Archive through April 21, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through April 21, 2004
Regarding the new nomenclature, I think giving it a new number would just make things simpler to communicate. I found the many suffixes of the Hydran fighter article made explaining to my opponent which model I wanted to test out difficult. F-14pD just seems more cumbersome than F-11D.
Richard Wells:
Thank you. You phrased it much better than I was able to articulate.
IMO the material should be simplified under a kind of "KISS" approach than to make it intentionally complicated and deceptive.
Jeff, why don;t you post the idea over in SSJ3?
Jeff,
Don't ever let me or anyone else keep you from making a proposal you believe in. I have been wrong before, and will (unfortunately) continue to be wrong about some things in the future.
But, my opinion is that an "F-11" is unnecessary, for reasons I have already stated. And, as Richard points out, minor variations in fighters are done with suffixes, not new names.
Besides which, even if anything was done with it, it would probably fall under the "obvious variant" umbrella, anyway.
Chris Fant,
To be honest, I had considered that, but felt that a design like the F-11 would have been an evolutionary step between the older generation F4, F8 and A6 designs and the F14, F15, F16, A10 designs (I include the A10 since it also has 2 phaser 3's, not just 1, even though one of them is RA).
If the general consensis is that it should go to SSJ#3, then I'll be happy to do so.
The problem I have with the "just use a F18" option instead of using gatling equipped fighters is that the nomenclature ('F-18' vs 'F-14') and the YIS state definitively that the F18's were developed AFTER the F14, F15 and F16 designs.
The developement cycle of the F18 is atleast 2 years behind that of the F14. (I base that assumption on the YIS dates)
Plus, for what its worth, there is already a partial (to my mind) precedent for Federation developement of fighter types that were not selected for production. The Gorn G-12. If this was indeed a federation design (call it a F-12), then there may have been other designs that the Federation could have built, and for whatever reason, decided not to.
As such, (as Mike west suggested earlier) this proposal would probably make more sense as a Captains log article on Fed fighter deployment, but there are players and groups that run non historical campaigns...and having the ability to use a F-11 type substitute instead of F-14's and F15 etc would facilitate groups using the option.
I guess what is "eating" at me is the obvious "gaps" in the Federation Fighter lists...What When and who built the missing fighters and why did they not enter the game as the F14, F4, F16 etc did.
Mike West,
Thank you, I didn't take your comments as overtly hostile. (
)
Contrary to some opinions, I didnt submit this (or any other) idea just to load up the game with unnecessary things, or in a vain attempt to get anything published.
If this proposal (like others I have submitted) doesnt go anywhere, then fine...I enjoy the discussion and ideas.
Even with people that I disagree with, I still tend to learn things from. And I hope others reading this might get something out of the discussion.
And Mike? Just for the record, I agree with you that it is not necessary, hence in the proposal the use of the Phrase "this is intended as a never(or seldom) built fighter type available during the early General war"
The main point is, that had gatlings not happened to the Federation, this design (or one very much like it) would have been built.
Is it fair to say that we agree on the substance and disagree on the nomenclature?
Jeff, Fed fighters follow the US fighter scheme....you know that, right?
Is there an F-11? Not that I remember or can locate.
They mimck the following...
F4 Phantom
F5 Tiger
F8 Crusader
F14 Tomcat
F15 Eagle
F16 Falcon
F18 Hornet
Now, why there is no F5 I do not know, though it may be that they just covered it with the F-20 Tigershark, which is essentially the same aircraft, but there rest are there.
Here's a link with just about everything else they fly...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html
Chris:
F11 was built by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.
The Actual designation was F11F Tiger.
Please note, this is the same company that built the F14 Tomcat.
I also find it curious that you neglected to mention several other designs flown by the US Navy such as the F-1 FJ Fury, F-2H Banshee, F-6 (AKA) F4D Skyray, F-9 Cougar, or the F-10 which was AKA the F3D. These are all navy aircraft, not US Airforce. Produced by companies, such as North american, McDonnell, Douglas Convair, Vought, and lockheed.
I have to check, but I think the F5 was AKA freedom fighter...
Jeff,
"Is it fair to say that we agree on the substance and disagree on the nomenclature?"
Yes, for the most part.
I just think that the whole issue can be covered with the following sentence:
"Had the Federation failed to develop the fighter based gatling phaser, their fighters that use the gatling phaser would have used a pair of phaser-3s in place of the gatling phaser, using the same arcs, reducing their BPV value by two points."
(Or something like that. I suppose it could be made more precise if necessary.)
That way, the entire issue is handled with one note and it covers all affected fighters, not just one.
I guess the other thing about this, is that I have always thought this was completely obvious. The fact of this discussion shows I was wrong, and such a note would be nice to see in a CL or SSJ. I do think a CL article that covers Federation fighter development would be an interesting read, but would also be hard to write.
Mike West,
Yeah, I guess I could live with the sentence "Had the Federation failed to develop the fighter based gatling phaser, their fighters that use the gatling phaser would have used a pair of phaser-3s in place of the gatling phaser, using the same arcs, reducing their BPV value by two points."
Where I guess you and I (and for all I know Cfant too!) will have to agree to disagree on is the Nomencature...If I want to refer to a specific fighter with specific abilities, I would just say a F14B or F14 C or what ever...I don't want to have to repeat the above sentence every time I wanted to talk about a gatling less fighter.
Maybe you and Cfant have the luxury to waste the time it takes...but I would suspect that SVC won't have much interest in such an obvious time waster.
Jeff,
Well, considering that the decision as to whether the Federation has gatling phasers is a rather important decision, which is fundamental to fighter operations, I figure that when talking about an F14A or F15 would be sufficient. Context will clearly indicate whether the fighter has a P-G or 2xP-3.
I think the obvious time waster is the F-11.
The F5 is the Tiger and Freedom Fighter, like I said, still cannot find a reference for the F-11.
The other fighters like the Banshee are much older, and the design stats had to start with something. Also, I did not mention them because the first Fed fighter is the F4 "Phantom".
Now, a cool fighter would be something akin to the EA-6B. Something along the lines of a limited, armed SWAC.
Try this....
A6, upgraded to speed 12. Add PG-360
Can only use rule J9.14 to led to fighter squadron.
Carries 4 special rails (ECM drones or RALADs only) (ECM drones outside the DR%s)
Carries 4 Light rails(Type VI only).
YIS like 182 or so.
Cost would be about 18 BPV or so.
The question you have to ask yourself is this, if the Federation hadn't had access to Ph-G's would the F-14 have been called the F-11?? The anwser is no it would just have been the F-14 without the Ph-G.
Fighters I would like to see added(I purposed most of these so I'm a little bias)
EA-6B(Chirs design above)
A-4
S-3 Cloak Hunter
AV-8Close Combat Support
A-7Close Combat Support
F-22 Stealth Fighter
F-122 Stealth Heavy Fighter
F-111 Stealth Assult Fighter??
Stealth and Marine Fighters in general would be cool.
Another interesting idea that I had for a new ship:
Take an interdiction carrier and remove one set of 12 shuttle boxes and replace them with APR/AWR. The other fighter squad is replaced with Assault Fighter/A-10's initially and heavy fighters later on. In essence this ship sacrifices its weapons so that it can rearm attack/assault fighters.
Cfant:
Wrong! Even you, disagree with your own point since you continue to respond to the (IMO) obvious merits 
of the F11!
As with regard to the F5, It would appear that your information is incomplete...I checked with "United States Military Aircraft since 1909" authors Gordon Swanborough and Peter M Bowers, published by the Smithsonian Institution Press, page #510 reads in part:
Northrop F-5 Tiger II
In May 1958, the Department of Defense backed construction by Northrop of prototypes of its N-156F desogn for a lightweight. low cost,fighter
which had been projected in parrellel with the N-156 T trainer(produced as the T-38A Talon). The first N-156F flew on July 30, 1959 and in May 1962 the aircraft was adopted by the Department of Defense as the "Freedom Fighter".
I can only conclude that since your information sources were incomplete about the F-5 it must also be incomplete as to the F-11.
In that same vein, it might surprise you to learn that the F-111 built by General Dynamics, was a contemporary for the F5 and F4 having been designed in the late 1950's and early 1960s,,,first flight was on 12/21/1964. Infact, the F-111 was initially supposed to be bought by both the navy and AirForce. When the Navy evaluated it, it was found to not meet the navy's requirements (for a variety of reasons) which resulted in the navy issueing a contract for the F-14 in 1969...
If your point about "Fed fighters follow the US fighter scheme....you know that, right?" (from your Tuesday april 20th post) were correct, then the Federation should have had the F111 deployed BEFORE the YIS for the F14 instead of the otherway around.
Now, about the F4 being the first Fed Fighter...at present that is true, but I would point out that you Chris Fant, do not control development of SFB or F&E. If SVC decides (or is convinced) that there should be an earlier Fed Fighter...then I suspect that is what will happen, Cfants opinion notwithstanding!
Now, your proposal for a upgraded EA-6B is interesting...but this strikes at the heart of the F-11 proposal...that the change of phaser armament is not a cosmetic change...putting a Phaser Gatling into a fighter/shuttle that did not have any phaser armament originally is more than "just" a minor change...just as I contended that changing a Phaser Gatling to 2 x phaser 3 FA was a material change to the F-14 that warranted a change in the nomenclature(name).
I could support the proposal...but feel that the name shouldnt be variant of the A6...but rather some other 'Ax' tag. (again, an agreement of substance, but disagree on terminology).
Jeff, you really baffle me with the way you think. (Read your posts about the F-111 a feew times and see just how much they have zero logic). Also,
My EA-6B is more like arming a SWAC than really changing the A6, but whatver. The proposals have nothing to do with one another.
An F-14 is an F-14 whether or not is carries a Vulcan cannon or a chain gun. To put that in clearer terms for you, an F-14 is an F-14 if it carries a P-G or 2xP3.
You would have to come up with a new type of design to warrent a new designation. Thus, my proposal.
Incase anyone wants to see it, the web links to some pictures and information on the Grumman F11 Tiger are at:
http://www.blueangels.org/aircraft/stick/F11/f832/stickm.4_7htm
and
http://www.blueangels.org/aircraft/stick/F11/f832/stickm.4_7htm
as well as a listing at:http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fnavydesig.html
The links include a picture of a F-11 on the deck of the USS Intrepid painted in squadron VF-33 markings.
Chris-
Instead of insults, why don't you respond to the issues?
See above, I have posted web links for the F-11.
Do you still claim the R/W F-11 did not exist?
Secondly, you failed to explain how you would mount a phaser gatling on an A6...what do you use ? velcro? ()...It would appear that there is some physical installation for the weapon (call it a phaser emiter or mounting or whatever) but in order to put a phaser gatling into an existing frame, you will have to find room for it...what part of the design of the existing A6 do you need to remove or move elsewhere to make room for the weapon mount?
My point, (since you missed it the first time around) was that a physical change of the magnitude required to install a phaser gatling is more than just slopping a coat of paint on the craft. And not only that, what about targeting? Would the drone targeting computer be able to handle the demands of the Phaser gatling? It might not since the fire control solutions are different for seeking weapons compared to direct fire weapons (such as phasers).
WEll, since the EA-6B would come out in 182, and this is based more on a SWAC and a A6, and since a SWAC carries a PG anyway, you would use the SWACs nifty fire control and drone control systems on an A6 like frame. Would be a completely new design, but use the new EA-6B designator (as the A6 was long since retired in 182).
If Ken Burnside would get back in his cockpit and send us the Magellanic files that would be a good thing.
Just a quick comment to clarify the names used for the F-5 series of fighters:
F-5A "Freedom Fighter"
F-5E "Tiger II"
F-20 "Tigershark"
The Feds get both the F-15 and F-14 in Y171, when their neighbors (Klingons and Kzinti) are flying Z-1, Z-2, and AAS fighters. Speed 15 Feds vs Speed 6 and 8 neighbors. In the meantime, drones are speed-20.
It does seem reasonable that a large amount of effort went into the powerplants for these advanced fighters. So it would definitely make a lot of sense that there would have been an alternative design until the Ph-G breakthrough.
Since the US has tended to use the "Y" designation for experimentals, what about YF-14 and YF-15 for the 2xP3 versions?
Faced with the overwhelming advantage of the Fed F14/F15 when introduced.
Why didn't the Klingons produce an ADD armed Z-D in Y172?
Figuring an ADD assembly shouldn't take more space than a disruptor cannon with the 'charge' storage area.
The main advantage of ADD vs Type-6 drones, a 360 degree arc and faster launch rate.
Jeff Laikind,
Thank you, a sustinct comment and a constructive suggestion.
I could live with that usage...as long as the "Y" modifier doesn't confuse people into thinking its a early years type...
Since there aren't any early Years fighters (excepting the Rom sublight fighter) it shouldn't be a problem.
Going back to John Peppers (akula) post, (WARNING! TANGENT AHEAD!) Since the Federation sales of fighters to foreign powers is documented (the Gorns-G-12) and is a source of fighters for minor race(s) such as the WYN and the ocasional Orion Pirate...what do people think about adding federation versions of those fighter types not already in the list?
Say a Federation F-12? Other fighters that could go in this list would be those already sold, such as the F20...possibly a early F20 identified as the F5?