Archive through May 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through May 07, 2003
Apparently, that's something quite a few people hadn't thought of. ;)
It's kind of moot, though, since the Jindo can't move anywhere (including by tac movement, I imagine) with bombers on of it without making the bombers into chunky crunchy chips. The only reason where this could be any sort of advantage is with underway replenishment/refuel rules which won't be really applicable until Module V.
And that's only if the Jindos deploayed bombers. Maybe they did. Very Extra Heavy Prospecing Shuttle, anyone? =)
I'd be kind of curious as to what SFU bombers look like. Do they look like miniature interceptors (with the disk-hull-nacelle look for the Feds) or extremely large shuttles (with the box-and-nacelles look)? Or something in between?
Hmm, ideas, ideas....
Is it possible the Jindarans never developed Bomber technology?
Well the question I have had is why bombers arn't allowed on ships in the first place?(AND YES I REALIZE THE MAIN REASON IS A GAME BALANCE ISSUE) Bombers are smaller then interceptors and these vechicals primarly operate in space, there are several ships in the starfleet universe that can fit a pf or int, inside of them(or at least in collapsible bays). The argument that they need a large area to land doesn't really make since in space, either they would simply dock externally or be tractored into the bay like any other space vechical. I have also heard that they can't dock to bases or another unit like that because they lack the airlock to do so, I really question how hard it would be to install such a mechinism. To tell you the truth even if these were primarly interplanetary units I would find it hard to belive that at this tech level, and with pfs and ships that can make precision planetary landings, that a bomber couldn't do the same thing. In terms of what bombers look like, I have always imagined them to be extermly large shuttles but with some characteristics of interceptors. From a techincal aspect and from there ssd's in J2 to me these are simply larger shuttles with some features of small ships.
John
I think the last person to ask SVC about bombers on ships was sent to the booth.....to my knowledge, he is still in there.
They *can* dock, actually. They can dock to external docking points on ships, and can be docked internally to starbases, but they cannot be serviced in either position. (J14.22) They can only transfer crew and cargo, but can't reload or re-arm. However, they can't be carried by ships. I imagine that it's for the same reason that you can't, today, fit a B52 -- or even certain types of helos like Chinooks -- aboard a DDG. The size and shape of bombers really makes them being used in shuttle bays impractical if not impossible. Consider that your typical cruiser shuttle bay can handle two-space shuttles. A three- or four-space shuttle might very likely be sufficiently large or oddly-sized enough that it simply can't fit. Plus, there will be the issue of actually making space for such a thing. The ship can't keep it's typical contingent of shuttles; where do they go? Plus, some ships simply do not have the shuttle bay shape to accomodate bombers -- the Klingon D-series, for example, even if they didn't have the drone racks there.
Let's consider if they can get a bomber to fit in, though, with luck, grease, and some big sledgehammers. =) With shuttles (and drogues, especially with type-H drones) being such an important weapon in the starship captain's arsenal, fleet command might be loathe to pull out a ship's shuttle contingent for a single craft.
Of course, this doesn't address things like the why bombers can't use mechlinks, or why collapsible bays can't contain them. The only non-meeble answer to those issues is game balance. Besides, when you get right down to it, PFs and INTS really are pretty superior to bombers, and if you can mount a mechlink, why would you want to carry bombers? And if you're the Feds, 'it's just not in their doctrine,' is also the best answer that can be given.
Let's see, I tried my hand at some images of the Fed B52; sorry that they look so bad, but I was going for a middle ground between shuttles and conjectural Fed INTs: Ventral port bow view, and dorsal port quarter view. They're not perfect by a long shot, and not even close to Ted Geibel's work! But it might illustrate why bombers are such weird birds. (Note that the shuttle body is about twice the size, in width, depth, and height, as you standard Fed admin shuttle. Oh, and they're not official. =) ) I'm considering a third shuttle nacell, actually, in keeping with how dreadnoughts have three nacelles and are among the largest starships in service. Recommendations, of course, are welcome!
Well, since bombers are primarily designed to operate off of planets, they probably have wings for atmospheric flight (regardless of technology, this is going to be cheaper for landing and launching than any other system). Note that many fighters also have wings, partly to carry ordonnance (could also apply to bombers) but partly for atmospheric operations. Note that this is also supported by the SSD shilouettes that show wings.
Given the basic size of the bomber, the wings probably make it huge (think something like a 747 in shape and size here). Trying to fit that into any meaningful shuttle bay just isn't going to work. While PFs have more volume (ie larger size class), the area/wingspan of the bomber is likely to be greater (ie the PF is more compact--compare a can to a cookie sheet). Thus they just won't work on mech links.
Also, bombers aren't naval units constructed at naval facilities (starbases and the capital shipyard) as fighters and PFs are. They are geenrally constructed by the Army or National Guard (or whatever organization handles planetary defense).
Essentially, they are built to lower tolerances and out of materials that aren't up to naval standards. Much of their damage capacity and strength of the frame (e.g. immunity to death-drsgging) comes from bulk and size, not from being made of the highly-advanced and optimized materials seen in naval attriiton units. Similarly, they don't aren't deisgned (hullform and size, properly stressed frame) to handle being docked to mechlinks and carried at warp speeds.
Now, in theory, it may be possible to build a bomber to full naval specs and able to handle that kind of usage...but it would either A) be prohibitively expensive or B) be a PF.
Actually, that sounds like the best explanation for 'in universe' I've seen.
Re: Wings on fighters/bombers, PF's, and ships for atmospheric flight.
Looking at the designs of the wings on such units reveals a fairly non-aerodynamic profile so the question is how such a wing, like that on an O-CR could keep a ship of obviously huge tonnage aloft. Of the tiny wings on a fighter weighted down with drones and with its dubious aerodynamic qualities. How does that contribute to maneuverability and lift?
The answer is simple in the era of the force field. Those square boxy shuttles can fly at mach 12 because a force field system generates a shape that is aerodynamic and streamlined around it. Reshaping its self for the flying conditions in real time. The basically square and hard edged wings on the O-CR are reshaped invisibly to provide lift and control.
Add to this a mix of anti-gravity and tractor systems and your fighter/shuttle/bomber/Starship (with aerodynamic landing systems) becomes a graceful soaring bird at Mach 12. Verious undesirable factors are controlled as well, such a dampering sonic wave effects and con-trails.
Alex, I was thinking something earlier before I napped. The name 'bomber' seems to be misleading. The mission of bombers doesn't seem to be one of attack but rather a near-last line of defense. Maybe a better term for 'bomber' would be 'defender,' but since that conjures up images of cheesy (but fun!) 80s video games, I've no problem sticking with 'bomber.' =)
THough I wonder if the could be used for ground attack, say if an enemy is located elsewhere on the planet. How hard would it be to load one of these guys down with CBs and ground-attack pods and get a killer ground-support weapons platform? And if the army might, for particularly important systems, do some kind of JSTARS version of a medium bomber?
Jonathan:
Such is the topic of a Term Paper I am working on. There are some tactical particulars I need to work out but indeed, since there are more Pod mounts on a Bomber you could mount CB's on them. Two in fact, and still have all the drone rails open. You could mount GAP's or more CB's on those. Bombers would make for a scary Ground Attack Shuttle.
Bombers don't fit on ships. They're big but flimsy and cannot stand the strain. They just will never fit into a shuttle bay and are too flimsy to fit on mech links. The wings are part of the problem but not all of it.
If J3 becomes reality then the proposal belongs here. If not R9 may be a possibility.
The Fed DVL and CVF operated with standard escorts in fleet engagements. But then ditched them when on a "raiding" mission. Is it possible that the Feds may have attempted to build Fast Escorts that for some reason (probably warp field harmonics or stability issues) were not feasible?
The DWA and FFA would not be suitable to a fast ship conversion so the ships I see being used are the DDA and NAC. To create the fast variants just swap the engines on both. The NAC would receive standard 15 point CA/DD warp engines. The DDA would receive the 18 point CF engine. This would allow conjectural fast variants that could travel with the DVL or CVF on raiding missions. The Feds could then have the FAC and FDA classes.... 
If this was posted previously my apologies (I just got my copy of J2 and have not gone through this entire thread....)
The only escort that I see as being suitible would be a converstion of a FDD. The so called FDE although I may post something on a 3 engined CL variant that I designed later today.
John
For conjectural (or failed prototype?) Fed fast carrier escorts...
NEC/NAC - not really possible according to history thus far because it is a "war" class. Also note that it's engine configuration already produces 36 warp points, similar to a fast ship.
FFE/FFR - although not really a "war" class, it has the same problem as the NAC, and already produces 36 warp points.
DWA - A late war variant, produced after the fast raider concept was already disregarded. Also a "war" class, and also already produces 36 warp points.
ECL - This ship might be possible to convert, but is an OLD design that may already be at it's limits. Aesthetically, it may be difficult to convert b/c the awkward 3/4 MC means that the addition of only 3 warp boxes (a total of 27) puts it into the "fast" realm. There are no three box warp engines. Adding two to each engine (as the Auroran's did in the Omega Sector) might be possible, but would make for an awkward engine configuration, and make it "faster" than "fast." Perhaps leaving the engines as they are, and lowering the MC from 3/4 to 2/3 (arguing that the newer NCL-class engines were used in place of the older CL-class engines)? Of course, this possibly leads us back to the issue of "war"-type conversions. OTOH, this is essentially what was done in the case of the fast DNL class...
DE - this class is, by far, the easiest to convert, and to justify conversion, in just using the 18-box engine seen in the CF-class, creating a new DEF (and possibly a DAF) - Destroyer, Escort, Fast. Would most likely lose either 2 G-racks or 2 PHOT (or 1 of each?) in conversion.
??? - Perhaps, in an effort to find a cheap but effective escort, a Pol would have been pulled in and modified? Six box engines (as seen on the PV), the PHOT replaced with a G-rack, the 360 P1 replaced with a PG, Limited Aegis (later Full Aegis?), ready racks in the shuttle bay, and the + refit installed as standard? Gives 2 G-racks, 2 P1, 1 PG, and 2 P3. Even already has cargo to be able to use (R2.R5) for the carrier. Change the APR to something else?
The whole point of the DVL and CVF was that they culd make quick strikes, get in and get out. One ship is far less likely to attract attention thatn three is. THat gave the DVL and CVF that surprise needed. Oh, one ship...no problem.....OH FIGHTERS!!??....problem.
THey don't need escort. It would make them less cool.
Any ship, once detected, is bad news for the enemy. Extra ships only make it worse. I have seen no information historically that indicates that detecting one ship at a Warp signature of 1.25 (probably known to the enemy as an uncommon WS, and a dangerous ship) is any harder that detecting two with a TWS of 1.75 (DVL and DEF).
That being said, I agree that they wouldn't need escorts for how they're used. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the Feds wouldn't have experimented with the concept, and tried to design something on the chance that it was a good or successful idea.
You know, all this talk about "Fast Carriers".
Man, that FFH is just begging for B-Modules, or E-Modules, or U-Modules.
I'm just tired of seeing ships that were never built and not needed. I like the 1 or 2 were built ships, they are fun. The conjectural stuff has gotten old.
Scott......please, let the Feds keep their special ships.
J2 managed to clear out most of the specialness of Hydran carriers, the Fed NVH and others. Let
s not do that again huh?
I was just joking, since there was a discussion about "Fast Escorts"
Like anyone would make a Fast Escort, with their 2/year fast ship limits.
I decided against fast escorts when we did J2. If I change my mind in J3 (if there is a J3) then they're obvious variants already in the file.
Something that could be kind of interesting would be a "extra large auxiliary carrier" based very loosely on Geoffrey Pyke's WWII-era scheme to build an enormous (albeit slow) carrier out of "pykrete" (a mix of ice and sawdust). The resulting carrier, which Pyke called Habakkuk, would displace two million tons and be able to carry as many as 150 long-range bomber or fighter planes, and would be darned near unsinkable (as tests of a 1,000-ton test model demonstrated).
The general idea would be to use the rough form of an (R1.23) Extra-Large Ore Freighter, replacing the four pods with a custom-built module that would support, say, three or four squadrons of fighters and provide ample cargo facilities for spare fighters and drones, along with either heavy shielding or some armor or both. You would use this thing as either a base for independant fighter strikes or as a sort of super-monitor. No weapons on the ship itself other than a smattering of defensive phasers and ADDs/D-racks. The thing would be under all manner of movement restrictions, and would have a hideous turn mode (possibly even "no turn during a scenario").
Jessi... thanks for answering a question I never asked!
I found a reference to a Habakkuk Project while reading an article (can't even remember what I was reading). I tried internet searches to figure out what it was and kept getting biblical websites (no surprise, that).
42
MarkKuyper suggested something like that in the Proposal's section once.
Forgot the name though.