Wouldn't a FEMA ship be comparable to a hospital ship, like the Federation CLH?

IIRC, the CLH has some of its phasers removed and the remainder downgraded to Ph-3s, due to its role as a non-combattant.

If my memory is right, it might stand to reason that a FEMA ship might also be modified that way.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - 11:25 pm: Edit

JGA:
No.

the FEM has 2 phaser 1s.

The unrefined CLH (yis 140), has 4 phaser 3's. (See module R2.)

The plus refit of year 165 adds 2 x 360 degree phaser 3s and a drone G rack.

I did not remember if the FEM gets a plus refit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - 11:02 am: Edit

On another thought.

SVC posted earlier in this thread, that the other option for improving the VT was to give it the same upgrade that the FF/FFG got when it was improved to the FFB.

It was dismissed as the end result would be close to the FFG.

At the time, I did not look as I was following up on the secondary hull and engines on a stick thing that SVC as posted about.

But, on actually taking a look at it, I think We were wrong to dismiss SVC's suggestion so quickly.

Consider the changes (and note that SVC, at the time said those changes were not very much.):

Add a third engine.
Add a phaser 1.
Add two photons.
Move some things around so it would all fit, note this amounted to adding the equivalent of two additional SSD boxes to the existing FFG saucer.

If we did the same thing to the VT saucer, the changes could look like:

Replace the react and probe with photons. (originally suggested by mike West.)
Replace the drone Z with. 360 degree phaser 1.
Add a third 4 box warp engine.
Change the existing warp engines from a square "box" of SSD boxes 2*2, to three lines of 4 warp power boxes 4 boxes long.
Between the warp engines, place SSD single boxes for 1*react, 1*probe.

The only thing left is where to locate the drone G rack.

Could you place it on the rear of the saucer, in a Sponson, like the GSC had its Drone G rack? (See cover of AM SSD book.)

Movement cost of the resulting ship (lets call it the VTB?) would be 1/3=0.3334

The VT would then change from being:
2*ph 1, 2*ph3, 1*photon,1*drone
To VTB:
3 phaser 1, 2*ph3, 3*photon,1*Drone G

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - 11:32 am: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Rejected. You do not get to delete the probe launcher from a Federation ship in order to install a photon. Also, giving the ship three photons total (you did not delete the original photon and added two more) would result in a ship (given its size) that would not suffer shock when it fired all three, but would simply become a rapidly expanding cloud of debris at that point.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - 12:08 pm: Edit

SPP:

The probe was not deleted, it was moved to a position between the warp nacelles.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - 12:59 pm: Edit

It still experiences R.U.D. when it fires the photons though.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

My apologies, I missed the probe being reinstalled in the rear of the ship. Not sure how, but I definitively did miss it.

Still, as noted, the hull is just too small to sustain the shock of firing three photon torpedoes.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Battle Frigate has 18 warp engine, one AWR, three impulse for a total of 22 points of power. Less 2.5 for housekeeping leaves 19.5, less 6 points for loading three photon torpedoes leaves (nominally, i.e, the half point of impulse power cannot be used for movement or to arm the photons) 12 points for movement, or a speed of 24. This is not arming phasers (assumed armed) or keeping a suicide shuttle or wild weasel ready, or running any electronic warfare, or reinforcing the shields, or etc.

The proposed Battle Corvette has 12 warp engine, one AWR, two impulse for a total of 15 points of power. Less 2.5 for housekeeping leaves 12.5, less six points for arming photons leaves 6.5, or a speed of 19. This is not arming phasers (assumed armed) or keeping a suicide shuttle or wild weasel ready, or running any electronic warfare, or reinforcing the shields, or etc.

A normal FFG has 12 warp engine power, one AWR, three impulse for a total of 16 points of power, less 2.5 for housekeeping leaves 13.5, less four points for arming photons leaves (nominally, i.e, the half point of impulse power cannot be used for movement or to arm the photons) nine points for movement, or a speed of 27. This is not arming phasers (assumed armed) or keeping a suicide shuttle or wild weasel ready, or running any electronic warfare, or reinforcing the shields, or etc.

A Corvette has eight warp engine, one AWR, and two impulse for a total of 11 points of power. Less 2.5 for housekeeping leaves 8.5, less two points for arming the photon leaves 6.5, or a speed of 26. This is not arming phasers (assumed armed) or keeping a suicide shuttle or wild weasel ready, or running any electronic warfare, or reinforcing the shields, or etc.

As proposed the Battle Corvette would need to not arm one of its photons to maintain formation with either a Battle Frigate, Frigate, or Corvette. Obviously doing other things would have further impacts (like trying to run electronic warfare, re-arm the phasers, hold a wild weasel, erratic maneuvers, high energy turn, etc.). Again as noted, the hull is too small to handle the shock of three photons and too underpowered to make effective use of three such tubes in any case.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, September 26, 2019 - 06:26 am: Edit

SPP:

My apologies, I had a senior moment.

I was cutting and pasting and missed that the FFB refit only added one photon, not two. I confused the fact that the original photon should have been expanded to two SSD boxes instead of moving both to replace the Reactor and probe.

It should have dawned on me that the refit only added two boxes, a phaser 1 and a photon.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Thread bump to re-point to my post
Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, September 13, 2019 - 05:36 pm

Regarding hull numbers for the Fed VT ships.

Inquiries continue (now on Facebook) about what numbers these had. My post had some suggested number blocks.

Folks are asking about decals and there isn't an official answer.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2019 - 04:42 am: Edit

You should have emailed me the first time. Posting it here the day I left town for twelve days almost guaranteed it not being noticed. Then you waited two months to ask again, and should have asked by email anyway. I haven't read this topic in a while and usually make it a point not to read any post that starts with "thread bump" because I find that offensive.

I will try to remember to look for a number block when I get to the office, but if I don't remember seven hours from now, email me.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2019 - 12:24 pm: Edit

0271 Astilbe
0272 Bluebell
0273 Clover
0274 Dahlia,
0275 Echinacea
0276 Forsythia
0277 Gardenia
0278 Heather
0279 Impatiens
0280 Jasmine,
0281 Kalanchoe
0282 Lantana
0283 Mimosa
0284 Nasturtium
0285 Orchid
0286 Peony
0287 Quince
0288 Rose
0289 Snapdragon
0290 Trillium
0291 Ulex
0292 Violet
0293 Wisteria
0294 Xique
0295 Yarrow
0296 Zinnia

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, November 15, 2019 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Advanced tech Corvette Audrey II?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, November 15, 2019 - 04:22 pm: Edit

LOL. Definitely Audrey II.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, November 15, 2019 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Was that the version with a mauler? Or the BHAG?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 14, 2020 - 10:39 pm: Edit

While looking for something else, I came across the proposal for a freight snipe Romulan transport. (Carried a cargo pallet instead of a pod like regular theater transports use.)

One of the questions asked earlier in this thread was what types of non military refits/variants might exist for the VT type ships.

If a VT design existed in the early years (as was stated In the archives above) Might it have been fitted with a cargo pallet similar To the Romulan Snipe? The Romulan Eagle?

More importantly, if (as stated) 4 VT hulls survived the General war In non military roles... is it possible they might have been freight variants of the VT?

If so, and it is approved that these freight vettes can use a pallet like system like the Freight Eagle and The proposed freight snipe (snipe-T) this might be the one and only role the VT hulls can play in F&E.

It effectively gives the Federation the ability to build, deploy and use these “freight vettes” in much the same way that the Romulans used Freight Eagles (and the proposed freight snipe-T ships).

The question for the F&E guys is, Is it worth the effort?”

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Friday, May 15, 2020 - 06:31 pm: Edit

As I understand it, the pod was the standardized cargo unit across Federation Space since before there was even a Federation. I don't see designing a special pallet to turn a corvette into a trader. Maybe a use of the "short pods" of 10 or 15 boxes? I'm not sure how to calculate the final movement cost, but I'm thinking a corvette in this mode would be referred to as more of a chevette.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 15, 2020 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Jack, up to now, we do not have a design proposal for a non military VT hull yet.

Nor do we know what size the pallet would be (assuming it can exist). Without actual numbers, it would be impossible to exist.

We know the VT without a pallet has the ability to move at speeds up to 30 star fleet battle hexes per SFB game turn (31, if one point of impulse power s used for movement.)

The VT is under powered for most any pod configuration.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I though 'standard" pods were 25 boxes. So a half pod is 12?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Mike, check the R module (R8 or R11).

The skids, ducktails were published n both, the R8 just had a couple of each(2 skids, 2 ducktails) and IIRC a short cargo pod of 10 cargo points capacity was included in one of them.

I do not recall a 15 point cargo pod, but It’s been a while so I may not be recalling it correctly.

R11 had a much larger write up, and included many more skids.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 12:08 am: Edit

Jack, the proposed history actually states that 4 of the VT hulls survived the General War.

Exactly what type variant they ended up as was rather vague.

One of the possibilities would be a kind of priority transport or VIP courier.

But so far ,there has been no decision made yet.

Heck, for all we know, SVC is planning a surprise for Petrick. (Get your prediction in early! Sign up sheets in the cafeteria. 2 quatloo entry fee. My entry is SVC’s destroyer (size class4) VT upgrade with a secondary hull and two more 4 box warp nacelles (total 4 with 16 warp power boxes and a movement cost 1/2=0.50, and a 12 box internal cargo hold. Naval auxiliary that retains 2 photons, 4 phaser1 and 2 phaser 3 and 2 drone g racks. We should call the EMTs now and have them on hand when Petrick comes in to review the files...))

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 02:33 pm: Edit

SVC.

How big are "half sized pods?"

10 to 15 boxes?

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Sunday, May 17, 2020 - 06:31 pm: Edit

The small freighter evolution article in CL #23 mentions an 80-meter pod of 10 boxes and an 120-m one of 15. (They don't give a 5 or 20 option for a full "dial a convoy" system; I suppose any bidding that got that granular would just X out cargo boxes as unloaded.) The movement costs for such freighters are 1/5 and 1/4, respectively. I'm thinking military tugs would carry them rarely, if ever, unless they are all a VT Tug could handle.

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

IIRC, the VT has2 x 4 warp power box nacelles, 2 impulse engine power boxes and a single APR box (labeled “REAC” on the SSD).

With a 1/4 =0.25 movement cost.

A lot depends on just what exactly the incremental movement cost of a short pod (excluding the cost of the tug itself.)

I do not recall what the break down is for such tugs. Not sure that I can recall ever seeing such a table.

Let us assume, for the moment that there is such a relation ship. (Sort of like assuming that a full 25 box cargo pod requires 1/6 MC rate and the small freighter command module plus drive module combined Also have a combine 1/6 MC. Then the combination Would yield cargo pod plus command module plus drive module equals 1/3= MC for a vanilla small freighter.

Numerically expressed as: ((1/6)+((1/12)+(1/12))=1/3

Doing a similar Process for a possible “trader VT” yields :

VT MC 1/4=0.25. (3/12=0.25)

Full size (25 cargo box) pod MC 1/6. (2/12=1/6)

Numerically expressed as: ((3/12)+(2/12))=5/12.

5/12=0.4166667

Or, in English, a VT tug ***In Theory***, could haul a normal cargo pod around at a speed of 9 hexes per SFB turn, 10 hexes per turn if 1 point of impulse energy is used for movement.

Only the Steve’s can tell us if various short pods have various movement costs.

My first reaction is that a VT tug is not able to do a theater transport job particular well.

Now if a “short pod” were possible with a 1/12 MC, it would be a lot more attractive.

Or, (going back to what I suggested a couple of days ago) if the VT could be fitted with a 6 box (or a 12 box) cargo pallet and an increased MC rate, the proposed back story for the VT Would be nearly complete.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 03:55 pm: Edit

The more I think about this, the more I want to NOT support the idea. To me, the corvette is just too small to efficiently convert into a dozen different variants. I think the Burke-class FFG is the smallest ship that can be converted into viable sub-classes (scout, escort, transport, etc), which is why it won the fly-off against the Flower-class VT.


Garth L. Getgen