If we need fast escorts then the existing FFX/DDX class might fit the bill with just a note.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Well, if we need fast escorts, then we need a fast FCR, and possibly a fast LTT to carry a pod of supplies. And perhaps a fast police ship to arrest enemy raiders for speeding.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 04:34 pm: Edit

ba dum dum.......

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:13 pm: Edit

I don't think fast resupply ships of any type would be needed as you aren't normally going to resupply a ship that is on raiding mission. But I do see where this is going.

The insanity of fast variants would reach all the way down to Fast Fast Patrol Ships or FPF's... Maybe double WBP's on them

By John Pepper (Akula) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 12:23 am: Edit

There is an aux super carrier based on the ore frieghter over in the proposals board.(Off Topic) Also for the CL one idea I had was perhaps mounting an additional photon in place of 2 armor and attaching a frigate engine to the bottom of the ship. Or perhaps mounting another CL engine on top of the ship. Maybe a attack or penetration cruiser???

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 08:05 am: Edit

Armor can't be removed, though, so you'd have to figure another way to do it. Rather than adding more power, I'd go the way of the DNL and just cut back on excess mass. Remove some systems, and then lower the move cost.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Question:
Would there be any difference between a Fed Division Control Ship and an Area Control Ship???
Sorry if this is stupid. But it seems that if there isn't a difference then the DCS should be conjectural with PF's and the existing DCS should actually be an ACS.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Division Control Ships carry PFs
Area Control SHips carry Heavy Fighters

The F111 is the Federation Answer to PFs. They have to be external to the ship.

The A20 is the Federation Answer to Heavy Fighters. They have to be internal to the ship (it seems, IIRC the SCS has them external but that is an exception. Also, from the SCS, if you have 2*3 vertical mech links for A20s, only 2F111's will fit on each set of 3 links. So the layout of the tractors can't be the same)

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit

One of the NVHs operated A20s on mech-links as well.

IIRC, any fighter can be operated from mechlinks designed for them, the Feds are just the only race that made carriers with fighter mechlinks (Fi-Cons not withstanding, as they can't service their fighters).

A conjectural Fed DCS operating conjectural PFs would be designated DCSA, follwing the BCS/BCSA, SCS/SCSA. and SDS/SDSA pattern.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Don't forget the Orion SCV and LVS. They have fighter mech-links.

⁴²

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Doh! Been a while since I looked at my Orions

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Telenko wants NCA variants of Scout Carriers.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:10 pm: Edit

4 EW scout on an 8 defense factor hull with an 8 fighter factor squadron? Yeah, I'd want those too! Tasty.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

I doubt it would have 4EW. Even heavy cruiser PFTs have only two and the heavy scout carriers would also have only two EW.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Telenko gets his wish already, the Hydrans get the Vedette in R10.

A Mohawk-based Scout Carrier.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Awwwww, darn

Still sounds suitably tasty. I'm a fan of multi-role hulls, so I'd be all down for them.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 06:44 pm: Edit

The current scout carriers have three to six sensors and would presumably at least keep them in an NCA conversion. NCA-PFTs would probably follow the CW-PFTs and have just two sensors, though.

The new carrier concepts introduced in J2 should work just as well on heavy hulls. Perhaps a a 'Space Patrol Ship' built on a DN hull with two or three squadrons and six special sensors?

By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 12:11 am: Edit

I dont know if this thread is still going, but what about a obvious variant. (Not sure if it was covered in J-J2) but improved versions of the venerable A10 attack fighter.

IE, A-10C, A-10D ect.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 01:50 pm: Edit

1. It's not covered elsewhere.

2. Nice idea, but the A-20F all but makes such moot, and you probably wouldn't get improved A-10s before the A-20F was available.

By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 07:42 pm: Edit

I actually was thinking of a variant if the feds are not using the third way.
I agree that when the A-20's come out, it will make the A-10 obsoete, but looking in the history of this thread, A-10's with the asm and a couple more drones make a DF strike by these fighters a little more dangerous.
besides, isn't there a 2-4 YIS break between these.
Not looking for much, 1-2 points more speed, and at most 2 more drone rails.
I find that the A-10's get mauled when going in.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 05:55 pm: Edit

The A20, while clearly superior to the A10, does not render that A10 "moot," especially considering the amount of damage the standard A10 can take. With a mega-fighter refit, consider that the A10:

Takes 18 damage to destroy, equal to a standard A20;
carries 2 photons;
moves at a speed of 20;
has 1/2 the offensive drone complement of the A20;
has 2 P3 (FA,RA) for close defense;
has 2 pod rails;
has a nominal chance to survive the rare (but often fatal) dogfight with a DFR of 1.

All this for the bargain-basement price of 15 BPV (plus 2 more for the drone speed upgrades)!

Additionally, consider that 2 A10Ms, when compared to a single A20FM:

have the same photon complement;
have nearly same drone complement;
have more defensive phasers (at the expensive of having an offensive phaser);
cost nearly the same (30+4 versus 27 plus 4);

and most importantly...take a whopping 36 points of damage to destroy compared to 20 for a single A20FM.

True, the A20FM has significantly superior speed, EW capabilities, and more total close defenses (ADD, chaff), but, on balance, I would not consider the A10 "moot" or obsolete by any means.

I would point out that A10s were still in use as late as Y184 with the Federation CVA USS Zhukov.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Boy, I'd like to see a A10F....

If anyone did a writeup in a Captain's Log about Fed Fighters, similar to Klingon/Hydran fighters.

That better be in their, even if unofficial

By Shayne Demeria (Nighthawk) on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Another point that I would like to make, is that the A-20, comes out in yr-177, and the A-10 comes out in yr-171.
this gives the Feds a 6 year window that the Feds can consider improvements on it.
This can also be extended due to the requirement to either build new ships, or convert existing ships to use the A-20.
So the actual time that the A-10 is in use, would be longer.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 11:55 am: Edit

Has anyone considered a Solitare scenario for a squadron of fighters/bombers/PF's?

Set it up along the lines of the old Avalon Hill game 'B17:Queen of the Skies' where the player starts on a planet/PDU in a contested capital hex where other star systems or planets in the same star system are within range of whatever unit the player commands? (I realize fighters have short range but PF's could reach 1,000 parsecs or 2 F&E hexes range)...

The movement would not be defined in hexes but rather 'Zones' and the opposition forces could be programed off of encounter charts.

The player could play either offense where his squadron is part of the forces reducing the defenders bases or defense where he is attempting to destroy the incoming bombers/fighters and PF's before they attack the base.

Could either be a stand alone scenario or part of a larger campaign...and with repair and reinforcement schedules, part of the hook for encouraging players is the chance to judge between all-out attack to defeat the enemy at considerable loss to the squadron or attrition from range while waiting to the squadron to be brought up to full strength between combat rounds...

Just seems a logical place for it would be J-3...and I would think a squadron of Federation A10's with a high count of Ace pilots at start would compare favorably to a squadron of A-20's with nothing but "green" pilots at the start of their learning curves...but look out when the A20's pilots actually know how to use the A-20's!

Victory could be measured by the number of damage points inflicted on the attacking foce/number of damage points the attacking force inflicts on the target planet/base/PDU.

The scenario could be historical for those races that actually had capital hex assaults (Hydrans/Kzinti/Klingon/Federation/Tholian/Romulon/WYN/LDR) and the Offense races could include those other races that participated in assaults like the Lyrans (hmmmm...) well, the Lyran's...(I don't recall if history indicates the ISC having attacked any home worlds or having been attacked. The Andromedan's don't operate fighters...so they might not be able to participate.)

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Jeff. You might be able to glean some ideas from this old discussion http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/23/555.html