This is an alternative to the SPB. Simply this is just the B modules, but two fighter boxes are swapped for a Ph-1 in each module. The result is that the SPV has only 12 fighters, instead of 16, but it maintains the same phaser power as the base SPA.

The real reason I want this is so I can have a SP carrier variant for FC that only has 12 fighters. That's like literally the reason.

The stated reason would be that these are compromise, cost cutting modules used when the B modules ended up being too expensive. As ships were lost, the B modules were reserved more and more for FH and SupH hulls and these were cheaper alternatives that got better phasers as a side benefit. As part of the cost-cutting, they also only used G-FSF fighters, not the traditional split-squadrons that included G-IIIs.

To create, take a B-module, remove two fighter boxes, convert all remaining fighters boxes to "=", and add a Ph-1 FA-L or FA-R to the front of the module. Proposed BPV is flat 125.

If adding the Ph-1 is a bridge too far, then simply delete the four fighter boxes, change all remaining fighter boxes to "=" and reduce the BPV to a flat 110.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 10:38 am: Edit

They could have begun with those modules you suggest, but then decide to maximise the number of fighters carried. I am not a FE player, nor do I play carriers in SFB (too many bloody counters) but I have noted the number of attritions units steadily increasing over time in SFU history.
Just an idea.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 11:29 am: Edit

That could work, but it seems a little late in the game history to shoe-horn the SPV into the beginning of the SP history. It has a better chance of fitting at the end.

In the end, if either approach for the SPV doesn't work, we can likely just nuke the extra four fighters in FC, use the lower BPV value, and call it a day. It wouldn't be the only ship to end up with an "adjustment" to fit into FC better.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 12:23 pm: Edit

Rather than a P1 how about a Plasma D and a cargo box replace those 2 fighter boxes? Drone defense and room to store supplies...

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Interesting idea. For the SPV version with 12 fighters and the 2 extra P1, it's basically a SPA with fighters. Nothing really lost in terms of firepower? And in F&E terms it would probably be:

SPV 7(6)/4(3)

And that's stronger than D5V or NVS. Not that that's necessarily bad, as the SPB is better in other ways too (command rating). And this fixes the problem with the 8FF on the existing SPB where it's usually less efficient and more difficult to try to shoehorn 3xSPB into a battle line and deliver 18FF exactly. Of course, does it need to be fixed? I always thought the way the rules work with the 8FF difficulty made the SPB needlessly weaker myself. More fighters are bad? But I digress.

In the SPV modules rather than 2xP1, you could include instead perhaps one of the following:

* Forward hull
* APR
* Battery
* P3

That's more balanced than 2xP1? 1xAPR in each module will probably help boost overall ship speed?

--Mike

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Somewhere in the distant past in a previous edition we did hve 2 versions of the SP carrier, the version we have now which was called the SPBV I think and then a regular B. I have to see if I can find my old SSD books.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 05:43 pm: Edit

The SuperHawk-B was originally described as on a SparrowHawk hull, I believe (Commander's Edition if not earlier) but changed to 4-engine hawk hull.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Note for terminology purposes: The designation "SPV" is already used for the heavy fighter carrier Sparrowhawk.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 10:24 am: Edit

A pair of Ph-3 per pod could work. I was trying to keep things simple, though.

On the other hand, maybe I should just ask for the SPB in FC to only have 12 fighters ...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Eddie: the V-module was printed in Star Fleet Times #9; each module included two F HULL, eight SHTL (with six ready-racks, three each for superiority and torpedo fighters, and administrative shuttlecraft in the remaining two), and two TRAC. R-section write-up as follows:

(R4.913V) V (CARRIER) MODULE: A proposed module with six fighters and two admin shuttles, some В modules may have been deployed in this form, or possibly all В modules could be deployed in this form as needed. BPV = 37/22 (pair).

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 - 10:50 pm: Edit

That description appears to match the modules on SPB SSD on page 32 of Module J. The difference sounds like the V module does a 6 fighter + 2 admin shuttle split where the B module does a 8 fighters + 0 admin shuttle split. The base SP hull has 3 shuttles.

B: 16 fighters + 3 admin vs V: 12 fighters + 7 admin (same 19 overall shuttle boxes)

7 admin shuttles sounds like a lot for a CW-class ship (although handy for WW in conjunction with the cloaking device). Perhaps thats why is was cut down to 3?

So perhaps this is more of a loadout question than a module hardware question?

--Mike

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, June 13, 2026 - 01:24 am: Edit

I'm not sure the SP-carrier needs seven admin shuttles. I dunno.

Either way, it looks like I'll be using the SPB in some form, not an alternative carrier variant. Which is cool and probably for the best. Just wanted to think through the options and get input.

Thank you for the ideas and info!