A few years back, I proposed in this thread that Star Fleet might have perhaps considered converting the light dreadnought NCC-2164 USS Star Lion - the last of the "Splendid Cats" to remain in service - into some form of RTN-hunter.

Since that thread has been set aside as one of Module R13's "Tranche One" proposals for the time being, I wasn't sure where (if anywhere) would be the best place to post this follow-up, so my apologies.

More recently, I noticed the provisional entry for the modular light dreadnought (R2.A10) on the current update to the Federation SIT for Federation and Empire. Historically, it was proposed to build NCC-2165 USS Star Lynx as a hull of this type, though this was never carried out.

However, I wonder if it might be possible to consider taking a second look at the DLM design. On the ship's SIT entry, the conversion cost from a standard DNL is 3 Economic Points. If one were to assign such a converted ship to, say, the proposed "-Z" configuration (which on a HDW or HWX would place special sensors in the RA OPT mounts and fighter mech-links to support a "short squadron" of four F-111s in the NWO boxes), one would then pay the cost to produce what is proposed for F&E as a "ZOG" (a special F-111 operations group). I defer to the F&E experts in terms of how accurately, or not, I have accounted for the costs involved.

If this proved relatively cost-effective compared to a "non-modular" conversion as speculated upon in the initial proposal thread, perhaps that might make it a better choice - one which would then allow the ship to be assigned other missions (scout, survey, or whatnot) once the bulk of the RTN in Federation space has been wound down. Unless the ship gets sent to the Star Fleet Museum at that point... (Perhaps a special "-M" configuration for use as a museum ship? But I digress.)

Or to put it another way, rather than creating one or more entirely new SSDs to represent a would-be RTN conversion (or conversions) for the Star Lion, one could avoid re-inventing the wheel by leaning on and re-purposing the pre-existing DLM SSD instead.

Now, if this is not a viable option for Star Lion to consider using, fair enough. But I thought it worth noting, just in case.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 09, 2020 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Not sure how related this is, but “In the Real World” there is a category of naval procurement called “Long lead time” items.

Most often, this concerns large discrete projects. (In plain language, it basically is referring to Large Aircraft Carriers, or, back when the U.S. Navy was building battleships, battleships.). The idea was simple, for components that take a long time to produce, you order it early so that when it’s time to assemble the ship (or ships) the materials are ready and waiting for the assembly to begin.

In a sense, the six month timeframe for all types of ship production in F&E is a game mechanic to speed the flow of the game. Some ships (size class 4 destroyers or Frigates or POL) may well take less than 6 months to produce. (During WW1, there was a point that the ship yards were completing a destroyer in less than a month. I would have to check, butI think the record was 22 days from the point where the keel was laid.). Other ships likely take longer.

During peace time, Modern Carriers take years to build.

Just getting back to Gary’s post, even if the U.S.S. Star Lynx NCC 2165 wasn’t actually started, it is likely that “long lead time” components were ordered ahead of time so the ship could be assembled on schedule.

Real world examples of such an event concerns the under way replenishment ships of the Sacramento class, (I think there were two of them.). Neither ship was part of the WW2 production, but when they were approved by Congress, construction started long after the war was over.

They used the engines left over from one of the incomplete Iowa class battleships.

Just because the records indicate that the U.S.S. Star Lynx was never completed to the original design specifications of the DLM, it is possible that the Hull plating and Warp Nacelles were fact started before the actual “laying of the keel”.

Finding out if the parts got scrapped, stored or repurposed would take a long hard look at the source data on the original Air Force data tapes back from 1968.

Good luck to who ever has to look. That section is very very deep. Grin.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, May 10, 2020 - 02:15 pm: Edit

If there turn out to be some "pre-cooked" components left over from the Star Lynx debate which could be used to help convert the Star Lion, well and good.


Also, there is the question of how large the stockpiles of HDW modular components being stored at various locations across what remains of Federation-held space are as of Y195, with which Star Fleet would be supporting their pre-existing contingent of heavy war destroyers. (There would also be a parallel stockpiling of HWX modular components, but those would presumably be off-limits for use here.)

Perhaps one of the arguments in favour of converting the Star Lion to a DLM would be the ability to leverage these HDW module stockpiles (presuming there is enough "slack" in the system to support another non-X modular ship), which might cut down somewhat on the amount of specialist equipment which would be needed to undertake the conversion, relative to that amount which would be required in order to undertake a non-modular RTN-hunter conversion of this same hull.


And I might add that, were the Feds over in the "dark future" timeline to consider a DNL-to-DLM conversion, they would then be able to install a fast patrol ship tender configuration for this ship once Thunderbolt PFs are produced from alt-Y198 onwards.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 11, 2020 - 12:33 am: Edit

I would really like the Star Lynx to be converted to a DLM. As Jeff While suggested The Federation may have ordered enough for a second DLM (Star Jaguar).

These could lead small X-squadron. Or be configured to explore the link between the LMC and GMC via the hydrogen could (HI).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 14, 2020 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Joe, just a little speculation here, what if...

(Some one check to see if Petrick has his Anti anxiety pills handy) I will wait...
...
...
Ok.

Moving ahead.

If we assume that when word reached the Federation of the existence of the Andromedan Rapid Transit Network, we can safely assume that the”hard working and conscientious Star Fleet Staff Officers” would compile many lists for the admirals and the chiefs of staff at the Admiralty.

One of those lists would almost certainly include the ships available to hunt the RTN nodes.

Such as the GSC,GVX, even converting the USS Star Lion to a RTN hunter, as were other ideas.

Some where, on that list, (towards the bottom) must have used the “wish list” ships that the politicians in charge of the budgets Never authorized for construction.

Right next to the SCS U.S.S. George Washington (that was eventually completed as a SCS instead of as a CVA) would appear the names of the Star Lynx and the Star Jaguar.

It does not matter that the names on the list spent decades There. (All through the General War, and both the Klingon and Romulan invasions). The components we talked about earlier would have been in orbit awaiting assembly in what ever DN sized slipway They were scheduled for. No oxidation in space, no rust. Effectively the engines nacelles would be just as new as when they were first built back in year 170 or 171 or 172.

If F& E production rates really do apply this case, just assembling the long lead term items into a functional Star ship could take as little time as six months.

The redesign of the new DLM could actually take longer than the actual assembly of the base hull.

***In Theory*** the DLM USS Star Lynx NCC2165 which might have been assembled in year 171 (Assembled as a vanilla light dread nought)(delayed by the Klingon invasion?) could have been fully funded by the Federation in Year 195 or 196.

(some one check on Petrick, we don’t want to lose him now. Just think of all the Crawford box references he will have to check!)

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, May 14, 2020 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Well I might have caused a seeking agony both to be targeted on me with my magnetic scoop-neutral hydrogen warp 12 + idea.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 15, 2020 - 03:02 am: Edit

Grin.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 15, 2020 - 09:47 pm: Edit

SVC:

Recommend that this topic be moved to file 07 - new DN and BB designs folder.

Might as well police the BBS to keep it neat.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 09:06 pm: Edit

I think you can carry 12xF-14s or 6xF-11s. The special sensors would be in the rear option mounts.

It would be nice to have these 2 ships in the game.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 07:32 am: Edit

My proposed F-11 fighters were never accepted by the proposals board.

I assume you meant F-111s?

Grin,

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 02:32 pm: Edit

You see 6 F111 as better than 12 F14 in the DVL?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 03:44 pm: Edit

I am not Joe, but my opinion is that when attacking an Andromedan twelve F-14 fighters would be superior.

It’s a meta gaming thing. The Andromedan player would need to make at least 12 successful attacks (depending on ranges/weapons)To kill all of the tomcats. At farther range (say outside of the Gatling range) The Andromedan player might have to use multiple weapons (and this multiple die rolls)to kill each fighter.

Compared to the F-111 heavy fighters, (again, depending on weapons and range) would only succeed six times. (Of course, F-111 have more damage points than a F-14, but some of the Andromedan weapons can deal significant damage. They are not limited to only phaser 2s. Excess damage is a waste, and as is true in most Trivideo action flicks, dead is still dead no matter if you only inflicted the minimum damage or you had twice what is needed.)

It’s a question of survival and endurance. Plus, with the carrier involved, if you repair a damaged F-111 during the battle, you have sidelined 1/6 of you squadron. If you repair a single F-14, you sidelined 1/12.

Y.M.M.V.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 08:23 pm: Edit

I meant F-111s. It Jeff's proposal. Those are the only 2 fighter types worth using. The DNL can be back stopped with an HVX with 6-A20FMs.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Joe, regardless of who proposed what etc...There is a lot WE DO NOT KNOW (emphasis, not shouting).

First, we have no data to illustrate just how healthy the Federation is, economically after the ISC thing, nor do we know exactly what effect the Andromedan War had on the Federation.

Oh, I posted a guess recently, but I may have missed in my assumptions, or SVC might have more data that pertains, but hasn’t told the rest of us about it yet.

The economic structure of the Federation might be much better than it was at the start of the General War (fall year 168.). Or it might be far worse...

We know there were limits on how many phaser Gatling armed fighters the Federation could deploy...

Want a theory that will cause the F&E guys some sleepless nights? What if the Hydrans provided some tiny part absolutely necessary for fighter Gatling to function. Something The Federation COULD NOT reverse engineer... that means that ultimately, the number of fighter armed Gatling phasers is finite.

At some point, no more Phaser Gatling. Ever.

If true, then at some point, the Federation would have to equip their best carriers with other non Gatling fighters.

Fun thought? No?

Grin.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 10:57 am: Edit

According to their respective R-section entries in the Federation Master Starship Book, the Federation HDW and HWX may only be used as "single-ship carriers" if operating size-2 fighters. In the case of the DLM, it's if operating heavy fighters and/or if operating as an independent raider; however, even if one were to use size-1 fighters in the second instance, it cannot use F-14s or F-15s according to (G33.42).

So far as heavy fighters go, A-20s must be carried in internal shuttle bays, whereas F-111s must be carried on semi-external fighter mech links (with the AWR* boxes replaced with cargo) and have the "casual" size-1 fighters swapped out for admin shuttles.

Now, while there are such things as PF mech link refits, there is no equivalent "heavy fighter mech link refit". So if one of these ships wishes to equip special sensors in their RA OPT mounts, it would then be obliged to deploy a "short squadron" of 4 F-111s, as permitted in (J10.111). (This is provisionally referred to over in Federation and Empire as the "-Z" configuration.)


So, while one could, in theory, take a "short squadron" of 8-10 F-18Cs (or of 4-5 A-20Fs) to go RTN-hunting with a DLM, in practice it would be more viable to work with a "short squadron" of 4 F-111s instead.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Joe, again, since you can't have BOTH F111 and A20s, the question is whether you want F111s with A10s OR F14s with A20s.

I personally would like to hear from the people that have experience in the balance.

For example,

Would your selections change if you could get ONE squadron worth of megafighter packs? Two?

Seriously, I am sure there are arguements both ways...

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Mike,

I know that. I haven't proposed mixing heavy fighter types. Gary already clarified the applicable rules which changed after publication of G3A and 2012.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Guys,Everyone assumes that the rules are written in stone and not subject to change

The rule Gary quoted are General War era rule set.

By the time of the Andromedan War, it is possible that a different set of rules might apply.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 12:06 am: Edit

Respectfully, Jeff, possible, but not likely.

While it is possible that the very (odd) nature of the Andromedan threat might have suggested a possible change in rules of deployment, please remember that the various militaries had DECADES of experience through the General War, and it was from those experiences that Doctrine was codified.

(... Then again, in Earth military history, they had CENTURIES of experience that showed that weight of gunfire was the way to victory, then the aircraft carrier came to the forefront... )

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 09:37 am: Edit

Jeff,
What possible difference does that make?

The whole early years line of modules PROVES that technology CAN change during the SFU time line.

As does the X tech modules.

A stronger case can be made that the 1heavy fighter squadron limit is in place for game balance, not because it violates the laws of physics or some archaic and out dated code of rules or behavior..

Look no further than the “Fighting Instructions”. It changed when Star Fleet understood the reality of the universe did not match the ideas of long retired (and likely dead from old age) admirals who wrote the original instructions.

The point is, some times rules get changed.

That is a decision that the Steve’s will make, when and if it’s needed.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 09:54 am: Edit

Reasonable argument, Jeff, and perhaps you're right.

At this point, I can see a "Test Scenario" featuring a duel featuring two squadrons of heavy fighters facing two squadrons of regular (Size-1, perhaps Size-1+) fighters. What do you think of a Federation force of 6xF-111s and 6xA-20s facing, say, a mixed strike group of 12xZ-YB and 12xG-II?

Regardless, I think we can both agree on is that, yes, as you pointed out, SVC and SPP will make the decision if and when it's needed, and regardless of which way that decision may go, we'll both continue to enjoy the game.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 11:20 am: Edit

Jeff W, having A-20s and F-111s on the same carrier is about as likely as a space control ship of a different empire (your choice) have both heavy fighters and PFs on it.

NOT very likely.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 12:43 pm: Edit

All,

Jeff didn't suggest that. I did not either what I stated is this "The DNL can be back stopped with an HVX with 6-A20FMs." That ship is in X1R.

Again I did not suggest that. This topic isn't suggesting a Federation Space Patrol Ship in any form.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Again, no one seems to be interested in the

F111 with A10
vs

F14 with A20

debate.

By Joe Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Mike wrong topic. Special Heavy Carrier under Fed proposals. I wlll answer there