################################
FEDERATION HEAVY SCOUT CARRIER (SVA)
SFB; SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: FEDERATION PROPOSALS FOLDER: Federation SCS variant.
Race: Federation
Time: Post General War, during the Andro war around late Y196.
Type: Unescorted single-ship carrier.
Hull: Unique Hull form derived from CVA that uses a twin side-tunnel deck.
Outline of proposal: During the design competition to build a Federation space control ship a heaver version of the division control ship was developed with 36 fighters. The design was based on an enlarged and modified CVA rear hull that used a unique twin side-tunnel deck, which carried all 36 fighters inside the enlarged hangar bay. The SCS design was selected for construction. Design development continued for the next decade. The final ship configuration was influenced by the discovery of the RTN network in Y195 and the Kzinti’s SSCS Goliath.

Weapons: Saucer: 2xPH-1-LS; 2xPH-1-RS; 4xphotons FA; 2xspecial sensors. Dorsal Turret: 2xDrn-B. Rear Hull: 2xPH-1-360; 4xPH-G-360; 2xPH-1-RH; 4xDrn-G; 2xspecial sensors.

Fighters and shuttles: 6xA-20F, 12xF-14D and 6xF-101F (twin side-tunnel deck); 6 shuttles in a rear bay.

The saucer has 2xTransporters. The rear hull had 8xTractors, 2xTransporters, and 2xprobe launchers (5 space).

#########################################
PER SVC DIRECTIVE, COMMENTS ON THIS SHIP
SHOULD GO IN ITS OWN TOPIC, NOT THIS ONE.

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, September 01, 2012 - 08:11 pm: Edit

J3 ideas.(re-posted from August 2012: Pick the next SFB module)

In Y183 the USS Napoleon carrier group engaged and destroyed the The IKV Vindicator. Was the Napoleon carrying A-20Fs? Was the IKV Vindicator a C8V, C8S, or a C10V? This would be a cool new scenario.

In Module R11 is is (SH242.0) Gamble: Klingons wreck the Fed FRX. In the historical outcome section it states "The result was Admiral Radey's carrier group would be unsupported by the X-squadron in the coming operation. I am presuming that upcoming operation culminated in the Pleiades Turkey Shoot (SH17.0). There are two interesting scenario prospects here. The "what if" scenario that would have included the X-squadron (which allow (SH17.0) to be updated). The second is the wider tactical plans The Federation and Klingons had what what smaller attrition battles occurred (I presume the swarm came from the Klingon BATS in coordinates 2112 as Pleiades is in coordinates 2011).

The Klingons also have a BATS in coordinates 1811 and a STB in coordinates 2014. As an idea the Klingons are trying to build a series of early warning networks (Planetary Operations (537.3)) surrounding the BATS in 2112. Perhaps this could be called the Keiron line are the military prince who became emperor in Y145 (Gurps Klingon 4E page 19). The line is anchored at one end on Sherman's planet (1910) and the other on Bezwell Index (2214). A third scenario idea is in Y182 as part of a carrier group attack against the Keiron lne the USS Wolverine was supposed in slip past and conduct a raid. Instead the USS wolverine was caught by an X-squadron and destroyed (CL# 27 page 25).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 29, 2019 - 10:57 pm: Edit

I want to plow through this over the fall and see if there is enough to make a product or roll it into R13.