Federation Point Defense Cruiser
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R02: FEDERATION PROPOSALS:
Federation Point Defense Cruiser
A product of the early days of the Second Federation-Kzinti War, this was an attempt to optimize a cruiser for point defense against mass Kzinti drone strikes.
Start with a CA. Replace each side phaser-1 with two phaser-3 (total of 8) with the same firing arcs.
It was reasoned that the CA’s photons and forward phasers would suffice for offensive firepower while the phaser-3’s neutralized Kzinti Drones (or could be used with devastating effect in an overrun).
This proposal is inspired by a rule from the SFB Pocket Edition which allowed players to replace P-1 with 2 P-III for drone defense.
The problem with point defense is that it does not work unless you are all close together, at which point the smallest ship is targets (by direct fire) because is explosion will damage all of the other ships. If the ships are spread out to avoid this, point defense is the ship defending itself, and there is little point to that.
I don't know. I could kind of see the Federation building small numbers of "Point Defense" ships, though the DD or CL might be better as a base hull. Yeah, a bunch of phaser-3s are shorter-ranged than half as many phaser-1s. But they do provide better drone defense, and also better anti-ship firepower at very close ranges. I think the trade-offs could bear being examined in more detail.
Also the war in question was Y136-Y142 - twenty or so years before the Fed + refits and the CR rear phaser refit, indicating that until then heavy drone strikes weren't a major concern. Drones were still speed-8 and the Kzinti CL and FF classes only had a pair of drone racks each, so overall throw weight was also smaller.
The Constitution-class is also very new at this point - giving up the then-awesome power of four phaser-1s on such a platform seems dubious at best. If any hull was going to be used for this, I could see a CL or two having its side phasers replaced while being upgraded from EY tech.
Alex,
Well, I mentioned the CL in my post. But at this point in time the DD has severe power issues with its photon torpedoes, the "+ refit" still being far in the future. There are a lot of instances in which it can't use 4 photons anyway, because the battle situation requires it to move and it doesn't have the power to arm more than two (maybe three) of them. So how about, as a "Limited Production" experiment, a couple of DDs that trade two photons for four phaser-3s; leaving a weapon suite of two photons, six phaser-1s, and four phaser-3s rather than four photons and six phaser-3s. It lacks the crunch of the four-photon version but if the DD can't afford the power to arm the photons anyway, that's a moot point.
Once the Type-G rack and medium speed drones become available, this "Point Defense" DD, even if judged a success at the time, would be obsolete. Replacing two of the photons with G-racks being a much better option than replacing them with twice as many phaser-3s.
Check the time stamps, we were cross-posting 
As for the DD, per (R2.6) and (R2.A23) in the Federation MSSB, most of the Saladin's were built to the two-photon DDM pattern, with only five being constructed with the full four photons for use as siege ships. The space for the additional weapons was there, since it is otherwise pretty much a CA saucer, but they saved even more money by not outfitting it with weapons it would be unlikely to use.
Just cramming more phasers in there seems like a bit of a no-brainer (and ADB has generally been a bit sparring about making More Phasers variants of things), so while such an option may well of been considered, it was ultimately reject for any kind of series production or conversion. Something along the lines of the space and open mounts didn't combine well with phasers for some engineering reason, perhaps resulting in severally limited arcs (FA for having 2 ph-3, mauler arcs for 4 ph-3) or turned out to be difficult to maintain next to the photon tubes.
Oh, I certainly don't think a "Point Defense" DD would ever have been built in large numbers. I was suggesting it as a "Limited Production" experiment.
I'm not a great fan of "Conjectural ships" generally and like the "impossible" ones, like the "Heavy PFs" or X-tech light dreadnoughts, even less. But I do have a soft spot in my heart for "historical-oddball" ships built in very limited numbers, whether as an experiment that didn't quite work, or a success that filled a very specialized role so that only one or two were needed.
In regards to the original proposal:
I don’t see giving up phaser-1’s as too great a sacrifice given that you were likely to have to use them defensively anyway (to kill drones) which is kind of a waste of their firepower. And, as Alan points out, at close range against an enemy ship, two phaser-3 would actually be better than a single phaser-1.
The phaser suite of the proposed ship (2 P-1, 8 P-3) would be comparable to that of a Kzinti Strike Cruiser (2 P-1, 10 P-3) which is also optimized for drone defense (the Kzinti of this era being "more interested in fighting each other than any foreign enemy”, though this war was apparently an exception). Apart from their phasers, the Kzinti of this time didn’t have a lot of direct firepower (with the exception of the CA, which had 4 Disruptors but was only produced in “limited numbers”) but their drone strikes, while small compared to those of the general war, would still have been problematic due to the Kzinti fleet's numerical superiority early in the war.
The Kzinti CA (4 Disr, 4 P-1, 8 P-3, YIS Y138) might be seen as an attempt to match the awesome firepower of the Constitution Class while the proposed Point Defense Cruiser would be the Federation’s attempt to copy the Kzintis’ defensive strategy against drones while retaining that firepower. Thus both ships were a response to challenges posed by the enemy early in the war.
Alan, we are on the same page - I’m spitballing ideas as to why such a design would be a one or two-off variant rather than a general upgrade.
Douglas, the issue here is one of fleet doctrines. Kzinti fighting Kzinti do pretty much have to close to knife-fighting range to inflict significant damage. The Federation, especially with strong ph-1 batteries, would want to stand off outside of ph-3 range at the very least. Ending up where the point defense ship would be useful in a Kzinti style fight would be a failure on the part of the Federation force commander.
The Kzinti CA has a YIS of 138 and was a limited upgrade of the CS limited largely to the Federation border, perhaps indicating the Kzinti were expecting the upcoming war and pushed some of the planned CS to BC conversions ahead in a partial fashion to get more long range firepower on their cruises to be able to fight the Federation. The Federation, on the other hand, would want to avoid closing to ranges where the Kzinti have the advantage, so giving up 2/3rds of their CA’s ph-1 firepower would result in them giving up their long range advantage.
This may require some play testing.
Drone speeds during the period (year 136-142) were slow (speed 8.)
If memory serves, this is before the Kzintis deployed the various C refits, which basically means the only Drone B and C racks are going to be limited to command ships (CC command cruisers.)
With most Kzinti ships using drone A racks, and no carriers or fighters, it will be difficult to build the drone wall. And if you need to build two or more walls, drone density (I mean, the number of drones in a given stack will be limited.)
That said, I am not opposed to the idea.
I think Alan Trevors suggestion of a limited experiment or specialized mission ship could have been true.
The Kzinti did capture prisoners. After the fact knowledge that most died may not have been commonly known at the time, and a point defense cruiser to protect assault troop ships in capturing bases or planets where prisoners were thought to be held just might have been considered.
Sure, arm chair admirals with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight will firmly oppose ideas like this as unworkable, but things look different when you are up to the eyeballs with alligators and needing a way to drain the swamp .
For context, here are the ships in service during the Second Federation-Kzinti War (Y136-Y142):
Federation:
Tug (Starliner & Cargo only)
CC (prototype only, YIS 143)
CA, GSC
OCA
CL , CLH, CLS, CMC, LSC
DD(M), SC
FF, FFT, FFP, FLG
Pol
GCA, GDD, GFF, GSR
YDN
Kzinti:
Tug (cargo, self-defense, battle pod, troop transport)
CA (Y138), CD, CS
CL, CLC, CLD, CLG
FF, DF, FFG, FFT, FLG, Pol, SF
Kzinti Early Years Ships (these were un-refitted EY ships, NOT “local defense” ships):
YDN
YCS, YCD
YFF, YDF,
WDG (!)
Unknown: YCC, YSR, YFT
Note the weird asymmetry where the Federation has updated their EY ships to middle years standards but the Kzinti have not (and will not until just prior to the Four Powers War). Perhaps this was because the Kzinti ships got an automatic upgrade in firepower when standard drones replaced the half-strength EY warheads.
And there isn’t as much difference in tactical speed between the standard CS/CL and their EY counterparts since the EY ships don’t have disruptors to arm while the Kzinti middle years ships are unusually slow for “modern” ships (the CS/CL have the same maximum speed as the YFF!).
Also, we’re in that odd period where YDNs (and maybe YCCs?) are serving as flagships.
I do not see any need for this ship. Drones are just not a threat in this time period. Every ship can defend itself quite well.
I was skeptical of Alan’s proposal because I didn’t think there was any precedent for swapping photons for phasers on an SSD but now I see there are at least two examples of this being done:
(R2.62) Destroyer Escort-R (DER)
(R2.63) New Escort Cruiser-R (NER)
Both of these ships replace 2 Photons (or weapons which replace photons) with 2 Phaser-1 for a total of 4 FH phaser-1 (including the original FH phasers). The DER ship description mentions it was “more difficult to build and maintain” which support Alex’s theory that series production might have been difficult.
How about no production at all of this proposal? I like that option.
Certainly for the CA conversion, the loss of four phaser 1’s vis gaining 8 phaser 3’s does not materially improve the ship tactically.
In fact, the argument could be made that it puts a valuable hull at risk for no gain.
A similar situation applies to OCL and DD class ships.
The only situation that might apply is for at risk bases or units too slow to avoid drones.
This proposal is, bottom line, for a anti drone ship. Really, we should consider a “cruiser” like theWW2 Atlanta class AACL types with 8 twin gun 5 inch 38 cal dual purpose guns, and less than half the tonnage of regular heavy and light cruisers.
Perhaps a prime trader hull, convert the phasers to phaser 3’s (2 for 1), the option boxes changed to drone E racks.
Perhaps add a shield refit.
It won’t be better than a CA variant, but should do the job.
Douglas mentioned that the Fed DD (M) is the DD variant in use here. Perhaps it had the extra ph-3s added to it as a test of concept.
As a DD variant it could also include some background about how such the ship and the engineering issues around installing those phasers laid the early seeds that helped pave the way for aegis technology and escorts.
Background for the Second Federation-Kzinti War (given in the old F&E scenario) suggests that Star Fleet was outnumbered in the first years of the war. Drone defenses which are adequate in a duel may seem less than adequate when you are routinely outnumbered.
And there's this regarding the Cygnans (whose ships had drone defenses of a different sort): their ships were described as “hampering the Kzintis with waves of counter drones that forced them into close action where Star Fleet’s overloaded photons could savage them” which made their ships useful “for Federation forces opposing marauding Kzinti formations during the early phases of the Second Federation-Kzinti War.”
So history suggests that there was some advantage to be had in an improved drone defense though perhaps the worst of the crisis had passed by the time the point defense destoyer entered service. Still, the Federation-Kzinti War lasted 7 years so the Kzinti must have had more than a little success or the war wouldn't have lasted that long.
Earth to Star Fleet: Repeat of previous transmission: This isn't going to happen.
At MOST I could see a variant FF. Basically an escort FF without the gatlings & aegis...
Yeah, for picket duty, the most you would risk is a small unit, Frigate would work, or even smaller.
Given the time period (year 136-142) the Federation might have considered refitting one or two of the Flower VT hulls.
The VT was still in production until year 145, I wonder if a variant class of 1 or 2 additional units might have been built for evaluation.
Replace the single photon with an drone E rack. Exchange all of the (iirc 3 phaser 1s) phasers 2 for for 6 additional phaser 3s. (That would give the VTE 8 phaser 3s total.)
Well, one could dream...
I wonder if we could talk SVC into naming the picket ships after common weeds... no matter how hard he stomps on the idea, they just keep popping back up.