Archive through April 24, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development:
Module J3: Back in the Cockpit:
Archive through April 24, 2004
I asked for a Fed version of the F-12 in J2 development, but it was skipped over.
The only different, IIRC, is a 1 better DFR from a F18.
The description of the G-12 heavily implies that the proverbial F-12 would only carry two type-I drones, instead of two of each type. This was the specific reason as to why the Federation rejected the fighter.
It was, however, apparently faster (speed 15) without a refit. I can't remember if the DFR was higher, or not.
How early (YIS) was the conjectural F-12?
A speed 15 dog fighter might be real handy during the Klingon invasion!
YIS of G-12, Y180
Well, let's look at the G-12 description.
"The Federation originally designed the F-12 in competition with other fighters, ..."
"The Gorns purchased the entire assebly line in Y179 ..."
We can see the F-12 existed before Y179, but probably not by much. Looking at the dates around Y179, it would appear that the F-12 was in competition with the F-18B, which was introduced in Y177.
So, if the above assumptions are correct, then the F-12 presumably would have gone into production in Y177 had it won the competition.
(BTW, the G-12 has a DFR of 3, same as the F/G-18.)
How do we know that "the other fighters" the F-12 competed with was the F-18B? why would it have not been the original F18 (YIS 173)?
Or even in competition with the F14 and F15? (YIS 171 for the F14).
Why does it matter?
It matters because of the competitive Fighters available to the coalition change with the time period. A fighter with the F12 abilities would have a marked superiority over speed 8 coalition fighters.
In F&E terms, if the Klingons were to invade the Federation in the face of speed 15 fighters while the Coalition fighters were all still speed 8 models, the fighter factors of both sides would be seriously mis-stated game balance wise.
In terms of history, the issue didnt occur...but in a variant scenario it might warrant an adjustment to either the Klingon fighter factors (downward) or an increase to the Federation (upward) fighter squadrons to reflect the qualitative differences.
Jeff,
Well, ...
One can assume that had it been competing against the F-16 or F-20, it would have won hands down.
If it had been competing against the original F-18, it again would have won.
But, we know it lost. The Federation isn't completely stupid, so it probably lost to at least a comparible (if not superior) fighter. We also know it was still "young" enough to have production facilities around in Y179. (Had it been shut down in Y173, there likely would have been no facilities left by Y179.)
The only thing that makes any sense is the F-18B. We can probably also assume that there were other fighters involved besides the F-18B and the F-12, that, like the F-12, were rejected.
On a meta-game level, you appear to be looking for some new, better fighter to squeeze into the timeline. At this point, Federation fighter development is pretty well set. The only type of fighter that is going to be introduced now is an historical footnote like the F-12.
Mike west,
Not sure that I agree with all of your assumptions...
the production facilities might be run like the US does...ie government built and operated by corporations under contract or license. Normally not a big distinction but does allow the productionlines the ability to be held indefinitely while decisions are made.
Just to site one example, President Carter cancelled the B1 Bomber back in the 1970s (1977 maybe?!?) but the facilities were still available for President Reagan to order the B1 bomber into production in the 1980's (have to check, but I think it was 1982 or 3) that could be 5 years or so...its possible the f-12 production facilities were in reserve status (mothballs).
secondly, you're assuming that the F12 was built(or could have been buillt) out of number order...what evidence do you have that indicates that the design process did not predate the F14?
Third, the F-12 (assuming it was indeed armed with 2 type I drones) would have been superior to the F-16 or F20...not sure I buy that idea either but until I can look at the books, will reserve comment at this time 
.
Fourth, you assume I want it to fit into the timeline...that depends on what the time line is and how it compares to both Federation and opposing races fighters...I suspect that the "mystery fighter" that "won" the competition was the F14...
finally, yes, I admit what I want is the foot note for the F-12.
The history clearly states that the F-12 was not deployed by the Federation...but since it was "sold" to the Gorns in year 179...why do you assume that the greedy and corrupt (or thrifty and opportunistic) managers-bussiness men controlling the F-12 facilities did not sell the design to minor planets or non-alligned Federation worlds for self defense purposes?
Strategically it would not alter the balance of power but tactically could make a huge difference in a Star Fleet Battles game or scenario.
Deleted by author.
Jessica-
IIRC the F5 was sold to many countries (Spain being one that I can remember off hand) but I can't recall the F20 getting ANY contracts beyond an occasional movie role (Dragnet, with Dan Ackroyd and Tom Hanks)...was it priced similar to the F16? or was there another reason the sales didn't happen for the F20 as they did for the F5?
Actually, it was priced a lot cheaper than the F16 (and cost less to maintain). However:
1. The USAF flew the F16; when the F16 was opened up to international sales, most countries wanted what the USAF was flying, and •••• the cost.
2. The DoD didn't really want to see the F20 sold; they much preferred to see the F16 sold internationally, to ramp up F16 production and benefit from a cost reduction in the F16 by way of economy-of-scale.
3. Taiwan put in an order for 200-300 F20s. Congress killed it dead; two Texas congressmen (Senator Tower and Rep. Wright, both of whoms' districts had a stake in the F16) fought long and hard to kill the deal.
4. Two F20s crashed (one during a demo in South Korea, the other in practice for an air show). Both were caused by g-loc (the pilots pulled too many g's and went unconscious).
Hell of a shame, really; it was a spiffy fighter with excellent handling characteristics, very fuel efficient, and extremely reliable.
Well, one reason the F-20 didn't win any foreign sales was that the U.S. military never purchased it. Countries that can't produce their own fighters usually prefer to buy fighters that the manufacturing nation's military also uses.
This second part is my opinion only, but I don't believe the F-20 was ever quite as good as it was hyped to be. It had some excellent characteristics, but also some weaknesses that were not (naturally) widely reported by the manufacturer. The same could be said of any fighter, or any piece of military equipment for that matter. But I believe these weaknesses, which wouldn't have been deal-killers if USAF had also used the F-20, were enough to torpedo it given the lack of USAF support.
(edit) Jessica, I had forgotten about the Taiwan attempted purchase. But as I said in the earlier part of this message, I don't think the F-20 was ever quite as good as it was made out to be. To give one specific example, small fighters are very susceptible to range degradation carrying significant ordnance loads. The F-16 still suffers from this and it is a big reason why a number of air analysts of the Kosovo campaign concluded (though this got little publicity) that the F-111 (hooray!!! - that's my old jet so I admit to being biased) would have been very useful in that theater.
Well, this is interesting, but not related to this thread...so perhaps we could get back to the discussion of the (F11) or (F12)?
Actually, given the similarity between the F12 and the F18...I wonder if the F12 is related to the F18 in the same way that Chris Fant suggested earlier that the unpublished F5 was an earlier version of the F20...Might make an interesting "color" comment if the F12 were ever adopted?
(mike, this last idea is only intended as a foot note!)
In a way, it is related to the thread, if only as an example of how a weapon system can be chosen over one that is arguably better (at least in "bang for the buck" terms).
Jeff- with the way the Klingons drive through Fed space in the first year of the offensive, NO (I say again NO!!!) fighter production facility would sit in mothballs. It would be like closing down a major shipyard that produced carriers during WWII. This just wouldn't happen. In WWII the USA built 100+ flat tops of various sizes. They also produced fighters, bombers, and you name its in gigantic quantities. In SFB/F&E you better believe that the Fed is doing the same thing. Things get worse when the Romulans take 1/3 of Fed space. No one would be so incompetent as to leave a factory of any sort in a shutdown state during the war that COULD be the end of the Fed.
Jeff- do you really think that they sold to minor planets, or is this the captain going down with his F-12?
Steve Cain: During World War II, the US did shut down the Brewster Aircraft Company factory for about a month and spent 2 years trying to get a new management team that could produce Corsairs in a timely fashion.
As a possible background for the F-12, consider a fast photon fighter with no phasers. That would quickly be identified as a bad idea. A few photon F-12s might have entered service as weapons trainers for A-10 crews. The F-12 would then be redesigned to mount phasers instead of the photon but having fewer drones and less expanability than the F-18, the F-12 never received orders and all the relevant machinery was boxed up. The factory probably converted to a needed fighter. The F-12 machinery could be shipped to the Gorns and adapted to their needs.
Jessica:
I concede the point. It was, after all, 'peace time' and a different standard would have been in place concering production decisions.
Steve Cain:
Before you "cement" your self in to the "NO (I say again NO!!!)" position, I would encourage you to do a little more historical research...Germany could have had a Jet powered fighter in production in 1942 had Hitler not insisted that it be converted to a bomber...and there are other cases...
As to your 2nd post, you underestimate the motivation GREED can play in peoples decision process.
Richard Wells: A Photon Armed F-12...wouldnt that have been a A-12?
"During World War II, the US did shut down the Brewster Aircraft Company factory for about a month and spent 2 years trying to get a new management team that could produce Corsairs in a timely fashion."
'Course, the Brewster Buffalo could only loosely be referred to as a fighter; it doesn't help that the Brewster plant was run with crooked books from day one.
Finland used the Brewster Buffalo to good effect...thay actually had some pilots acheive ace status...
Color me educated...
30 day shutdown is understandable. It sounds like they were converting the line to another plane (the corsairs- a kick butt aircraft I might add).
Here is what I already knew about the Brewster Buffalo (not counting the Jane’s info I have). The nick name for the canvas winged trash-heap was 'THE FLYING COFFIN'. The plane stunk by WWII standards.
This in no way lends to the multi-year situation that the F-12 would need in this situation. As for the years of poor management; they were producing aircraft, be it at an unacceptably slow rate.
Buffalo had good points and bad; was better than the initial F4F but couldn't develop as far. Buffalo also was better than the British FAA equivalents at the time. Brewster's problem plane was the Buccaneer, an overly ambitious carrier bomber that got the most use testing carrier catapults (splash!).
I admit that it is all rather bizaare talking about a military aircraft that has a development path similar to the Hiller UH12 with production lines being shut down, factories converted to other helicopter models, the original production line moved to a new factory and restarted (seemingly every decade). But then, technology in the SFU changes slower than recent military technologies are wont to. I hope that the end result F-12 both gives a viable reason for the Feds passing on the design and is also more interesting than a F-18 carrying fewer drones.
Jeff Wile: I have seen a number of proposals for A-12s that try to more closely resemble the proposed real world plane with the same identifier. Rather not challenge all the steathly superfighter proposals suggested for Stellar Shadows. Of course, there is no real requirement that the Fed fighter on which the G-12 is based to also end with the number 12. I will let the concept of a streak shuttle variation of the A-10 out there; if anyone likes it, they could chose whatever identifier suits them.
Richard Wells:
As I understand it...the original Buffalo was fast and manuverable (for its place and time) but that "refinements" materially degraded its performance...refinements like self sealing fuel tanks (which seem to also suffered teething troubles. In some cases, poor quality gas would desolve the rubber linings...which resulted in clogged fuel lines which result in...wait for it! SPLASH!) the addition of armor for pilot protection also resulted in overloading the design which slowed its speed down and reduced its manuverability.
It should be a sobering thought, that had the US entered the War earlier, the Buffalo would have been the first line fighter of the US Navy...
Steve Cain...You might want to retract your opinion of the Brewster built Corsairs... the information I have is that many of the planes produced were judged inferior to other factories production aircraft...and as a result were restricted to training duties instead of combat duty. You may have seen in the news recently that the US Navy sued a war plane collector for his Brewster Corsair (that he had, at his own expense, recovered from a swamp that it had crashed into during WW2) since it was the only example of that model plane known to exist.
Don't know how the court case will turn out, but it would appear that not all Corsairs are equal!
Concerning the F-12, I don't beleive anyone is arguing that it is (was?!?) a superior fighter to the F-18...but IMO it should have a listing in the Fed fighter lists...even just a footnote to document its contribution to Federation Fighter history/doctrine.