Archive through January 31, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R02: FEDERATION PROPOSALS:
DNG Carrier:
Archive through January 31, 2020
With the general war and the improvements on the DN, I was wondering if anyone had done the CVA based on the DNG hull, but with the 2 squadrons of 12 fighters instead of the heavy fighters.
I think it's something a lot of fans have wanted (myself included) and some have even done (unofficial) SSDs on their own websites.
HOWEVER, as I've thought about it more, I don't think it's really that good of an idea; it puts too much "Stuff" on a single hull. Should that ship be crippled (or destroyed), it'll have a far greater impact on the entire front.
I think of it this way: The Brass can have one of two options; this CVA/DNG (or even CVA/DNH) combo with two NCA and a DWA, or it can have a DNH that's regularly accompanied by a Patrol Carrier with her two escorts.
They have a run-in with the B-10. The Federation Flagship is crippled and out of action for the next six months. With the second of the two options listed above, the Federation will still have the Patrol Carrier Group watching the border.
A potential option was if the B-10 concentrated on the Patrol Carrier and blew it into 1,234,567,890 microparticles (
). If that were to happen, the Federation would still have the DNH in the theater.
On the other hand, if the Federation combined the DNH with the CVA in a single hull in that fight with the B-10 and SHE was crippled, what would the Federation have available on the border?
Don't get me wrong, for a Tri-Video Mano-a-Mano with the B-10, I'd LOVE to have a ship with the firepower of the DNH that has the full fighter wing of a CVA, but for practical purposes, it's too much of a risk, in my opinion.
On the other hand, it might be a fun class of ship to explore for a potential Stellar Shadows Journal article.
JGA:
In a limited sense, having different types and variants of warships is like a carpenter and his tool box. Each tool has a purpose and a function that allows said tradesman to do his job effectively and efficiently. You could hire a jack of all trades for less, but he might not have the experience or the tools to do the job.
Believe it, or not, there are jobs not suitable for either a B-10 battleship or a DNG variant carrier.
Use the proper ship (if available) to complete the mission.
Now, if the DNG is all that’s available, then that is a different conversation.
It’s possible, the mission calls for an independent strike, and the DNG/CVA group just happens to be there... you have to pay for the group, but just sending the fighters (depending on circumstances!) is the commanders choice.
Now, if it’s a surprised reversed scenario... the fighter group can have its own version of a turkey shoot.
I'd think there would be several variant CVAs over time for the Feds.
Squadron of 12 F14 plus squadron 12 A10
Squadron of 12 F14 plus squadron 6 F111
Squadron of 12 F14 plus squadron 6 A20.
Certainly I don't know of any fiction with a Fed SCS...
McArthur dies over Remus?
*** is wrecked dueling with Vindicator?
*** isn't talked about except as a name in the History???
Napoleon? Peter the Great? Julius Caesar? George Catlett Marshall? Zhukov?
I'm away from my books as usual.
There certainly have been discussions, particularly in the proposals section.
Just guessing, but I assume that CVA/SCS battles tend to be mostly fleet actions and not something a playing group could handle in an afternoon... (or even several afternoons.)
I know I would be interested in the stories of the CVA sCS battles, but I may be in the minority.
I believe there already is a DNG-based carrier, or something similar. It is designated either the DNV or DVA, I can't recall which off the top of my head. I think Mike West came up with it. But again I may be misremembering.
Compared to the CVA it loses two G-racks but picks up two photon torpedoes (CVA is 4xphoton, 4xG-rack; DVA (or maybe it's DNV) is 6xphoton, 2xG-rack) and also swaps some batteries for AWR, giving it more generated power but less reserve power than the CVA. I also have a vague recollection (it's been a while since I looked at the SSD) that the phaser suite is different; two fewer gatlings but two more phaser-1s.
There is a piece of fiction involving a Fed SCS, a B-10, and 2 Andro Dominators. "A Meeting of Giants" in CL 6.
Played that one....
B-10 along with the CX and the A-10s went after one Dominator...
SCS and Escorts after the other...
I removed the CVO, most of it's escorts, from their Order of Battle....
There was a DNG based carrier which had the flight group of 12 F14's, plus 6 A20's.
What I was wondering was if there was a CVA with the flight grouop of 12 F14's, along with the 12 A10's.
Hoping for something official, as I was going to try a Captains game but using a CVA group.
As the one who designed the DNV, the answer to your question is, no.
The design goal of the DNV was to put a full set of fighters in a DNG hull and not change the forward hull. Note specifically, that is a DNG hull, not a CVA hull. The whole point is to not change the exterior of the DNG hull. (Well, too much. Gotta carve out a few landing pads somewhere.) Given that limitation, putting in 24 fighter boxes (which equates to 26-30 shuttle boxes) basically hollows out the rear hull, eliminating way too many systems. By using the A-20s, it saved a lot of space allowing enough original systems to be retained.
That was the logic of the whole thing.
If what is really wanted is a DNG saucer on a CVA rear hull, ask away. I am sure there are 100+ proposals with that combination. I'm guessing there is a reason one has never been published, but I don't know. I get the feeling that is what is really being looked for.
Also, do realize that the reason for the A20s instead of A10s is that there is an A20F, but there is no A10F. As such, with their very slow speed, they tend to get left behind in a lot of battles. And, no, there isn't going to be an A10F at any point in the future. (Also, don't forget that the A10s on the CVA itself were eventually replaced by A20s, so the move is always toward A20s, not A10s.)
I understand the logic that you used on the ship.
I was kind of hoping that there was an official one that was made.
I was kind of thinking of it as being a stepping stone from the beginning war CVA to a late war CVA that Mike West had made.
But they were still using the original flight group, as anything could have happened to their A20 squadron before they got it, and they had to continue to use the original squadrons.
Honestly, I view the DVA (I got the designation wrong in my first post here) to be a compromise/emergency design rather than something that was evolved to. The SCS is the proper ship that was evolved to, not the DVA.
Put another way, the CVA is the heavy carrier that the Federation viewed as its "ideal". The fullest expression of that is the awesome SCS (seriously: it has a full 24 fighters *plus* a full heavy fighter squadron). Unfortunately, these ships were apparently hideously expensive and they couldn't really afford to make any more after their initial batch.
The DVA is not in that progression. Rather it was an attempt (and given that there was apparently only one of them, a failed attempt) to create a more "cost effective" heavy carrier that used a hull much closer to a standard DNG. While successful on its own terms, I would expect there wasn't enough cost benefit to justify it. So, since it was basically as expensive to make its "cheaper" model, the Federation just decided to make their preferred model, culminating in the SCS design.
So, I don't view the DVA as a "late war CVA" as much as a "attempt at a cheaper CVA" that didn't pan out.
You also run into a timing problem. The DNG was introduced in Y175; the DVA in Y179; the A20 in Y177. So, once the Federation gets around to making a DVA style ship, they wouldn't actually use A10s. I would bet that if you ever got a DVA style ship with 24 fighters, it would be either 12xF-14 and 12xF-18 (or, worse, 24xF-18), rather than ever carrying A-10s. (Even worse for you, with the current history, they wouldn't even use the full 24 fighters, as 12 of the F-18s would be converted to 6 F-101s.)
Finally, just to be clear, the above is all my understanding. The official explanation given by SPP or SVC could (and probably is) completely different.
I always thought the limit on CVA and DVAs was the F14 deployment limit...
I'd bet that they'd make sure that there was room for F14s in any heavy carrier design, but they'd be stuck at the number of F14s limit.
Just wondering if changing the flight group (meaning the types and number of fighters carried by the CVA) from top end F-14 and A-10 squadrons to lower quality (but larger oversized) fighters might yield a higher COMPOT value in f&e terms.
For example, instead of 12 F-14 fighters in one squadron with iirc a 8 COMPOT, you swapped an oversized squadron of 18 F-18 fighters with a 9 COMPOT.
Or, instead of 12 A-10 assault Shuttles, you changed to an oversized squadron of 8 F-101 heavy fighters.
I forget what COMPOT 6 F-101 fighters have. Is it 8 COMPOT? 9? If it’s 9, then 8 F-101 oversized fighter group would yield a COMPOT of 12.
I suspect the same proportion would be valid if we stated it in terms of BPVs.
So, instead of a 15 COMPOT fighter group using F-14 and A10s, the CVA would raise its flight group COMPOT to 24 (or 23 if the F-101 squadron COMPOT I s only worth 8).
Of course, you need to increase the CVA fighter shuttle box for F-18 to 18, and increase the hanger capacity for F-101 to 16 boxes compared to 12 for the A-10s.
That’s growing from the original 24 shuttle boxes to 34, or a net increase 10 more fighter shuttle boxes.
You COULD reduce the number of admin or SWACs deployed, but 10 boxes is a lot. Might have to delete some non fighter shuttle boxes.
Is an increase in the flight groups COMPOT from 15 to 23 or 24 worth doing?
Particularly given the limits of how many F-14 squadrons can be in play? It just an example of the old Joseph Stalin quote, “quantity has a quality all its own.”
Added wrong. The Oversized F-18 squadron COMPOT is 9, the oversized F-101 squadron COMPOT is 12, 9+12=21.
Jeff,
Are oversized squadrons of heavy fighters even legal? Unless I am misremembering (which is certainly possible) , they are available only in squadrons of 6.
Aren't two oversized squadrons in the same force illegal? The technobabblium that allows you to count 18 or 24 fighters as a single squadron runs out after you have one of them at a time.
Alan &Douglas:
That’s why I asked it as a question. I know there are ships that do operate oversized squadrons (I think the Hydran Iron Duke is one). I can’t remember if heavy fighters are allowed to be oversized... but then, there was a time single space fighters squadrons couldn’t be oversized.
That’s a question for SPP or SVC.
Oversized squadrons can only contain standard single size fighters; no heavy fighters, no F-14, no F-15, and no A-10. Must all come from single ship and maximum of 24 fighters. Ship cannot have heavy weapons.
Note that oversized squadron is only effects the squadron limit in a force. They still operate as two squadrons for purposes such as EW.
Additionally no ship can have more than six heavy fighters.
Note the Hydran IC is the most extreme. It has a oversized squadron, a regular sized squadron, and four hybrid fighters. The regular squadron can be replaced by a heavy squadron.
So 24 F-18 would work, that translates to 12 fighter factors of one nominal squadron.
A squadron of 12 F-14 would yield a COMPOT of 8.
That would total 20 fighter factors, 36 fighter shuttle boxes, or 12 more than the original CVA carried. So carry fewer admin shuttles and the smaller SWAC (2 box size 2 E2.)
Still means expanding the shuttle bay some how, but gets you a CVA with a (8+12)=20fighter factor group. That’s 5 more than the CVA carried. Is it worth publishing? Would the F&E guys use it?
To get the oversized squadron you also need to strip out the photon torpedoes; drops the attack factor by about 4 points.
Somewhere there was a proposal for a heavy interdiction carrier. Put a 18 or 24 F-18s into a bay in primary hull, plus 12 F-14 and 6 A-20F in the rear.
That’s a better solution.
24 F-18 fighters has a COMPOT of 12. (12 fighter factors.)
12 F-14s COMPOT is 8.
6 A-20s is what? COMPOT of 8? 9? 10?
Means the fighter group of 3 nominal squadrons has a combined COMPOT of between (12+8+8) and (12+8+10).
Even losing 4 photons, its a net increase of COMPOT.
Plus, it’s all subject to replacement fighters every turn. Iirc its cheaper than paying for repairs to damaged ships.
Might be too good a deal for the Federation.
When swapping out fighters on a carrier, you don't get to change the number of shuttle boxes as compensation. You just swap out the fighters. And when swapping them out, there are many very hard restrictions on what you can do. But one option is never just adding boxes to the ship.
A CVA that can carry 24xF-18s and 6xA-20 is called the SCS. It already exists in the game and is a separate ship.
Quote:A CVA that can carry 24xF-18s and 6xA-20 is called the SCS. It already exists in the game and is a separate ship.
I agree but I'm not sure why the Federation would ever deploy such a ship, when it is capable of carrying 12xF-18s and 12xF-14s. It's true that F-14s were available only in limited numbers, but I would think that the SCS would be the absolute highest priority ship for receiving such fighters.
Mike and Alan:
Neither of you addressed the point.
Which is, to increase the number of fighters carried by a CVA variant.
In particular, three squadrons, including an oversized F-18 squadron with 24 F-18 fighters, a second Squadron of F-14 fighters and a squadron of heavy fighters, in this case A-20.
To get there, it was specifically mentioned that the number of admin shuttles were to be reduced, thus freeing up the shuttle boxes to be used for additional F-18 fighters in the oversized squadron. It was also mentioned that only two space E2 SWACs would be carried, not the larger 3 space E3 SWACs thus freeing up another shuttle box to be used for a F-18 fighter.
Though not discussed directly, to carry an over sized squadron, the ship needs to lose 4 photon torpedos. I dislike playing musical SSD chairs/boxes games, but in this case four SSD boxes in the secondary hull need to be moved to the saucer, freeing up 4 more SSD boxes for conversion to shuttle fighter boxes.
To carry a flight group of 24 f-18+12f-14+6 A-20 , there would need to be 48 fighter shuttle box, plus room for a reduced number of admin and Two E2 SWACs.
Obviously what you missed is the fact that a vanilla CVA will not suit. It means modifying a CVA design.
The question posed, was, would the F&E guys use a modified CVA that had the expanded flight group with a COMPOT range of 28 to 30?
The unstated implication, is it possible to modify a CVA to carry 3 nominal fighter squadrons and the required admin shuttles, and two SWACs?