Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 02, 2004	25		03/02 12:12am
	Archive through March 17, 2004	25		11/26 02:05am
	Archive through November 29, 2011	25		11/29 08:13pm

Thinking about Alans comments, it might make an interesting sub plot in a possible fiction thing for captains log... about a Klingon sensor tech who keeps reporting such sightings, and the grizzled old senior chief who refuses to pass along false alarms.

Similar to the story of the US army radar techs who called in a radar contact report to a bored Sunday duty officer who decided it was probably a squadron of B-17 bombers from the states.

Wonder what history would have recorded if the US pacific Fleet had been called to full alert half an hour before the Japanese aircraft attacked Pear Harbor on December 7th, 1941.

By Mark S. Hoyle (Resartus) on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 05:45 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Wonder what history would have recorded if the US pacific Fleet had been called to full alert half an hour before the Japanese aircraft attacked Pear Harbor on December 7th, 1941.

---

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 06:30 pm: Edit

My uncle served as a radar operator in England back in the mid-late 1950's, at the height of the Cold War. When I told my folks about me being trained to put up weather balloons, he told me about the day World War Three almost started. It was just after Christmas, and a couple drunk servicemen broke into the shed and stole some weather balloons and a tank of helium. They put a bunch of leftover Christmas tree tinsel into the balloons and released them. When they popped over the North Sea, all that chaff blossomed on the radar scopes up and down the eastern UK coastline. Of course, every alert bird in England launched. Fortunately for the world’s history, an experienced radar tech was working that night and recognized was going on.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Mark Hoyle,

Certainly that is the conventional view... but the USS Pennsyvania wouldn't have been in deep water... she was in drydock literally in pieces.

The other battleships would have had to get up steam before getting under way... and boiling water from cold boilers takes time. Its not like the gas turbines some modern warships are equipped with.

The real issue would have been Admiral William F. Halsey. A very aggressive with a history of bold tactics: (trivia question can you name any other officer inside or outside of the US navy who attacked, crippled and sent 3 of his own nations Battleships into drydock for emergency repairs? He was courtmartialed, and continued serving in the Navy eventually getting promoted to command of the Enterprise carrier task force at the time of the attack on Peral Harbor.)

Anyway, Halsey might well have taken the Enterprise into battle against the Japanese fleet and all 6 carriers and 2 battleships... the odds would not have exactly fair!

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Hmmm, looking at D17 shows shuttles can be detected out in the S4 range, which for an F5 would be beyond 200 hexes (> 2 million km), a base/scout with an active sensor is over 300 hexes (3 million km plus). [How far beyond would be the question...]

'Tagging' (object given a unique ID) is possible inside that range (error range of 5 hexes) unless those shuttle(s) can 'silent run' (D17.75).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Stewart, we're actually talking about much longer ranges, as in F&E. starting from a base in Federation territory, nearest Klingon base would be 1,000 parsecs.

The plan, would be to launch the VFS from a planet in Fed territory, let it travel 500 parsecs (max range for shuttles and fighters, given that all will have dash pods since its year 180) towards Klingon space.

at that point the VFS would land at a convenient asteroid or planetoid or planet to unload. Eventually the staging base would be functional (casual base) whereupon the HTS shuttles would start deploying the necessary personnel, spare parts fuel and reload drones to "Base Able".

Ideally, this would be another 500 parsecs, setting up the casual base in a F&E hex between border hexes with Klingon border BATS, in such a way that the casual base would be still some 500 parsecs from either BATS on the border.

Then, either begin combat operations against the supply system (read as freighters convoys, free traders, APTs etc) or move to another casual fighter base (base Baker) that is another 500 parsecs further in Klingon Space.

The point of the operation is to force the Klingons to deploy more starships as defense in the area of operations to protect the supply ships.

The problem is that each F&E hex has up to 1,000 "usefull places". Some would have PDU's with ground base warning stations / ground bases that would have special sensors.

We could avoid the established BATS printed on F&E hexes... but we have no precise data on "usefull places" nor do we have any data on locations.

The range could be (in theory) 250 parsecs down to as little as the 300 tactical hexes you spoke of for base/scout.

Hence the need for operational security and why Alan Trevors comments do address the point.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 01:21 am: Edit

Jeff and Mike,

I believe there is a mistake as to the size of your "casual base". The entire base should only be about 30 boxes in size with the capacity of 50 "cargo points" worth of space to each box. Unless, of course, you are planning to deliberately make the base larger than normal

From the eMRB:

---

Quote:

(J13.21) SHUTTLE FACILITIES: For purposes of these rules, a casual base has 30 “casual shuttle boxes” (which are, basically, empty flat spots on the terrain. (Scenarios might specify a larger or smaller number.) Some might be used to hold cargo and might never have a shuttle land in them. They are, primarily, a record-keeping function.

---

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 02:19 am: Edit

If the idea is for the base to be highly mobile. Then I would recommend the following.

Twelve(12) boxes for fighters
nine - twelve boxes for shuttles (admin/HTS)
six - nine boxes for supplies (Drones, pods, warp/mega packs, spare parts, trucks, shelters, food storage, etc.)

Remove excess personal:

extra shuttle pilots,
extra truck drivers,
and most of the ground crew (#'s 146 -163)
[deck crews, marines, remaining shuttle pilots and truck drivers could handle base activities]

If this type of base is suppose to be only operational for at most a two-month period, then much of the ground staff will not be needed. two-three Free Traders could be used to deploy additional unmanned bases and set up supplies at each one. That way a base could "bug out" quickly and move to one of these if the original base was detected by wandering patrols.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 09:06 am: Edit

George,

Subject to SVC or SPP issuing a judgment, I think you might be reading too much into the rule.

Note the last sentance "They are, primarily, a record-keeping function."

Given that we are talking about "empty flat spots on the terrain..." I fail to see the point of defining actual SSD box limitations to the size of the shuttles (be they 1 space Admin shuttles or two space HTS)...

30 positions are ample to the needs of the mission, which is to support a fighter squadron in combat.

Second, the size of the unit is mandated by the need to keep it mobile. the idea is to get the fighters ready for the mission, then move the base away from the area to avoid counter attack. In this way, there needs to be enough personnel and support shuttles to refuel and rearm the fighters after the mission, then fly the fighters, base personnel and all fighter supplies to the new casual base which is (ideally) far away from the imediate area that the enemy will be looking.

To do this, there need to be redundent personnel and shuttles to both leave behind a cadre to support the fighter squadron on its return from the mission, as well as to set up the next casual base somewhere else.

Atleast, that's the theory!

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Stewart, we're actually talking about much longer ranges, as in F&E.

Err, doesn't (319) or reaction (205.7) cover part of that...

If it's actually setting up such a base, then it's tactic or operation level rather than strategic

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Stewart, did you actually read what SPP posted about that aspect in the archives?

Perhaps, (if you haven't), you should, before discussing it further?

I'm just concerned that you haven't got all of the facts, and it makes it rather difficult to have a discussion. Either I have to repeat what SPP already covered (and possibly being accused of misquoting him) or (as already apparently happened) I respond to you on the assumption that you are aware of what SPP has stated with the result that you start quoting F&E rules out of context.

I should also point out, that this is a Star Fleet Battles topic, not F&E. It is discussing an aspect of the SFB rules set, not F&E.

In this case, F&E is not the correct venue.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 01, 2011 - 01:38 pm: Edit

You guys calm down until CL44 is done. You have reached a point of critical mess where this cannot go on without SPP/SVC involvement and we are busy.

BTW, if you try to continue this in another topic you will regret it.