Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 29, 2004	25		07/29 10:25pm
	Archive through July 30, 2004	25		07/30 02:23pm
	Archive through August 01, 2004	25		08/01 09:22am

I think that Buckner's Razee, (The four phaser model) would likely have been proposed by our dear Chairman more likely in Y171 before the Federation entry into the war. (Buckner BTW reminds me a little of General George McClellan...Thinks himself as a master of war and peace.)Also could Buckner and his people have also misjudged the ship's strategic abilities as well as its operational capability? Maybe he thought it would perform a quick response role like a DNL?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Marc:

If Buckners primary concern was to avoid antagonizing the Klingons (hence SVC's comment about Buckner refusing to build up the Federation defenses) any proposal concerning the DN's would have the exact opposite result to what he wanted( i.e. continued peace with the Klingons).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Mike: the only problem I have with the "fork in the road" choice between developing the DNR or full production of the DNG and DNH variants is that not even Buckner could have failed to appreciate how much supperior the DNG is over the DNR.

And if the YIS is after 188, Buckner is nolonger arround to push for the DNR...shich means some one else would have to be sponsoring it...and since Baranov was humiliated in the elections of 174, it would almost certainly have to be another politician (of the same Buckner/Baranov party?!?!)...

Unfortunately we don't know of a politican after year 188 who would be willing to sponsor such a program.

In a sense, its like the FRAM I and FRAM II refits from the late 1950's and early 1960's that converted WW2 warships into the "COLD WAR" fleet that kept the peace for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Ford and Carter. (An example would be the USS Little Rock CG on display in Buffalo NY).

Just think of it, a politician promising Peace in our time, adequate defense for the Federation and best of all cheap. Why program a brand new fleet when there are dozens of mothballed General War veterans still able to serve?

This way the Fedearion could avoid building expensive new warships after year 188 and just rely on the fleet of Razeed DN's.

sarcasm on\

Hard to see how a politician could lose making a campaign promise like that.

sarcasm off\

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:00 am: Edit

"I've always kind of had a problem with big expensive DNs taking up storage at SBs especially with the new in-service date of before the GW started. "

The problem is that statement was written before a timeline existed, and turned out to have nothing to do with the timeline.

"One point I would ask is how did you come up with a BPV of 190 for the 4 photon/8 PH-1 variant? "

The same way I came up with all of the BPVs back then, by the computer program that calculated them.

"Perhaps the DNG or DNG should be the basis of the DNR rather than the old basic DN".

Not really. The plan would have been done in Y173 and would have used ships from Y173. By Y188, things are so completely different that the DNR concept wouldn't really have a place. So, basically, forget the DNR-188. I'm not going there. Might find a place for the DNR-171 in R13.

"how a Razee Dreadnought might fit into the Super Heavy Cruiser concept"

It doesn't. Two separate things.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit

I think, Steve, he was asking me how I came up with a BPV of 190 for the 8 phaser version of the DNR that Jeff asked me to do. I guessed, purely and simply.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit

Ah, that makes more sense.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit

SVC;

Understood about Razee not fitting into Super Heavy Cruiser concept. Part of my problem is that I still don't know what the Super Heavy Cruiser is. My post was intended as speculation as to what it might be.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Alan: You might want to find the SHC topic and put your post there.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Okay, how do I move a post? Specifically, how do I move my post from 3:03 PM on 31 July to the Super Heavy Cruiser topic? Can anyone help?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

You can't "Move" the post. Just copy it and paste it in the new topic and perhaps add to it...

or

Compose a new post.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

I can, but I'm busy. Just copy it and paste it.

By benjamin sun (Ben2207) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Steve

1. :"I've always kind of had a problem with big expensive DNs taking up storage at SBs especially with the new in-service date of before the GW started. "

The problem is that statement was written before a timeline existed, and turned out to have nothing to do with the timeline"


Cool with that. I always wondered the answer to that question. Especially since, there wasn't much time between wars in the timeline

""Perhaps the DNG or DNG should be the basis of the DNR rather than the old basic DN".

Not really. The plan would have been done in Y173 and would have used ships from Y173. By Y188, things are so completely different that the DNR concept wouldn't really have a place. So, basically, forget the DNR-188. I'm not going there. Might find a place for the DNR-171 in R13."

Very cool. The basic idea is sound and a bit of a different concept than what has been proposed before without unbalancing the game.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Benjamin: Might I suggest using the formatting code for "QUOTE" to make such posts easier to read.

Here is how:

First type a back slash like : \
Then type: quote
then enclose what you want to quote in curly braces like this: {stuff someone wrote}
Use no spaces between each item above.

By benjamin sun (Ben2207) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Thanks Loren heh is there a FAQ that covers this? I messed the quote thing up lol

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

On the left of your screen is DOCUMENTATION. Below that is "Formatting". Everything is there.

Also, if you use quote and then later "Edit" your message you have to take out all the HTML that replaces it and start over. That's what happened to you above message.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Getting back to topic, did anyone notice that SVC indicated DNR-171?

To me, that implies that the Razee refit was (buckners's?!?) a peace time proposal for a Federation that would not be getting into the General War at all...

Using the few DN's that were in mothballs would be a cheap alternative to expanded construction of new hulls (like FFG's or NCL's), and getting the 10 Command ratings into active service strenghtens to COMPOT of the forward deployed units by adding one more ship/command slot than the CC's could handle.

If the Klingons hadnt attacked in august of year 171 (or the Romulans making a pre-emptive attack or the historic date whent they attacked the Federation) Buckner could have had every expectation of campaigning on the same broad platforms that Woodrow Wilson did prior to US involvement in WW1.

Can you picture the "Re-Elect Buckner! He kept us out of the War!!!" ads and banners?

A DNR is not the same as a DNL or a other regular DN variant...but having a weak DNR in service and in combat beats a mothballed DN that needs to be activated.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

To summarize the topic, IMO, leaves us with:

Federation Dreadnought Razee Conversion.

In year 171 Federation Council Chairman Buckner offered a compromise to the defense appropriations act. Instead of new construction of NCL, CA and larger hulls, the chairman suggested activating 18 of the DN's in mothballs to a new variant, the DNR (or Dreadnought Razee).

Federation DNR-

Upon debate in the Federation Council, it was observed that the proposed DNR- was "Woefully undergunned" and incapable of defending itself much less able to defend the Federation. (It was also, uncharitably, commented on that there were not 18 DN style hulls then in the Mothball fleet.)

A compromise to the compromise resulted in a 2nd design, the design that eventually had the DNR classification appended to it:

Federation
Alternate DNR

Debate on the defense Budget was a contentious process open to argument. With Chairman Buckner's support, the DNR could have been forced upon the Star Fleet had the process continued uninterupted...but with the Klingon Invasion of the Federation in August of year 171, all such plans fell before the urgency of the Federation mobilization...and the few remaining hulls that could have been converted to the DNR variant were activated for war service as DN+.

Chairman Buckner did call for the use of 1 or 2 of the DN hulls for service on the Romulan border as DNR's, but the Romulan Invasion of the Federation again prevented the implementation of the plan.

no prototype built to that standard, but it was a ship that could have been but never was. YIS 171 to 173, no new construction, only conversion of an existing hull(s). estimated cost of the DNR- refit is 50 BPV, estimated cost of the DNR refit (alternative version) 75 BPV.