Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 25, 2024	25		03/25 10:04pm

I look at this idea and envision a military-grade freighter (Ax___ at least), where the hard-welded pods are really nothing more than row after row of Starbase magazine racks...

(Not that this idea will come to fruition for a whole host of reasons)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, March 25, 2024 - 03:17 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I look at this idea and envision a military-grade freighter (Ax___ at least), where the hard-welded pods are really nothing more than row after row of Starbase magazine racks...

---

---

Quote:

(Not that this idea will come to fruition for a whole host of reasons)

---

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, March 25, 2024 - 07:56 pm: Edit

A thought, if this supposed be a "cheap" mass drone platform, with no crew, nor ability to reload in combat, why are putting expense drone racks on these things, instead covering them with fighter drone mounting points?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, March 25, 2024 - 08:20 pm: Edit

On the REAL subject here, I can imagine a pod based on a drone bombardment pod, armed with multiple Type D-Racks. It could be flown to a base that was deemed in need of additional firepower by means of it being inactive cargo as part of a standard (or military) small freighter, then activated by the base personnel.

It's controlled remotely by means of using either the emergency bridge or auxiliary control as a dedicated control room aboard the station.

In keeping with Canon rules regarding remotely piloted fighters, this auxiliary weapon pod/platform MUST remain within 35 hexes of the base. It is unmanned and may not be boarded. Any repair work done to it may only be done between scenarios by crew who go through the engineering crawlspaces in vacuum suits. However, the Drone racks may be reloaded, much like drone racks on Gunboats can be reloaded by their PFT.

The unit would have an intrinsic CPU on its SSD; an item that would be hit by any control systems hit (Bridge, Flag, Emergency, AuxCon), and if the CPU is knocked out, the unit immediately shuts down, do not pass "Go," do not collect $200.


Oh, and JSW? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that, "This is NOT a real proposal" means that it is NOT a real proposal and doesn't need wave after wave of hatred spewed at it...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 25, 2024 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Fighter type drone rails cannot be mounted outside of ships. This was proposed by Alan Gopin decades ago and tests showed it would ruin the game.

The logical solution would be silo-mounted (US Navy Vertical Launch System) which is also prohibited as "just too •••• good".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 25, 2024 - 10:10 pm: Edit

ROBOT FREIGHTERS: I'm sure they exist at least for some uses in some areas. What you save in crew salaries/support is balanced against the risk they will break down. They really aren't any more at risk to piracy than crewed freighters. That said, they only think you would need in SFB is a rule saying that one Marine squad can capture it; these would be invisible in the F&E supply system.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 25, 2024 - 10:16 pm: Edit

HULL TYPE: Probably a freighter with a smaller pod or an APT or FT. In any case, you'd have to rip out 90% of the internals and replace them with drone racks.

MISSION: The only one I see worthwhile is a one-shot drone bombardment mission. In F&E terms you assume it would be spotted and destroyed so it's a one-time wonder.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, March 26, 2024 - 11:04 am: Edit

This goes 180 away from the idea of the LUSV, but if you're going to use the guts of a freighter pod for a drone bombardment mission, then why not just build a military pod for the mission and have it brought in on a LTT. The higher tactical speed of a LTT (as opposed to a freighter with freighter engines) means a higher probability that the pod will be able to be recovered and if the LTT is forced to drop it, at the very least the fleet will be saved the cost of a set of freighter engines.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 26, 2024 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Jeff Anderson: Given that LTTs and Tugs can be used to "Strategic Deploy Freighters" (G14.73), there seems little reason to not include the engines as part of the pod.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 26, 2024 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Jeff Anderson:

Not hatred.

Just pointing out how impractical and illogical your “not a proposal” is.

On occasion, I have supported and encouraged proposals you have made.

This one, as witnessed by the negative comments made by various other people, should give you a clue as to just how far off the reservation you are.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, March 26, 2024 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Considering that the Kzinti already have auxiliary drone freighters, could enough
'extra' racks be added to make up for the non-crewed condition??

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 - 12:53 am: Edit

The thing is, there seems to be some limit as-to how many drone racks (of various types and sizes) a given ship may carry.

Federation plus refit ships make do with but a single type G drone rack (there are some exceptions such as drone bombardment types, or specialized drone ships etc.) some klingon ships only have a couple of drone racks, while kzinti ships (vanilla for example) have 4 drone racks (again there are exceptions, see the kzinti combat tug for example.)

JGA not proposed a Aux CVL that replaced ready racks in the fighter bays, which he did not quantify, but implied that he advocated (by implication…) adding up to twelve jump racks on top of the drone racks originally in the Auxiliary CVL.

Regardless, what ever number of racks he wanted on his “not a proposal” the number of drone racks vastly exceeds the number of seeking weapons channels the ship has.

Really, JGA made a preposterous “not a proposal” here.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 - 10:16 am: Edit

If we're talking something analogous to the real-world ship, then it's going to be something that's about the size of an Armed Priority Transport. Or maybe even a skiff or gunboat. But I think the intended range rules out gunboat-sized, it's intended to have the same range as a full ship.

You might, possibly, fit three racks (un-reloadable) onto the thing, it remains in control of a ship until its racks are empty, then the controlling ship tells it to disengage, perhaps.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 - 11:51 am: Edit

I honestly can't believe that I still have to explain this...

THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT A PROPOSAL!!!!!

I even told EVERYONE when I first posted that it would exceed drone control abilities and that it would need extensive use of ATGs!!!

WOULD YOU STOP WITH THE HATE ALREADY?!?!?!?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 - 12:21 pm: Edit

JGA:

I suspect that the reason you are frustrated, is because you violated the rules.

You choose to post in a topic that happens to be the “SFB Proposals Board.”

This is the place that proposals are posted to elicit responses.

You have gotten responses.

It is not normally the place to not post not proposals. (Sorry about the double negative.)

If you want hate, try posting over in the F&E section.

The real vitriol will occur if you suggest something controversial.

So far, we have not gotten to the point of discussing the F&E implications of your “not a proposal”. In fact, there are several possible implications to your “not a proposal “ that would heap massive amounts of additional record keeping to track which ships get equipped with your LUSV variants.

You want complications and controversy? Try to figure out what equipping each ship in a carrier group with zLUSV. If it adds factors to the Defensive Compot, the howls of disgruntled Coalition players will be of epic proportions!



But there is no hatred here.

Critical comment? Check.
Witty comments? Hopefully check.
Hoping to help by offering personal insight into the game, Check.

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile, if you have a problem with someone on the BBS, you bring it to me. If the Steves haven't shut down Jeff Anderson, you don't get to take it on yourself to do so.

Bottom line, if you write one more unkind thing about Jeff A., I will be forced to act.

Jean
WebMom

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, March 28, 2024 - 02:14 am: Edit

I think the LUSV idea might not be a good one for existing empires in the SFU, but it could work for a new one. An empire which has some kind of large, capable motherships but uses LUSVs to supplement the mothership's firepower, a bit like the Andromedans do.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, March 28, 2024 - 09:13 am: Edit

Civilian LUSVs would be great for plodding between ports with non sensitive cargo (wheat, ore) that is both bulky and unattractive for pirates. So between the ore refinery in Asteroid belt Petrick and the Complat above industrial world Sextonia. etc. Heck this would be the PERFECT way to get that "last mile" of service from worn out freighters that aren't economical to crew because they are so slow. IIRC canon is that the ORIGINAL freighters just had a couple warp boxes. So an gigantic ore freighter with just 4 warp? It might be speed limited to just tactical speed 4 or so, but who cares; it's going to get there eventually and you want that ship to run as cheaply as possible. So it basically coasts along running off the free gases it sweeps up and sparing the fuel...

In any case, it needs at least some way for someone to manually pilot it if the radio breaks or the computer has a "blue screen" event. It probably has a continuous beacon running (like modern freighters) and it's aft shields dropped. So if it runs amok (at a very slow speed) you could just have the closest ship/ skiff amble over and beam over a pilot. Or an admin shuttle could land aboard and disembark a crew.

So take a Y or W era freighter, remove all but 2 hull boxes, all weapons, tractor, transporter, all but 1 control space, all but 2 shuttle boxes (no shuttles), shields reduced and #4 is normally dropped. Dam Control is Zere, no crew or BPs...

As for a combat version, it's just a Remote Control PF on a larger scale.
So it has control range limits, a couple worse Turn Mode, the poor crew penalty...