Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through September 15, 2023	25		09/17 02:28pm

I would not want to see thunderbolts and f111s on the same mothership.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Mike:

Where in published SFU documentation does it state that if the Feds develop PFs that they lose SWACs as a result?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 03:38 pm: Edit

I have the same question as Chuck Strong. I had always believed that if the Feds, in a non-historical campaign, choose to build PFs, then they lose the F-111 and "third way" capabilities. But I don't recall anything about their also losing the ability to buils SWACs.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Steve,

I can't find the rule, but I thought it was already stated somewhere that heavy fighters and PFs cannot be deployed on the same ship.

Chuck and Alan,

There is no explicit rule lumping SWACS in with F-111s and the Third Way. That said, this is a restriction that SVC has stressed multiple times in suggestions for alternative histories that included Federation PFs in Y181. In the one example that has been published (Module R4J), it is explicitly stated in the one alternative history that gave the Federation gunboats, they did not get F-111, SWACs, or the Third Way.* And in the efforts I have done to try and get a "drone-less Federation", which included the use of gunboats, no SWACS was a stated part of the opening stakes.

So, it hasn't been formalized in a specific rule. It is just the operating conditions that has been imposed by SVC in such efforts thus far.

[*] The Imperial Federation in the one alternative history in Module R4J also did not get gatling phasers on the fighters, but there is a separate reason for that, which has nothing to do with the gunboats.

I hope that helps.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 02:28 pm: Edit

Mike,

I do want to put in a word for the GVX. You say it would require some "actual design thought", but I'm not sure what you're getting at. The conversion seems staightforward to me. The GVX already has 6 "F-111 mech links" so just change those to PF mech links. And it has 10 cargo boxes. Change 4 to repair. What more needs to be done, beyond that?^*

But the larger point is that, if the Feds were to build PFs in a non-historical campaign, they would certainly have also built a tender with the strategic speed and range to support X-ship squadrons. So far as I can recall, none of their currently ADB-sanctioned SSDs have that capability. Gary Carney has suggested some alternatives based on the NAX. But they would need... something in any case.


^*It might be necessary to delete the middle row of cargo boxes, just so the SSD "works out". So the 10 cargo become 4 cargo and 4 repair. Still an easy conversion, unless I misunderstand what you mean by

---

Quote:

... require some actual design thought.

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 04:55 pm: Edit

It's stated in (J10.0) that "true" fast patrol ship tenders cannot also operate heavy fighters.

So even in the "dark future" from alt-Y198 onward, the Federation would have to choose carefully which ships to deploy as F-111 or A-20 carriers, and which to (re)configure as PF tenders instead.

-----

I should note that on the SSD for the Federation COV in Module M, the six Cargo boxes are rotated 90*, so as to make room both for them and for the four Barracks boxes in the saucer outline.

-----

As of Module X1R, it is possible for Star Fleet to field first-generation X-squadrons comprised solely of "wartime designs built to peacetime standards" (such as the NAX and DWX), or perhaps of "mixed" X1-squadrons which also include "designs which were peacetime construction from the outset" (such as the CX and FFX).

While it is noted that the likes of the NAX have shorter operational ranges than the likes of the CX, the ability of an HWXP or of a would-be "NAPX" to support a "mixed" squadron - or a squadron of "wartime designs built to peacetime standards" would be about the same.

Only in the case of a task force where the greater operational range of "designs which are peacetime construction from the outset" would be required - such as the historical Operation Unity, or the "dark future" Operation Codominion. But even then, the Federation did not send the GVX Powell to the Lesser Magellanic Cloud; the GSX Sakharov was sent instead. So I would not expect the Federal Imperium, nor the "dark future" Federation, to bother sending an X-PFT - not even a would-be "GPX" - to the LMC either.

In short, for the missions in the Alpha Octant (cross-border raids, support for X1-ship "Flying Squadrons", going after RTN nodes, etc.) for which the historical Federation can use the HWXZ (or could potentially use would-be "NHVX" and/or "NHAX" variant SSDs), both the HWXP and the proposed "NAPX" would be sufficient enough for Star Fleet to get by with in each alternate timeline.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Alan, I think you already did a great job showing just what I meant. Sure, "change four cargo to repair" sounds easy enough, but it isn't really that easy. The mech links are all in the rear hull; the cargo is all in the forward hull. That doesn't work. Either the repair needs to be in the rear hull so it can access the mech links, or there needs to be a pair of mech links on the forward hull to access the repair there. In which case you are putting tractors on a forward hull, which is very unusual. And even past that, how do you make the new box arrangement work so it looks good, is similar to the base ship, but also is functional.

I'm obviously not saying it is impossible or anything. Just that it requires actual thought and isn't a simple slam dunk. (As it turns out, even the DW-PFT wasn't a slam dunk. It required some rearrangement because of how all other DW-PFTs work.

I'll take a look at the GVX to see what I come up with. But I do need to get repair into the rear hull. (I don't want to add mech links to the forward hull.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 07:52 pm: Edit

There are Federation cruiser variants, such as the CVS, with only one Auxiliary bridge box in their secondary hulls.

So, could one consider the following "GPX" conversion:

*Reduce the GVX's Aux bridge to one box,
*Increase the number of Transporter boxes in the secondary hull to 4,
*Swap out four of the ten Cargo boxes in the saucer for those Transporter boxes,
*Set the 6 remaining Cargo boxes in the saucer from 2x3 to 3x2 (as per the COV SSD),
*Replace the four Cargo boxes now in the secondary hull with Repair boxes,
*Replace four of the six heavy fighter mech links with repair-capable PF mech links,
and
*replace the last two fighter mech links with "standard" (non-repair-capable) PF mech links

How might that look?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Mike,

That's a good point about the cargo boxes being in the saucer and the mech links being in the rear hull. So how about something like this? Convert the rear hull shuttle boxes to repair. Delete 8 of the cargo in the saucer and replace with 4 shuttle boxes and a "double-sized" box for an E-3A heavy SWAC. There are plenty of Federation ships with shuttles in the saucer. And as for the SWAC, I'm kind of surprised the GVX and HVX don't carry one already. They are generally reserved for the most important carriers but surely the GVX and HVX would qualify.

If you don't like the SWAC idea (per previous discussion about whether the Feds would retain SWAC technology if they had built PFs), just retain 4 cargo boxes. More spare parts and reload drones.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 11:38 pm: Edit

As I think about it, the SWAC is probably not a good idea. I don't recall any non-carriers that have a SWAC. So just convert the shuttle to repair and delete 6 cargo, replacing with 4 shuttle.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, September 17, 2023 - 11:53 pm: Edit

I'll take a look on Monday. I'll have to see what I think I can get by Petrick.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, September 18, 2023 - 10:22 am: Edit

OK, I am not willing to move entire features from the rear hull to the forward hull. So, no shuttle bay in the forward hull. Instead, I want to effectively move a pair of transporters and a pair of batteries to the forward hull and replace them with repair in the rear hull.

For the rear hull, it is easy, even if it is a bit of a "cheat". Delete two transporters and batteries. Move the probe and drone racks up, and fill the resultant space with two repair per side. This will push the rear hull down a "box" (this is the cheat), but it will not be very noticeable. All mechs are repair-capable. So, the rear hull is done.

The challenge is the forward hull. If I play games with the cargo by "turning it sideways", it looks bad because the boxes are now unbalanced with the cargo in a very tight fit, but the lab still just chilling in open space. Instead of doing that, I can just replace the four transporters with a block of six. That does the same thing (by making it 3x2) but at least the right fit is in the center, and thus balanced. So, I guess that will work well enough. For the batteries, that's easy enough. Just delete the bottom four lab and replace them with two batteries. No need to "twist" the remaining cargo as the transporters were "twisted" instead.

That's probably the best way I can see to get it done and there be no change in the number of boxes. If the transporters are just too tight of a fit, then don't change the transporters and this ship just loses two transporters over the GVX. There are worse things that could have been lost.

A complete alternative for the saucer is to accept the losses of some boxes. Delete the four bottom cargo boxes and the four bottom lab boxes. Below the cargo boxes add two batteries. Below the lab boxes add two transporters. That means a total of four lab boxes are lost to convert four saucer cargo into four rear hull repair. That is, quite frankly, not a bad deal. I might actually go with that one because it doesn't require squeezing anything in.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, September 18, 2023 - 10:39 am: Edit

Accidental duplicate post ...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, September 18, 2023 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Mike,

If it's not working, would something based on the NAX, or perhaps the HVX, work better, per Gary Carney's comments? While I like the idea of basing it off the GVX, it seems to me that the critical issue is that the Feds need some sort of X-tech tender if they deploy PFs. Exactly which platform it is based on seems a secondary issue.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, September 18, 2023 - 03:16 pm: Edit

As I stated with the HDW, the HDWX already exists and the rules to make it into a PFT already exist. That ship is always available to be made into a PFT and already exists. It is completely available.

I feel like the Feds use of heavy fighters with X-ships is just odd. They have the GVX and HVX. Both are weird. All other empires have a PFT based on an NCX or CWX. The Feds purely make their heavy fighter carriers based on the CAX, which is the much rarer hull form. The Feds do not have a heavy fighter carrier based on their DDX or NAX. So, if they don't put heavy fighters on those hulls, why would they put PFs on them? So, that only really leaves us with the GVX and HVX.

The HVX has the same problem as the CVH. Given SVC's response to the idea of putting PFs on the CVH instead of heavy fighters, I would expect the HVX to have similar problems. That just leaves us with the GVX, which was being hashed out above.

But, again, the HDWX does exist and it can be a PFT. So, you automatically have your X-PFT baseline even if no other X-PFT is made for the Feds.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 22, 2023 - 01:01 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I feel like the Feds use of heavy fighters with X-ships is just odd. They have the GVX and HVX. Both are weird. All other empires have a PFT based on an NCX or CWX. The Feds purely make their heavy fighter carriers based on the CAX, which is the much rarer hull form. The Feds do not have a heavy fighter carrier based on their DDX or NAX. So, if they don't put heavy fighters on those hulls, why would they put PFs on them? So, that only really leaves us with the GVX and HVX.

---

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, September 23, 2023 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Actually perhaps there SHOULD be a DWX based fed series.

So Scout, PF/ Heavy fighter carrier, Drone, LTT, Commando...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, September 23, 2023 - 06:36 pm: Edit

I would not be opposed to a would-be Federation DWSX; other X1-ship war destroyer scouts have been drawn up to date.

However, for what (little) it's worth, I would be in no hurry to see either the Fed ADW or the proposed "DWP" be given X1-ship incarnations. Even with the installation of first-generation X-technology, I'd argue that the resulting hulls would be too small, too lightly armed, and too weak in terms of their embarked attrition units in order to be effective - not least if tasked with uncovering Andromedan RTN nodes.

I, of course, defer to ADB's wisdom on that score, however...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, January 05, 2024 - 10:26 am: Edit

Forgot to post this link a while ago.

Here are the fruits of this discussion. It includes:
- BCSA Battle Control Ship
- DCSA Division Control Ship
- DPF Light PF Tender
- GPX Advanced PF Tender

So now we have a cool set of conjectural Federation PFTs to join the base NPF and HDW!