After watching (yet another) documentary on the Second World War, I was minded of the concept of "midget" submarines - and how they might apply to the Frax, and/or to their proposed "friends" in the Alpha or Omega Octants.

Simply put, these would be fast patrol ships (and/or Interceptors) modelled on the Frax sub template, as opposed to the various Frax surface ships.

The standard combat variant would be armed with axion torpedoes. In the Alpha Octant, they would have cloaking devices and "hot warp" engines (with warp booster packs) installed. In the Omega Octant, I propose that they would use Zosman Stealth fields in place of cloaks, and have "volatile warp" engines (with no warp booster packs possible) installed.

In terms of hull design, instead of the "landing pads" which historical fast patrol ships use in order to land on planets, I was picturing these as having a docking port akin to that on a DSRV, in order to further the concept of simulating an underwater craft.

So, do Frax midget subs sound like they would be distinct enough from other simulator PF types to be worth considering?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Given that the FRAX are a simulator race*, what about having FRAX midget subs (like you're talking about) instead be special shuttles that have a "Cloaking Capacitor" that, depending on the charge, would enable them to be under the protection of the Cloak rules for a number of impulses (to represent the limited amount of time midget subs could remain submerged)?

In lieu of phasers, perhaps? While it's true that would leave these midget subs unarmed once they've fired off their Axion torpedoes, even that can be regarded as a way to reflect how historical midget subs had THEIR torpedoes.

(* ...And you can do almost anything in a simulator? Even things that you can't do in the real world? )

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 02:46 pm: Edit

I should note that, in the case of the Omega portion of this proposal, Zosman shuttles and fighters have their own Stealth fields installed; these function under (OG21.212). So a would-be Omega-Frax sub with a Stealth field equipped would already have "submersible" shuttles to call upon.

In the Alpha Octant, I'm not sure I'd be in a hurry to try and invent some kind of cloak-derived system for shuttles to fit this purpose.

In either case, while I defer to the experts in terms of what a Frax midget sub (in either galactic octant) might be, I would personally prefer they be PF-sized (and/or INT-sized) rather than shuttle-sized.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Okay, Gunboat sized.

(Hey, these boards are for tossing out ideas and if we don't agree 100% of the time, we're still having fun with them, aren't we? )

First thing that comes to my (alleged) mind is, what all would a Gunboat midget sub have for its armaments, and how would this armament stack up when compared to a Canon FRAX Submarine Frigate?

For contrast, because the FRAX were (IIRC) originally developed for Klingon simulators, I would do a contrast between one of their MC 1/3 ships, such as the E3 or E4 (or maybe the G2?) and their Gunboat, the G1.

E4 has the four Phaser-2s, two Disruptors, and single type-B Drone rack (if memory serves; I don't have the SSD in front of me)

E3 has four Phaser-3s, two Disruptors, and (again, this is trying to remember because I'm too lazy to break out my SSDs ) an ADD.

The standard G1 has one disruptor, two Phaser-2s, two Drone Racks, and an ADD-6.

Stacking up those ratios to the armaments of a Canon FRAX submarine Frigate armament (the two Axion Torpedoes, two Phaser-1s, one Drone Rack, and one AFD), I'd guess that a standard (non-Interceptor) Gunboat/Midget Sub might have one Axion Torpedo, one Phaser-1 (perhaps on RX arc, opposite the Axion torpedo?), one AFD, and two Drone racks.

Is this kinda what you'd pictured, or am I completely off base (as usual)?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 07:45 pm: Edit

I was sooner picturing two FA Axion torpedoes, 1 FX phaser-1, and 1 RX phaser-1. (For the Alpha Octant; in Omega, the phasers would be Phaser-W1s.)

A combat variant would replace both Axion torpedoes with drone racks (or with tachyon missile racks over in Omega).

Rather than trying to cover too many missions at once, I'd sooner have it that these midget subs must focus on a single mission at a time.

But, once again, I defer to the experts in terms of what the most suitable option might be.

-----

Actually, I'm wondering if there ought to be (or even can be) a Frax sub PF tender, or if the Frax would be obliged to deploy these on their subs as "casual" boats only.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 08:14 pm: Edit

In the U.S. Navy, sub tenders are surface ships, so I'd imagine the Canon FRAX PFT would probably be used in that role for these things as well.

If, on the other hand, you wish to use some sort of mother-ship based on another sub (like the carrier subs the Japanese used for their Kaiten Suicide midget subs/super torpedoes), perhaps something akin to the Submarine Missile Cruiser, with the forward Axion Torpedoes being replaced with a pair of Special Sensors (lose two boxes), adding to the existing TRAC and replacing the Missile Racks with Repair might not be too outrageous.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 10:04 pm: Edit

The USN currently has a small number of midget subs that can be deployed from other subs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_Water_Combat_Submersible

The article appears to date from 2018. The sub's weapon system is a seal team.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, July 11, 2022 - 11:27 pm: Edit

I forgot to note that "casual" midget subs would only be an option for Alpha Octant Frax subs; in the Omega Octant, only a "true" PFT can dock its PFs externally without voiding each other's Stealth fields under (OG21.217).

-----

Also, it should be just about possible to convert a Frax sub war cruiser to a PFT configuration. Perhaps by replacing two of the AXTs with special sensors (as suggested above for the missile cruiser); swapping out the drone/missile racks for tractor boxes; and then exchanging one of the battery banks for a bank of Repair boxes.

Since the drone/missile racks have exterior "exit points", I wonder if they need to be the ones swapped out for PF mech-links. The Repair boxes could, instead, be swapped in for systems located more "internally", if that makes any sense.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, July 12, 2022 - 08:12 am: Edit

The way I do the analysis is to compare a "surface" DD with a "sub" DD, or a "surface" CL with a "sub" CL. This provides a rough comparison to apply to the "surface" PF.

I'm also going to assume a PF is way too small for an AFD or missiles.

Given that, for a sub PF, I'd do:
- 1xAxion FA
- 1xPh-1 FX
- 1xPh-1 RX
- 2xPh-3 360 (in place of an AFD)
- 1xDrone
- 2xHull
- 1xBRDG, 1xBATT, 2xIMP, 3x2-box warp engines
- Standard 12-pt shields (9-pt shields pre-refit)
- Standard PF cloak cost

Compared to the standard FRAX PF, this splits the armament (1xAx, 1xDRN instead of 2xDisr or 2xDrone), cuts the hull in half, and kills the APR. This keeps it in line with other PFs, but puts it on the low end along with the WYN PF (which is otherwise the smallest PF in the game). However, it still fits within the "normal" PF parameters.

Use as you will.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 12, 2022 - 08:32 am: Edit

Keep going...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, July 12, 2022 - 02:32 pm: Edit

For the record, I'd also allow sub ships to carry these things as casual PFs, and would introduce a sub PFT based on the sub CW. Obviously, any normal PFT could also carry these, but I think it's important to have the option of a sub PFT to carry the sub PFs. I don't think anything about how PFTs operate needs to change. Cloaked Romulan ships can successfully carry around cloak-able Romulan PFs, so I see no reason that the same can't happen with FRAX subs.

To answer Gary's question from the first post, yes, I think that sub PFs would be different enough from "surface" PFs to warrant their introduction. I think they have the potential to be pretty fun.

Finally, at the risk of being the bleeding heart loser, can we not use the term "midget"? Thanks.