Archive through February 20, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R02: FEDERATION PROPOSALS:
DNG Carrier:
Archive through February 20, 2020
24 F-18, 12 F-14, and 6 A-20.
42 fighters.
Add drones to the game board.
Would YOU want to keep track of and move all those counters around the map? I sure as heck wouldn't!
Jeff,
I did address the point: you can't do it. A CVA variant with more fighters already exists and it is called the SCS. And, no, you're not getting it early. The SCS, along with the Kzinti SSCS, are supposed to be "Oh my God!" unique or near-unique ships that are special cases. They are not supposed to be prototypes for a multitude of new classes carrying insane amounts of fighters.
And, in all honesty, you are, in turn, missing the point of the original question, which was whether there is a version of the DVA with A-10s instead of A-20s. (There isn't, and there probably can't be.)
Alan,
The only reason you'd replace the F-14s on an SCS with F-18s is because you have enough SCSs that you just can't make any more F-14s. Never meant to imply you should make the replacement; only that you could.
Now, with a CVA, there are reasons you might want to consider replacing the A-10s with F-18s. That's a totally different issue. But the only reason to replace F-14s with F-18s is because you have enough carriers that you simply ran out of F-14s you can build.
BTW, the E2 is size-1 and the E3 is size-2 …
I don't have my books with me. (At work), but in reading through the posts here, I realized that there might be some room for the 12 F-14 and 12 A-10 version.
As the DNG was developed in 175, and heavy fighters in 177, there is a 2 year gap that they might have run that as a CVA variant.
Note, I was not advocating for a large fighter group carrier, I was just wondering if there was an official SSD for a DNG based CVA.
The DVA in CL38 is based on the DNG Year The SSD says 177, MSSB says 179.
Shayne,
If it is any consolation, I at least understood what you were asking for. 
I see three big problems with making a 12xF-14, 12xA-10 DVA:
1) Timing: The Feds, for the most part, weren't going to be looking for alternatives for the CVA until things started going bad and they started trying things out to see what would stick. I don't think that would happen in that two-year interval.
2) Design: You would have to wipe out the Ph-Gs to make room. That means you'd have to lose something else in the rear hull to get them back. On the plus side, you'd end up with a full tunnel deck.
3) A-10s: As far as I can tell, you can deploy A-10s on exactly two places: the CVA and a SB. They appear no where else. If you did get a 24 fighter DVA, you're likely looking at those extra fighters being F-18s, not A-10s.
Quite frankly, I am assuming that last point is the true killer.
EDIT:
That all said, please make the formal request. I could always be delightfully wrong.
I don't recall... is there a "Conjectural" DVA that replaces the A-20Fs with conjectural Thunderbolt PFs? I know there's a conjectural SCS that does that. But personally I'd like to see a DVA-based version as well. It would lack the F-18 squadron of the conjectural SCS (I think it might be designated SCSA?) but I'm not a big fan of the F-18s. In my opinion (speaking, it must be confessed, as someone who prefers the Tholians), a DVAA (or whatever...) would be more "cost effective" than the SCSA. You would get more "bang for the buck" and could spend the money you saved on those F-18s on something better.
There is no published "conjectural" DVA that replaces the A-20Fs with Thunderbolts. No reason it can't exist, though. It's biggest problem would the the complete lack of repair boxes. Not a deal-breaker, but still a weakness of the design.
I can say I didn't submit such a ship when I submitted the DVA. I did think of it, but didn't submit (primarily because of that lack of cargo to convert into repair).
The conjectural DVA was discussed in the proposals topic, I think Eddie Crutchfield suggested it, or it might have been some one else in the topic Eddie opened.
Sadly, it got wiped in the great clean out.
There is one potential problem with the Federation DVA that hit me today; were it to ever be built, Klingon players would demand a C10S, the Romulan players a Heavy Phoenix or Heavy ROC, the Kzinti players a...
... Well, I think you know where I'm going with all this.
Personally? I am a BIG fan of everyone having something truly special, so I'd LOVE for the Federation to have sole possession of this "Supercarrier."
Meanwhile, elsewhere in "MY idealized campaign," only the Klingons have a Battleship, only the Kzinti have an SCS, only the Hydrans have "Hybrid Carriers," only the Lyrans have "Casual Gunboats" on anything other than fleet or squadron flagships, only the...
Jeff,
Not following.
The DVA is based on the DNG. The DNG is the Federations "catch-up" standard dreadnought. The DN is an early dreadnought, and the DN+ is still sub-standard. It isn't until the DNG that the Federation finally produced a dreadnought the equal of others' standard dreadnoughts. That means it is an opponent to the C9 and Condor, not any of the heavy dreadnoughts. As a result, every other empire *already* has a heavy carrier based on the same hull type as the DVA.
Honestly, if you compare it with the C8V with the legal fighter group of 12xZ-Y 6xZ-H, you'll see that there is nothing special about the DVA. In no way is the DVA a "supercarrier". (The Fed SCS is a supercarrier; the DVA is not.)
Also, it is listed as LPW, not CNJ, so it isn't conjectural. As for the YIS date, the text description and MSC in CL38 say Y179 and the SSD says Y177. I have to assume the date on the SSD is a typo.
Mike, was not my idea. Eddie Crutchfield posted several topics describing new flight groups and variant CVA hulls.
One of those topics discussed a DVA option.
Sadly, they were deleted in the clean up.
Jeff I honestly dont remember posting about it. I really dislike carriers in SFB, so I doubt I would promote it.
Ed, I think it was a tangent to the main topic.
Sorry that it’s gone, it would have been easy to point to, but...
I posted several CVA and SCS variants. The only one that seemed to have some merit was the heavy strike carrier built on the damaged Zhukov hull. The fighter group was 12xF-14s and 6xF-111 on mech-links. No other changes. Not sure what happened to the proposal.
Perhaps I am misremembering the topic.
I do not remember seeing it among the SVC restatements in the proposals topics.
Well, considering that I doubt ADB has any interesting in making several variants of the CVA and SCS, and the updated ship listings all include multiple variations of acceptable fighter groups (e.g. the CVA alone can replace the A-10s with F-18s, A-20s, or F-101s, giving four variations out of the box), I figure they covered the bases of the idea as much as they have plans to.
Sorry so long in getting back to this. Had a couple of things hit me, that took all my time to deal with.
I guess I will make it a formal request to see if ADB can make a DNG based carrier.
I am hoping that it would have the same flight group as the standard CVA, I could see this becoming the defacto CVA until later replaced by the SCS.
Heavy fighters such as the A20 would obviously swap out the A10's as per normal when the A20 comes out, thus working into the DVA.
YIS 175 on to 177.
This would make for a more survivable heavy carrier, and could be used in the Admirals game for a late war CVA.
As for the layout of such a beast, I would leave that to someone else to design, as I would not even know where to start.
This is NOT an attempt to get an oversized squadron heavy carrier, nor a multi squadron heavy fighter group ship in the back door.
This is an attempt to get an official later war replacement for a CVA from the original DN+ hull to the DNG Hull.
I tried to edit, but found to much time had passed. 
At the very least, I figure some staff officer had planned this out, even if it was never built.
A few things to keep in mind ...
1) Despite the lower number of forward hull boxes, the CVA is arguably more survivable than the DVA because it has double the number of drone racks and double the number of gatling phasers. This counts for a lot. And to retrofit four more shuttle boxes into the DVA you will lose either the gatling phasers or the drones completely (making this comparison immediately worse).
2) Speaking of losing boxes, if there is an earlier design of the DVA, then the existing DVA is invalid. If there is an earlier DVA that carries a full 12xA-10s, then when it is refitted to carry A-20s, the fighters would just use the A-10 fighter bays (like with the CVA). They would not go through the expense of redesigning the rear hull to install a few new weapons and external fighter links. They would just stuff the A-20s into the existing A-10 hangar bays.
3) If this replacement carrier is actually better enough than the CVA to completely replace it, then you must be able to answer why they went back to an inferior design to make the SCS. Logically, they should use the newer, better design to create the SCS. If that doesn't happen you must be able to explain why.
EDIT: Again, none of this is to say it can't be done. This is only to say that you will likely have to clear these hurdles to succeed.
Internal volume of this upgunned CVA taken up with the additional power/firepower/other support systems means that there's one squadron in an internal hangar and another squadron is heavy fighters on Mech-Links?
One CVA has F-14s with A-20s. Another (might) have F-101s with A-10s (something I personally wouldn't recommend, but it remains an option?), and there is NO way to convert one type to the other without a TOTAL rebuild, almost to the frame?
(Y'know, this rambling reads as stupid even to me. Sadly, it's about as good as I can think of for this topic. Perhaps a better SFU contributor can make something decent out of it...)
You know, one combination no one has suggested AFAICR, would be F-111 and A-10.
Might leave room for 6 F-18.
Actually, now that I've had a chance to think about it, I would bet that the Feds built SOMETHING that could take F14s just in case a CVA goes down, or F15s if a CVB (CVS? the ones with the F15s) got zorked.
So perhaps this thing was deployed with F18s, but was specifically designed to be easy to refit to support F14s or F15s...
Mike, the Feds DID build something; the BCV (and later BCS; R2.74 and R2.75 respectively, both in Module R5). Starbases also (occasionally) operated them.
Jeff A,
The DVA is not an "upgunned CVA". It is a completely different ship that was designed based directly on the DNG. The CVA is a completely different design that was made from the ground up. They are totally different designs that really have nothing to do with each other. The CVA does not use mech links; the DVA does. If you don't treat them separately you won't make any sense.
And, to be clear, Shayne is asking for, and I was responding to, a request for a modified version (or, really, earlier version) of the DVA.
Jeff W,
I am pretty sure you can only carry F-111s on mech links. So, no, you can't replace the F-14s with F-111s. You could, however, replace them with F-101s.
Mike,
The ship the Feds built to carry F-14s after the demise of of a CVA was the BCV/BCS. The ship descriptions explicitly state that. In other words, the BCV and BCS would never have been built if the CVAs had not been lost.
Jeff A,
Speaking of the BCV and BCS, the R5 description for the BCV and BCS only list it carrying F-14s (and F-111s for the BCS). It doesn't list the possibility of carrying any other fighter types.
Also, don't forget that the A-10 description explicitly states that the A-10 was purpose built for the CVA. And that it almost never appeared anywhere else aside from CVAs. While that "almost never" sounds enticing, don't forget that the "almost never" includes the SB deployments (which I did mention earlier).