Just to throw a idea for the next Stellar Shadows thingy:

The "updated" CVO (the original Fed Flatbed carrier) was published equipped with decent fighters (including mech linked 2 space heavy fighters iirc.)

What is missing is the early history explaining A. How the CVO was built, B.Why the DN hull based Carriers replaced the CVO class, And C. Where the CVO class ships (assuming there was more than one built) have been during the first half of the General War.

Starting the ball rolling, is it fair to assume that the Federation had a "fly off" competition for the large carrier production contract?

The Federation had fly offs with the FFB/DW class, the NCL/CS, and the OCA/CA... and it's implied that the oCL also had a fly off... though I can't remember if the competitor for the OCL was published.

If there was a fly off for the large carrier production, it likely means the prototypes first flew in early year 169.

Now we know that the fed CVA deployed with F-14A, A-10 and a SWAC.

I could see a early CVO operating with a squadron of F4 single spac fighters and a Squadron of A-6 assault shuttles. Might have launched so early no SWAC were available, so had to make do with a pair of MRS's.

Clearly the DN hull class carriers won the fly off.... leaving CVO with out a mission or a role.

Two options, mothballed until needed sometime around year 180.

Or, second option, convert them to Galactic Survey missions, replacing the three or four GSC hulls that converted to CVL or commando variants. Not sure if the CVO ( possible GVO variant) could or should have special sensors... but if they did they certainly could conduct most of the survey missions.

Comments?

By Chris Ross (Chrisross) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 12:51 am: Edit

If I was to redo the CVO I'd make it part of a family of designs built around a new warp engine design for the Feds of 22 boxes or so. There'd be a twin engine DN, a move 1.5 CVO, a single engine NCL, maybe a three engine heavy battleship. This engine in the end proved uneconomic (or at least lacked political push) and while two CVOs were built all later Federation CVAs were dreadnought derivatives. The other big engine designs never left the drawing board.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Chris, I agree that it requires a new / different engine than the existing 15 point warp engines already in use by the Federation... I am not as confident, as you seem to be, that 22 is the "right size".

If built, I agree that it might have been used in other designs.. but at 22 points, it's better than the 20 pointers used by the X1 Hulls.

By Chris Ross (Chrisross) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 02:02 pm: Edit

I'm not arguing for any exact engine size, but I am suggesting that the CVO ought to be dreadnought sized which means it wants engines of the scale seen on Gorn and Roman Condor family dreadnoughts.
If the Romulans can build big engines the technology can't be too difficult.
Having invented a need for very big Fed engines I attempt to grow the market for them by also proposing they be used on dreadnought and light cruiser designs, before then saying they were cancelled for technical/economic/industrial/poltical reasons to fit in the SFU timeline.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 02:59 pm: Edit

I got the point. Not sure it will be very popular on the BBS... there is a history of some rather harsh comments, but perhaps that will not happen this time.

You might want to reconsider the history of the CVO.

It's always been huge, but initially, at least, it was a movement cost 1.0 rate. Coupled with two 18 point warp engines, it could move at 31 hexes per SFB game turn (using 30 warp power points, plus 1 point of impulse energy.)

If the movement cost was adjusted to 1 1/5 (equal to 1.2) then 36 warp power would require all of the warp power out put of the two nacelles.

Alternatively, you could use three of the old CL warp engines, or three NCL nacelles.

No hot warp, or fast warp stuff, just tuned to regular warp.

If it were a three engine design, using smaller engines, it would still have the maneuverability of a DN class hull, but just not the same number of internal SSD boxes.

Another reason it was inferior to the DN hull carriers. It could carry a similar flight group, just can't take damage as well as a DN.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 03:43 pm: Edit

4x12 engines, inline in pairs so 2 nacelles, 1.5 movecost. Give it a horrid turn mode and breakdown from the overlapping warp fields. The ship itself could be anywhere from large cruiser to full dreadnought in size, but the warp system would be a technological dead end as lightening the ship did not reduce the move cost as hoped.

Perhaps the focus on those big flatbed balconies drove the project to a 2-nacelle design at any cost, as the open balconies would be impractical with a third dreadnought engine above them.

(Do the Feds have a 10-box engine?)

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Hmmm, IIRC the CVO was a design exercise for a translation of an 1980's (1970's?) CVN into Federation service hence the early Fed fighters …

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Steve Z.

I could believe 4 * 12 point warp engines, but going to a 4 engine configuration is still adding additional structure to the design.

Is it possible that it pushed the ships movement cost above 1.5?

Just playing devils advocate, what if it increased the MC to 1 2/3? Call it MC=1.67.

That means the energy cost goes up to 50.01 for 30 hexes movement... with 48 warp power, means the ship maxes out at speed 28 or so (not including impulse energy).

Reason enough for the CVO to fail...

BUT, iirc the printed CVO in SSJ used 18 point warp engines. If so (and I need to go back to verify) the early version CVO needs to use the same power plants.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 11:50 pm: Edit

By 4 engines, I mean stacking one in front of the other with one housing around them. The model would look like it has 2 long engines, but the engineering decks would be a maintenance nightmare inside.

18 is awkward to fit in one housing. 12+6 looks sloppy, and a stack of YCL engines is stretching it (as is three FF engines). Could the original blueprints be a white elephant left over from the early MY era and they're too far in to start over with General War era pieces?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 06:07 am: Edit

18 is what got published.

I still have to check ssj#2, but I ***think*** the 18 point engines were retained.

If true, then we are stuck with using 18 point engines. Sorry, I suspect neither Steve would accept any changes that involve re-engining the CVO, just the re-re-engine them back to 18 pointers in the late General War period ssj#2 covered.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 11:10 am: Edit

Jeff;
The CVA(O) is in SSJ#1, and still has 18 box engines.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 11:32 am: Edit

Was the Fed CVO made real again?

Jeff mentioned a fly off with one actually being built. I thought it was pushed into conjectural territory as an unbuilt design.

If one was built I cannot see a situation in which the Federation would mothball it during the General War until Y180. Even if it was slow or high-maintenance the Federation was on the ropes and needed every warship they could get. Plus it has two squadrons of fighters giving it impressive combat density in F&E.

I cannot see it being used for survey duty. Too big and expensive. I do not think it could replace multiple ships either. Multiple ships can go in multiple directions. In F&E as well I would not give up a CVO for two CVLs and a COV.

If this is all just a fictional history ignore my blathering.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Jon, this IS stellar Shadows topic.

I consider the CVO as fitting in to the "fun to fly" exception that SVC specified for SSJ proposals.

That said, some things are just too over the top to work, even in SSJ. Not sure if re engining the CVO is one of those, or even making a GSV variant with special sensors is possible.

But as ADM pointed out, it was published in SSJ#1.

We just do not know how it managed to survive to the point where the F-111 Squadron was installed.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 08:41 pm: Edit

I do not see a way to ***make the CVO real***

As Jon made the point that there is no way the Federation would leave one (or two?!?) CVO variants idle during the early General War years (year 171 to 173?).

unless there was a engineering issue (something on the order that the two 18 point engines providing 36 combined warp energy points and the warp field dynamics resulted in a movement cost rate of 2 or higher...)

That said, there ARE real world examples where the naval architects blundered. The French Navy designed a new carrier that used steam power for the ships main engines AND used steam powered catapults. The problem was, instead of designing the power plants to provide enough steam for both engines and catapults AT THE SAME TIME, the boilers could only supply ONE user. Either move the ship or use the catapults, not both.

That was why they took the carrier back into the ship yard to fit new propellers... and again blundered the first time they tried to use them. The blades were made to be more aggressive i.e. To take a bigger "bite" of water, which would have produced more thrust through the water. Problem was, when they tried it, the water resistance snapped off the blades, forcing the pride of the French navy to have to be towed back to harbor.

The other example goes back more than 100 years, but was at the time, state of art technology. I think it was the British cruisers of the H.m.s. Powerful class. As big as the battleships of the day (pre dreadnought) the intent was to produce the fastest warships in the world (this was before the development of turbine technology) by greatly expanding the engine spaces and cramming in more boilers and triple expansion steam engines.

Then needed six YEARS to make it work as designed. The ships entered service just a year or so before the H.M.S. Dreadnought.

If the CVO was built as a fly off competitor to the DN hulled CVA, and needed six years to work out the bugs in the 18 point regular warp engines, that would push the deployment of the CVO to (year 169+6 years), means shake down cruise in year 175 or later.

A year 175 deployment means A-10 and F-14 squadrons, and SWACs as well.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 11:37 pm: Edit

OK the original CVA or the CVO as it is know as now had some items on the SSD that are no longer included on the new SSD and if I remember correctly they cost power to hold or operate, will have to find my old rules for the period. They were Photon Freezer boxes I think 12. that was what the extra warp power was needed for. Again I have to find my old rules, but I dont believe it was designed as a DN class ship.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 11:43 pm: Edit

It wasn't.

It had a MC=1.0 which means it had 6 points more power from the engines than it needed to move 30 hexes in a SFB game turn.

And yes, it had photon freezers, but I think they were removed from the SsJ#1 SSD.

It was also, iirc a size class 3 hull (yeah, I know, it still sounds wrong to me.)

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 11:56 pm: Edit

The original design came with F14 and a multi use A10. I cant find my copy of expansion 2 right now, but that covers the original history of it.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 12:35 am: Edit

Found Expansion2, (157.1) THE CARRIER
In responding to the construction of carriers by most of the races bordering the Federation, the Federation Star
Fleet constructed three carefully designed "Flatbeds" in Y171. The Federation intended to launch the best carriers
ever designed and may have succeeded. They did succeed in launching the last large fleet carriers in known space.
The CV retains the full forward centerline armament of the CA, but compared w ith the CA the side Phasers have
been replaced w ith Gatlings and the Phasers in the Rear Hull w ith Phas-lll's to provide for defense against enemy
Fighters. Specially built escorts (OE and ECL, belowl always escort the carriers. Anti-Drones have been added to the
rear to provide additional Drone defense. Note that oversized Warp Engines have been installed to provide power for
the Photon Torpedoes that arm the Attack Shuttles.
(157.11) The ten Photon Torpedo boxes in the Rear Hull section are used to hold Photon Torpedoes fo r the Attack
Shuttles. This assembly is known as the "Freezer." Photon Torpedoes may be armed and stored in the Freezer, but
they may not be fired from it nor may they be transferred between the Freezer and launch tubes in the front of the
ship. Each box can hold one Photon Torpedo. Regardless of the number of Photon Torpedoes stored in the Freezer,
it costs four energy points per turn to operate it. The boxes of the Freezer are destroyed on Torp hits. Armed Torpedoes
held in the Freezer can be ejected.
(157.12) The Carrier has five Oeck Crews assigned to load Photon Torpedoes onto the A )0 Attack Shuttles. Each
deck crew can load one Photon Torpedo from its holding box onto the Shuttle in a given turn, using the rules given
in (59.49). The carrier has twenty Deck Crews assigned to load Orones. These operate normally, as per (59.49),
loading Drones onto the F-14 Fighters and A-10 bombers. These Deck Crews are highly trained in the individual
tasks. "Drone" Deck Crews may not load Photons and vice-versa.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 10:18 am: Edit

Oh god I remember that beast. The Fed players kept wanting to fire a broad side of photons.
I am so glad that it all changed to having the freezer boxes added into the fighter boxes.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Gads... Eddie C. Thanks for quoting the ship description from expansion 2.

If I recall F&E rule correctly, I think CVA production is 1 hull a year. If the DN three engine hull CVA came out in years 169 and year 171, then the CVO production could have been produced in year 168 and year 170. The third CVO hull could have been scrapped, not started or stored after the fly off confirmed the CVA / DN hull as the winner.

I know the source material all says F-14 and A-10 squadrons. I still want a CVO flying F-4 and A-6 types in year 169!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Jeff, the F&E 3 engine DN hull production is 2 per year. 1 in the spring and 1 in the fall. By definition the CVA is built during the spring turn. However, one could flip production of the CVA and DN in one desired.

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Jeff why build a ship with photon freezers if you dont have a fighter to use them

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Eddie, my assumption is photon freezers were ruled illegal.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 07:51 pm: Edit

And then you do a little refit to cram A20FMs in there...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Eventually!