Proposal:

That independent fighter squadrons (IFS), and hanger modules be available for special duty.

this could include opportunity attacks on convoy, strategic targets or a preposition tasking order in anticipation the enemy placing a MB in an area that they had unsuccessfully attempted to place one before.

This proposal recognises that there are times when there are not enough starships available to assign to all of the missions that need to be completed.

it substitutes for a frigate or a destroyer (or at most, a squadron of 3 such ships) by using the ability to place a hanger base (or 3 of them) in a variety of possible locations, and, when needed, move the bases.

Such a deployment does not count for control of a F&E hex as a starship would.

The composition of an independent fighters would be 3 small hanger modules, an early warning base, 4 small freighter, (for strategic mobility) (note the hangers and the EW module are not active while in transit.)

The independent fighter squadrons are not able to participate with large fleets. they are intended for use on stagnent combat areas or areas engaged in attrition warfare. particularly where there are few established bases.

the goals of an independent fighter squadron are to:
1. force an opponent to increase the size of his patrols. (note, 3 frigates operating independently, can cover 3 times as much territory as a squadron of three frigates operating as a tactical unit. an independent frigate would be at serious risk if attacked by a large number of fighters.
2. Force an opponent to increase the size of convoy escorts by increasing the number of convoys that are attacked in the theater of operations.
3. prevent an opponent from placing mobile bases in theater.

Other considerations:

While this was primarily intended for use in SFB scenarios, it would have F&E considerations. Depending on the final form the scenario takes, the F&E aspects would be determined easily.

IF anyone wishes to consider this for F&E, I would suggest some constraints.

1. if a player wishes to deploy IFS's (to take advantage of the free fighter replacements) he must purchase all of the components, not just the fighters, this would include the convoy, and the bases. (there may be a discount since there are fewer base modules for a IFS than for a normal PDU, but the fighters would be at normal price.
2. no more than 1 IFS can be placed in any F&E hex. (there should be a limit to how many IFS could be built per turn, but they may be accumulated just as Def Btns and Mobile Bases can. The could be kept stored at the Home world shipyard, until needed.
3. an IFS could be deployed as a Tug mission (a new one) BUT, such an operation is inherently dangerous to the tug, and since it is technically moving into contested territory, could result in the destruction of the tug. Rules would need to be written to cover such an eventuality.
4. IFS can not be co-located with any other units.
5. IFS can not participate in combat in conjuction with any friendly forces ever. It would need to be decided if the fighters would be available for transfer to other units...
6. IFS deployment would be secret. the F&E player would need to record the location of the IFS. The controling IFS player would have the choice to reveal the IFS, or he could keep the unit "hidden" for subsequent turns. If hidden, the unit is considered in supply for all purposes, but again does not control the hex.
7. If the controling player decides to "activate the IFS" by attacking a target (assuming the opposing player had put a target into the hex during the movement phase" the full fighter strength of the IFS is considered to be the battle force. the IFS BIR is modified by +1 to reflect that the hidden deployment was unknown to the opponent. if there are more than one target in the hex, the target is selected randomly as having come into range of the IFS.
8. once the IFS has attacked a target, it is revealed and for the purposes of the current turn, acts as if it were a PDU. if destroyed in subsequent combat round, it does not receive free replacement fighters.
9. If the IFS survives combat (ie 'wins') the IFS is redeployed to the homeworld shipyard and can be redeployed the following turn as if it had been stored.
10. while in transit (carried by the frieghters,) the IFS is indistiguishable form a normal convoy.

I'm submitting the concept in hopes that poeple will comment. (looking for both Pro and Con) and if there is interest, will write it up as a formal Scenario reflecting such suggestions as it pertains.

Thanks!
Jeff Wile

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:02 am: Edit

I can't this this being anything but horribly vulnerable while the hanger bases are being set up.
Surely you would be better served by an three small auxilary carriers? Would cost about the same and be far more mobile.

But ultimatly, I think any deployment on even a stagnant front of such vulnerable and valuable assets is asking for trouble. Suppose the enemy was doing just as you say, patrolling with three frigates individaully. Suppose just *one* of those frigates jumped your freighters while en route or deploying the bases. You are very dead.

OK you say - the freighters are escorted by a CA or a squadron while the bases are set up, and then they buzz off (along with the valuable hulls).

You then have a weak base on the frontier with no quick way of lifting it back off (surely it would take at least a day to dismantle). Your fighters will be out of range of any significant enemy bases, and unless the enemy was stupid enough to run unescorted convoys on the front, will have no target. They will be completely ineffectual against a patrolling frigate unless they are lucky enough to get a huge surprise attack. The frigate is faster, and has better sensors, and will simply buzz off (why fight over empty space?).

Within a few hours of being forced to buzz off, that frigate will bring in its two cronies and cremate your base and fighters, having followed your (slow) fighters warp trail back there.

Even 36 fighters will have severe difficulties against 3 frigates unless they have packs - sure they will hold out a while, but they'll eventually be picked off by mid range (9-15) phaser/heavy weapon fire. 36*2 P-III's only do an average of 12 damage, and that assumes no EW shift.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Well, you could not haul the whole force with just four small freighters, or one large and two small freighters, or two large freighters.

Small Freighter "A" would move two medium ground fighter bases, while Small Freighter "B" would move the third medium ground fighter base and the small ground warning station (or one large freighter could move all four of the bases). Small Freighter "C" would carry the 42 fighters (36 would be active and six are spares) and seven admin shuttles (1,225 cargo points), which would leave you 25 cargo points for "incidentals". So freighter "D" is needed to haul (for a "drone" race) 600 spaces of drones, 180 spaces of fighter pods, 92 spaces of chaff, for a total of 872 spaces. So at that point you have 403 spaces unspoken for (but "Commander's Option Purchases could account for some of that). And THIS IS ASSUMING YOU ARE PRE-MEGAPACKS AND PRE-BOOST PACKS. If the fighters are equipped with Megapacks you will need another freighter to haul them (1,050 cargo spaces). If you are just going to use booster packs, you will still need another freighter as the booster packs for 36 fighters (standard is three each) totals 432 cargo points, or 29 spaces more than the 403 you had left, and again you will need to allow for Commander's Options, and maybe you want some booster packs for the admin shuttles.

So we are at five small (or one large and three small, or two large and one small) freighters. Now, the fifth small freighter can be (and in fact needs to be) a small troop freighter. Your four small bases have 39 crew units. A small troop freighter can accomodate 30 of them easily, and the remaining nine can be spread between the six small freighters (or whatever combination) with minimal overcrowding. The small troop freighter also has 500 spaces of cargo storage, so it can handle that last 29 spaces with some room left over.

David Slatter:

While such an operation would be in severe trouble if it was found, the point of is is to not be found. Further, the presence and threat of the fighters hitting convoys is forcing you (as you have already admitted) to deploy real warships to guard your convoys.

"and unless the enemy was stupid enough to run unescorted convoys on the front,"

If there is no threat against the convoys, then you can run them unescorted. This poses a threat.

SFB background has established that it is possible to conceal such collections of small bases inside asteroid fields, and very had to find them. The situation is that if a group of fighters attacks one of your convoys, and your escort leaves the convoy to pursue the fighters, another group of fighters from another such base will hit the now unescorted convoy. The upshot being that your escorts cannot abandon convoys to pursue fighters. Further, even if you do pursue the fighters, they can "split", leaving you to chase one which rather than leading you to its base will, after the other fighters have escaped, surrender (if he cannot lose you in an asteroid field) after destroying his navicomputer. And again, while you were chasing this lone fighter in hopes it would lead you to its base, another group of fighters attacked the now unescorted convoy, forcing you to race back to it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 03:09 pm: Edit

The example I had in mind was the South pacific campaigns 1941 to 1945.

There were some Islands that were uninhabited or undefended that both sides occupied and built airstrips on. There were several islands occupied for the sole purpose to provide an airfield. some were found to be unsuitable for airfield construction, but others had fighter and bomber bases built on them.

One example would be Guadalcanal, the Japanese got there first, but the US Marines were able to seize the island before the air field became operational.

In a partial response to Dave Slater, The purpose of the IFS is not to replace warships...but rather to supplement them. If you have 11 missions to complete, and only 9 or 10 ships...one or 2 of the missions would be unsatified.

If one of those missions was to monitor a specific location where your enemy has (in the past) attempted to build or deploy a base to, leaving that location is dangerous to the extent that the enemy could erect a base there and have it operational before your overworked and busy starships could get back to monitor the area...leaving a IFS there allows you to get the mission accomplished without using a starship.

Would a ship be a better choice?

Yes, almost certainly.

But the point remains, if you don't have enough ships to complete all of the missions, you don't have the ships.

If sensor data, and navigational considerations, can allow you to pick a good location that is within range of your fighters (with or without warp pods) that also puts you within range of likely convoy routes ('shipping lanes'), so much the better.

I would like to suggest something for your consideration, the bases are expendable...the idea is to make an unexpected attack on enemy forces, and then retreat. If they can take the bases with them fine, but the most valuable resources are the personnel. New bases can be built but if the pilots and techs can successfully retreat, even better.

Steve Petrick-

Thank you for the illustration of the cargo "lift" requirements.

The 4 small frighters that I had listed were to be dedicated to the support of the IFS. and would (I would have thought) have made several trips to satisfy the cargo requirements. The 4 frighters were the smallest cheapest ships that I could (In my mind) justify keeping on standby to allow the IFS to "bugout" saving all of the personnel and as much equipment as they could.

They would have been hidden nearby the bases available for the "bugout" that discovery by the enemy would precipitate.

Not sure how effective the retreat would be, but if the fighters could have destroyed a convoy or escort or disrupted a tug mission and prevented a MB being set up, it would have been worth it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Well, lets look at a few things. Let's assume that the fighters are the ubiqitous F-18B (so that they have speed 15). On a standard mission the three squadrons will take off with 102 spaces of drones (33 F-18Bs with two type-VI and two type-I each for 99 spaces, and three F-18BEW with two type-VI each). So you could (without resupply, and assuming you lost no more fighters than the six you have as spares) launch a maximum of five full strikes, and one partial strike (the last strike will only have 90 spaces of drones rather than 102). So you need to resupply sometime before the sixth strike.

Change them to F-18BMs (or F-18B+s). Now a full strike requires 168 spaces of drones, so you can only launch three full strikes before you need to resupply, as you will only have 96 spaces for the fourth strike.

Change them to F-18BM+s. Now a full strike needs 234 spaces of drones, and you can only launch two full strikes before you are going to need resupply (your third strike would be launched with only 132 spaces).

Change them to F-18Cs, and you only need 201 spaces of drones, so you can also launch only two full strikes, but your third strike will have 198 drones.

Change them to F-18CMs, and you can still launch two full strikes (each takes 267 spaces of drones), leaving you a whopping 66 drones for the third strike.

In any case, if your freighters are floating around they make the base much easier to find, and lots of traffic to and from this small base will help pinpoint it. Quite literally, your freighters arrive, they offload the bases equipment, and personnel, and they leave.

At that point, you might have a Free Trader slip in every once in a while (300 spaces of cargo) to resupply, say after every second strike. Although you might want to include a sixth freighter in the original run loaded with 1,250 spaces of additional supplies (probably mostly drones and fighter pods) so that the Free Trader will not have to make many runs.

If you need to bug out, well freighters do not "bug" very well. And obviously you would literally be abandoning the base at that point. The problem is that what you are abandoning (the ground bases and the fighters), even ignoring the straight expendables (like drones and fighter pods, and only using the economic cost for three squadrons of F-18Bs) is just about equal to the cost of a dreadnought (DNG in the case of the Federation). So whatever you hoped to accomplish had better be worth the investment.

Your best "bugout" would be a pair of free-troopers, landed and concealed. Between them they could at least evacuate all the presonnel in a hurry.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Another Look; assuming bombers:

Freighter #1: 2xBMB.

Freighter #2: 1xBMB, 1xGWS.

(Might be one large freighter)

Freighter #3: 6xB1 bombers as cargo (600 points) 6xMega packs for bombers (600 points) 50 points of drones.

Freighter #4: 6xB1 bombers as cargo (600 points) 6xMega packs for bombers (600 points) 50 points of drones.

(Might be one large freighter)

Freighter #5: 6xB1 bombers as cargo (600 points) 6xMega packs for bombers (600 points) 50 points of drones.

Freighter #6: 3xB1 bombers (300 points), 6xMega packs for bombers (300 points) (these are the spare bombers for the three bases), 650 spaces of drones.

(Might be one large freighter)

Freighter #7: Small Troop Freighter with 30 Crew units of the bases and bombers, cargo holds 10xAdmin shuttles (250 spaces), 100 spaces of drones, 90 spaces of pods, 56 spaces of warp packs for Admin shuttles 4 spaces of chaff.

Freighter #8: Small Troop Freighter with 30 Crew units of the bases and bombers, 17.6 spaces of chaff, leaving 482.4 spaces of cargo available.

(Might be one Large Troop Freighter)

Note that three crew units will contribute to some overcrowding as the four bases have a combined crew of 63 crew units (126 boarding party equivalents).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

The only problem with target selection, is, (assuming it is the Federation using the IFS), that it would be the coalition that decides what targets go where.

Is an operating Coalition Mobile Base "worth" something to the Coalition? - Probably.

Is the ability to destroy the Mobile base BEFORE its operational worth something to the Federation? - again, probably. is it worth the value of 3 squadrons of fighters or a DNG? That depends on the strategic situation.

The Scenario assumes that the Coalition tried before, and for some reason keeps coming back to the same area. a chance to trade fighters for a Tug, and a Mobile base might be worth a lot. Especially if there are few Klingon tugs left in the war at that point. Thats a value judgement, and without more data, its hard to assess.

Samething with the anti convoy missions. the IFS could be in a position to attack convoys. part of the strategy is to force the Coalition to better protect the convoys by assigning additional warships.

Question, how do you measure effectiveness? if the first convoys had no escorts, and 6 months later every convoy now has an F5Q guarding it, is that success?

IMO it would depend on the strategic situation, again. if the front is stagnent and no major fleet actions or multi ship battles occur for an extended time, and 3 x F5Q's represented 100% of the frontline patrols, and as a result, all of the F5's are now assigned to convoy escort...the frontline patrols of the coalition are weaker, and the Federation might be able to mount an operation with such forces that are available.

In that case, the IFS would be worth it.

Which brings me to another point.

if found (as David Slater pointed out) the life expectancey of the base and personnel is not great.

In a sense, such an operation (in contested space) is inherently dangerous. Like the partisans in SPain fighting the French (1805 to 1814?) or the Free French in WW2, they make attacks and attempt to evade.

This IFS would not live long if it were based on a MB and no supporting fleet defenses. As SPP pointed out, the idea is to attack and evade.

One other idea about this scenario...would such a IFS be worth the Coalitions time and effort to "search and destroy it?" If the forces assigned were enough to deal with 3 squadrons of fighters, would that provide the Federation the chance to intercept the coalition ships after they expended fuel and munitions? What if the Fed Fleet got there first? It is contested space, so leaving your enemy to pacify it is not a good idea. There are several factors in play here, and trying to decide if the Star fleet would try something like this is dependent on several things.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 09:07 am: Edit

Steve Petrick-
I spent time composing my last response so didnt realize you had made another post, sorry.

Bombers, hummmm....

IIRC J2 bomber history did refer to some limited bomber encounters...but because the range of the bombers being limited, it was rare.

What was the year in service for the B1? wasnt it late war (circa 180 - 182)? That would fit in with the premise of a stagnent front undergoing attrition combat operations...and compared to 3 fighter squadrons, B1's would be a credible threat...and a significant combat capability.

Again, IIRC bombers (in F&E terms) are more powerful than fighters, so if a squadron of F18's is "worth" 6 COMPOT, 3 fighter squadrons would be 18 total COMPOT while bombers (assuming the squadron is 9 compot) would "bring to the table" 27 COMPOT....

Wow.

This changes the conditions of the scenario slightly, as most coalition patrols wouldnt be able to deal with a concentration of bombers like that, it would take a fair sized fleet, and it would alter deployments and patrols all up and down the front. If they decided to "avoid the area", the Federation wins a tactical victory and is encouraged to repeat the exercise...

It would be significantly more expensive (in both Econ points and BPV) to use bombers in this role, but the increase in offensive ability of bombers (with or without Mega Packs) might be justified.

Even if detected by a "normal" patrol, 3 squadrons of B1's would have a chance to win...and if the Coalition withdraws from the area the Federation can just move the bombers and bases again.

Boy, this is powerful, but what if the Coalition pulls this on the Federation? trying to deploy bomber bases in the face of existing enemy bombers is going to be difficult...but having to deploy enough starships to adequately address the threat is surely going to be expensive also...and (as was pointed out earlier) there is no guarantee that the bombers hidden bases could be detected.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

The fundamental problem is that any patrol, even a single F5B will be able to force the fighters to abort their mission.

It is faster than the fighters are, has a better sensor suite and has longer ranged DF weapons (range 15 through a +2 ECM shift, range 30 if only a +1 shift). It doesn't have the firepower to prevent the fighters from retreating (but if given enough time, it will eventually kill them all), but it does prevent them from going further (they either have to use their drones to drive it off or disengage at close range where it gets dozens of free kills).

One could argue that a F5B is borderline, but even an F5W is more than enough to guarantee stopping the attack (it has firepower out to range 22, at least).

The net is that once the first strike occurs and the enemy knows the force is in the region, a single ship can neutralize the fighters...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

David Kass:

If the Klingons have to deploy a F5 frigate (or even better) a F5W to patrol what should be a pacified sector, the fighters have, by definition, successfully completed the mission.

They prevent that F5 or F5W from completing more important missions. Also, the fighters would have done it while at the same time, freed up a federation ship for other, more important missions.

While you are correct, that a F5B could neutralize the fighters, the fighters have, in effect, neutralized a Klingon F5 (or even an F5W) that really should be off doing more important duties.

Let me put it to you this way, if you were the Klingon commander, would you want to have your ships engaged in offensive activities, activities that hopefully have the potential of winning the war? or would you rather be on the defensive, having to deal with threats to your supply lines and lines of communications?

While fighters can not control a hex or change ownership of a F&E hex, they can perform local attacks and interfere with the movement of convoys and auxillery ships.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

The point I was trying to make is that in either case you are investing a lot of resources to deploy this in either case.

Frankly, if you wanted to do this, the best way would probably be to launch a convoy of HTS (or HTS and HFS) shuttles loaded with fuel and incidentals. This might be small enough to not attract attention even if the enemy is actively scanning the area for intrusions. The HTS and HFS shuttles would go to a selected asteroid in an asteroid field that has been selected for the mission. Three or four trips might be made, the last one bringing the deck crews. In this way you set up a "casual base" (J13.0). When all is in readiness, you then move the fighters, perhaps in groups of two or four, to the casual base. They arrive already loaded, refuel, and then when a convoy is detected by a base behind them (remember that bases can detect targets further away than fighters can react in Fed and Empire), the fighters launch and hit it using thier initial loads of drones and any pods. Then the survivors return to the asteroid base where they are reloaded and repaired for a second strike, and possibly a third. Then the deck crews refuel the surviving fighters for the flight back to safety and load up on the HTS and HFS shuttles and head home.

This cannot be done with bombers. Well . . . actually bombers could make one run. They would not be able to be re-armed (J14.222), but they could be refueled and repaired (J14.222). So you could have a sort of campaign where you load up your bombers, fly them to the casual base(s), then attack a series of convoys, carefully expending the munitions of your three bomber squadrons over several attacks. They would have 216 spaces of drones. If they were fitted with megapacks, they could move at (assuming Federation B-1s) speed 30, or speed 26 if they were carrying four pods on their pod rails. At that point they can run down your average large freighter (not an armed one of course), and this will force any escort to fight them, as most convoys are not going to include many armed freighters (which are actually fairly rare).

Of course, in either case on of the simplest counters to such fighter strikes is the Aux-CVL or Aux-CVA, or even an Aux-PFT-S or Aux-PFT-L.

In any case, shuttles at long range are harder to track than ships, and using shuttles to set up casual bases and then sending the fighters there to launch strikes probably would work better than expending the effort to deploy the ground bases.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 06:02 pm: Edit

In short, the investment you are putting together just to create the convoy (and it is a convoy) to set up this forward base the way you are doing is enough to require you to escort the convoy, and the enemy is likely to detect and attack it as a convoy (not to mention the risk of having your convoy enroute to set up this base being spotted by an Orion who attacks it thinking it is simply a convoy . . . odd that it is here in no-man's land, but still).

You are moving a lot of metal around in an area of space where the enemy is likely to take a keen interest.

I think you would do better to dispense with the freighters and rely on cargo shuttles and a casual base with targeting provided by the special sensors of a real base farther back. (That is not to say that a GWS might not be deployed further back in an area where there is no base, but that there is no real reason to push the GWS up front with the fighters since they do not have the range to strike out to the maximum range of the GWS' sensors in any case.)

I mean five HTS shuttles and one Admin shuttle could carry enough drones to rearm a full strike of 36 F-18CMs. Or three HFS shuttles and one HTS could do the job. Or heck, two VFS shuttles and HFS could do the job.

You would need a extra shuttle cargo capacity for Pods and chaff packs, of course, and some should be allocated for non-descript cargo (essentially the repair parts the deck crews use to make repairs and the 'fuel' for the fighters, and for the shuttles themselves). But two VFS shuttles and an admin could carry all deck crews for the 36 fighters.

So call it ten, or heck 12, VFS shuttles, an economic investment (economic point value) of only 78 points. This does not include the costs of the fighters or deck crews or the various supplies. But it is a lot harder to detect at long range, and a lot easier to sneak into an asteroid field and set up shop, and a lot easier to sneak back out. And while it might be rough on the crews if a patrol found them in open space, the economic loss is bearable compared to a shot up enemy convoy or two.

And again, while bombers could not be reloaded, they can be refueled, repaired, and have their chaff packs replaced, so this could also be done to support several strikes by a bomber force, provided the bombers use up their expendables carefully.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 09:24 am: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Reading your posts reminds me of the tactics the Japanese used in the South Pacific in World War 2.

Specifically, using barges and small ships to resupply island bases in the Solomon Island Chain and the Philipines in the face of US forces.

IIRC it was during these battles that John F. Kennedy's PT 109 was lost in combat with a destroyer of the "Tokyo Express"...

By using the the methods you outlined, I could see such a "Harrassment Operation" might have limited success.

I'll have to think about it some more, you have given me many things to consider.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 11:23 am: Edit

Ok, I've had some time to consider this.

Going back to the original premise, i.e. a SFB scenario using fighters (possibly bombers?!?) to make independent strikes on enemy targets in a contested zone.

Any such Scenario will need to reflect:

1. Extended range for the attacking force (be it fighters or bombers) by using a casual base set up using the procedures suggested by SPP. (Shuttles, HTS, VSF shuttles(?) and admin shuttles that established a casual base per rule J13.0.
2. that the attack force was able to make the move safely and undetected by the enemy. (Tangent...should there be a option scenario, perhaps set in a campaign format, that examines such a deployment being discovered by an enemy patrol...the object being (for the fed) retreat as many shuttles safely off map and (for the Klingon) killing as many shuttles as possible in as short a time period as possible?)
3. That one such attack force was able to surprise a Klingon attempt to place a mobile base within attack range of the Federation fighters (or Bombers?!?) (Tangent...Since SFB does have rules that allow for the capture of enemy units, should there be a scenario illustrating the attempt to capture a Klingon Mobile base by a Bomber group reinforced with ground troops carried by admin shuttles, GAS,HTS and or such other equipment (non ship) equipment available?)
4. A scenario of an attack force (either fighters or bombers) attacking an enemy convoy (in F&E terms, it could be either a supply convoy that had to travel near to the fighters casual basis OR it could be a convoy acting as a supply point (possibly instead of a convoy, substitute a Tug acting as a supply point.)
5. A scenario of the attack force (again either fighters or bombers) attacking a rally point with and FRD present.
6. The casual base was discovered by enemy forces, the Federation force starts fighting retreat by the fighters (or bombers) acting as rear guard...should there be the option of scattering or would the fighters (or bombers) be better off staying together as a cohesive unit?

Looking at SPP points, such a "Campaign" would be resolved within 6 months...or a single F&E game turn. and while 78 BPV's are a significant investment for supporting units that don't include fighters bombers or ships, if it allows those fighters or bombers to damage or destroy (depending on the scenarios results) a mobile base, a tug (or two!), one or two convoys, and any number of regular warships at no risk of corresponding loss to the federation, it might well be worth the effort.

Jeepers! looked at this way, it almost qualifies as the premise for a television sitcom!

We could call it SFB Black Sheep Squadron, and give the CO the Name of Major (Pappy) Boyington, SFMC!

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:26 am: Edit

Hmmm,
I kind of wonder about an SFB Dolittle raid. A squadron of fighters go out on a one way mission. They can't go back because its on a one way mission but there is a possibility of another race being able to pick them up.
Say, scenario one, a couple of squadrons of Fed fighters hit deep into Klingon space.
Scenario two, the surviving fed fighters try to reach a Gorn (or Kzinti) aux CVA (emptied for this purpose).

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 05:32 am: Edit

The best use I can see for this would be best used in a losing war. You hide bases (probably casual bases) in uninteresting systems and then wait for the front to move past you.

At this point you could target key convoys moving to the front. The biggest problem is detection and finding targets without any major EW equipment. Resupply is an issue (best bet would be to hire Orions). Also, it's probably a suicide mission. There's probably no way to get home afterwards

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 06:06 am: Edit

I think Jon has a point. I can see it in that context, especially as there would be plenty of time to place the base to maximum effect, and set up Orion supply routes for when the front has moved. Still, the fighters will have to be very careful not to be tailed back to their base. (I'm assuming that warp trails are very easy to follow).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 07:46 am: Edit

I'm not so sure about that...it assumes that you know what an enemy is going to do to the extent that the base is set up within the operating range of the platforms (be it fighters or bombers).

The nice thing about the procedure Steve Petrick outlined, is the extended range of the fighters by staging them with casual bases.

a side benefit is the "shell game" such a procedure allows since if the klingons spend time ships and resources searching for the fighter base, the best they could come up with is the empty field where the fighters had landed on (assuming it was a planet), or the flat spot on an asteroid and not the place where the hanger modules actually are (since they would be atleast twice as far as a fighter with dash pods could be expected to be able to operate from.)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:08 am: Edit

I would suggest that, stratigically, bombers can cruise with significantly less emitions than an equal BPV of ships. As a result, they are much harder to spot and indentify from long range. If this isn't true then Bombers must realy be kept in the defense role (which would be unfortunate).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit

3. That one such attack force was able to surprise a Klingon attempt to place a mobile base within attack range of the Federation fighters (or Bombers?!?) (Tangent . . . Since SFB does have rules that allow for the capture of enemy units, should there be a scenario illustrating the attempt to capture a Klingon Mobile base by a Bomber group reinforced with ground troops carried by admin shuttles, GAS, HTS and or such other equipment (non-ship) equipment available?)

RESPONSE: Operationally unlikely for several reasons. First, fighters are much faster than even A-GAS shuttles. The force would be so slow that its interception en route to attack the MB would (not might) be intercepted, and the resulting slaughter would keep people from volunteering for the Marines in that navy for some time to come. You just do not use shuttle convoys for that long-range of an attack. Second problem is that under Federation and Empire rules, bases cannot be captured. Technically this simply means that the base is so badly shot up that even if you did manage to block self-destruction and seize control, the base would not be operational, and repairing it and converting it to your technology would cost more than emplacing your own base.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Jeff, the F5B is going to be patrolling the border anyways--if nothing else to detect/deter Orions trying to smuggle across (not to mention enemy warships launching raids or a full out attack). By the point in the war we're discussing, the F5B is really the smallest of the Klingon ships. I don't see where its interception of the fighter strike is a cost to the Klingons.

The fighters or bombers will need to spend 20 or 30 EPV just to escape (in launched drones). So, it looks to me like a good trade from the Klingon POV. Especially when you consider that the F5B has half the economic cost of the fighters (and that without counting the effort spent in getting them into position).

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Launched drones have a negligable EPV, unlike shuttles and fighters that have an EPV of their own, there is no victory point cost under standard victory conditions for firing every drone you have. And victory points under standard conditions correspond to expended EPV.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

See scenario "Red, White, and Blue" which is about Klingon stay-behind forces equipped with fighters and PFs hidden inside asteroid fields and Hydran efforts to eradicate them.

David Kass:

You are making a fundamental mis-judgement.

It may not be worthwhile for the fighters to attack a patrolling frigate. But as noted, fighters (shuttles in general) are less detectable than ships (even PFs). The reason they are not as good at the "sneak in and drop off a team" job as PFs is because they lack the PF's Range, Acceleration, EW, and durability. I mean at range one a single phaser-2 ground base is an auto-kill against even an advanced admin shuttle (worst possible damage for the phaser-2 is three points, but the four phaser-3s also have a worst possible damage output at that range of three points each . .. which essentially means that the shuttle dies when it is spotted). A shuttle is just not going to be able to do the job if there is any kind of defenses at all, and even for a PF, the situation is dicey. Quite literally, if the PF does not achieve surprise against most standard Defense Battalions, it will be destroyed (believe it or not, I sent a brief message to your battalion commander mentioning the order he should have given that would have destroyed the PF that made the pass at your planet). A shuttle simply has no chance at all.

But remember, that is dead on top of the defenses.

Here we are sending fighters to strike at the convoy routes.

Yes, there are patrolling ships, but shuttles, even fighters, are a lot harder to detect than even the smallest ship.

So your situation is that when a convoy gets hit, you are likely to be further from it than if it was hit by a ship that crossed the border. The ship would have been detected further away allowing you more time to adjust to its presence.

The upshot is that if a sudden flurry of fighter raids occurred in a sector, your only real options are to:

A: Abandon the convoy routes all together (usually not possible because of the need to support on going operations)

B: Increase the number of ships patrolling in that sector so that there is a greater likelihood that one will be near enough to respond to a fighter strike (this is an option, but it DOES tie down more ships than that one F5B that used to be covering that sector)

C: Assign additional ships to escort convoys through that sector (see the above).

D: Some combination, i.e., delay several convoys so that they can all travel as one very large convoy with combined escorts so that you do not have to assign any more ships, but this could result in catastrophic delays of needed materials at the front line where the heavy fighting is going on.

There are a couple of other options.

But the upshot is that such fighter operations are viable and not easily countered (barring good luck for one side, or very bad luck for the other). By their very nature, they would have to be temporary operations, as prolonged strikes from one given casual base would invite it eventually being found with catastrophic consequences. However, a carefully staged campaign involving shuffling between a dozen or more such casual bases could bear considerable fruit in terms of destroyed or diverted enemy resources that would make the investment in fighters worthwhile.

Of course, both sides could do this, it is an "economy of force" type of mission, and if both sider were doing it, it is possible that fighters from the two sides could interact, although that would probably happen only rarely and at the extreme limits of their respective ranges.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

David Slater wrote:

"Still, the fighters will have to be very careful not to be tailed back to their base. (I'm assuming that warp trails are very easy to follow)."

David- even if warp trails are very easy to follow, operational security of such a IFS proposed would be to use a series of casual bases, and "decoy" trails....for example, suppose a squadron of 12 fighters and its resupply shuttle depart from the casual base...and scatter on divergent courses with the intention of rendezvous at the next casual base...but only the resupply shuttle actually sets course for the hanger modules (useing a "dog leg" course (or a course with 3 or more "legs" to it so there is not a single warp trail leading to the base?

your enemy patrol will have to trail all of the shuttles to be certain of following the "right one"...and even if he did find the right one, the fighters and bases should (assuming the Early Warning Module is functioning properly) be aware of the presence of the enemy as it approaches the base location...and since the shuttles course is known with detail...an ambush becomes a very viable option.

Just a thought!

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

BTW, 'Red, White and Blue' is SH144 in Module S2...