During the General War, there were two major attempts to end the war with a negotiated settlement, and possibly any number of lesser attempts. The point of ending the war, aside from stopping the needless loss of life and treasure, was to allow the "peoples of the Galaxy" to live in peace.

Sadly, the attempts proved fruitless and expensive (in lost ships and equipment, not to mention the loss of lives).

Years after the war, the personal correspondence and papers of Chairman Buckner (Chairman of the Federation Council, and one of the victims of a peace conference gone bad) were opened to the public.

While much has been said and written concerning Chairman Buckners strengths and weaknesses as a "war time leader" one factor universally agreed to by all factions was that he was an intelligent man with the ability to control a slim majority in the UFP Council.

In his papers was a (at the time) stunning revelation that the opportunity for a peaceful settlement (year 173, the offer by the coaltion to "demilitarize" the Federation outer provinces) was seen by Buckner not as just an end to the war, but also as an opportunity to "rebuild" the remaining Federation by reducing the expenditures on the military, but retaining the high "wartime" taxes to pay for a huge expansion of social spending programs.

The Key element of the plan, was to "re-equip" the Starfleet with a new class of more powerful ships at minimal cost.

Chairman Buckners solution was to draw a historical precedent from the wet-water sailing navies of the Napoleonic wars and early 19th centuries of performing a "Razee" refit to the Federation Dreadnough class just as the British and French cut down 64 and 74 gun ships of the line to form a more powerful cruiser armed with the main gun batteries of 24 pound cannons and dispensing with the lighter upper deck guns. the resulting warships retained some 80% of the combat power of the original ships, were better gun platforms, more manuverable, and best of all, realized savings in manpower requirements.

Buckner, (being a politician) envisioned himself doing what President Roosevelt had done when he proclaimed a goal of producing 100,000 aircraft a year during WW2, what John F. Kennedy had done by adopting a goal of puttiing a man on the Moon with in ten years, and what President Ronald. W. Reagan had done by declaring the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, a.k.a. Star Wars).

He wanted to announce a broad policy goal of designing a refit of the collection of Dreadnoughts to become the main peacetime cruisers of the Federation that had fewer crew, lower operating costs and greater combat power than the CA's and CC's that the DNR's would be replacing.

Unfortunately, Chairman Buckner was neither a qualified Starship Engineer, a designer of starships, or a veteran of military service with the Federation. His designs (derided as childlike by the professionals a that examined the documents) made some huge modifications to the original DN type.

1. reduce the movement cost of the DN hull by reducing the mass and structure of the ship by cutting away "unneeded" portions.
a) by reducing the total of the ship structure by 25% the Movement cost of the ship similarly gets reduced by 25%. (it should be noted that Chairman Buckners numbers are off slightly, His original intent was to reduce the MC to 1 1/4 from 1 1/2, but the actual value calculated out to 1 3/8)
b) Chaiman Buckner also specified that the DNR would retain all of the original warp and impulse drives of the original DN type.
c) according to chairman Buckners original sketches, the Photons were to be retained but the #3,4, 5 and 6 phaser ones were removed when the left and right sides of the Saucer were removed, also removed (and slightly relocated) were 1 Batt, 1 Tran, 1 APR, 5 Lab, and 6 hull (3 each from left and right sides).
d) The secondary hull, also loses 1 Batt, 2 shuttle, 1 trac, 2 hull and the #8 and #9 phaser 1's (RA).

2. the ship, as a result of the refit, also loses some of its Track systems, one each from the Sensor, Scanner, Dam CON, and 2 of the Excess Damage boxes.

3. The loss of so much "mass" does benefit the design somewhat, by improving the turn mode from 'E' down to turn mode 'D' (similar to that of the CA class). In addition, the Breakdown rating gets improved from 3-6 to 4-6.
a) Chairman Buckner specified that the energy cost of lifesupport would be reduced from 1 +1/2 to 1. (it should be noted, that qualified engineers are unanimous in the opinion that this feature is impossible to aquire, as the entire lifesupport system of the ship would need to be replaced.)
b) Chairman Buckner also speculated that the size class of the "Razeed" dreadnought would be reduced to SC=3, but again, the figures he used are in error, the ship would continue to be Size Class = 2.

3. Chairman Buckner, calculated that manning levels of the DNR would be 380 crewman and officers (38 Crew Units). yet again, the chairmans numbers are called into question, as with the sitpulation that the original powersystems were to be retained, the ship would be seriously under maned for long cruises or patrols, not to mention that the majority of the cuts were at the expense ot the boarding party portion of the crew. Chaiman buckner seems to have discounted the need for ships security detail.

The result is a cruiser type with dread nought power, DN type sheilds, a significant amount of power available with all systems in use, and some potentially fatal gaps in the phaser arcs with somany of the phaser 1's being deleted off the design.

Chairman Buckner seems to have more faith in the utility of the 4 photons than the phasers that were deleted.

The underlying motive of chairman buckner was that he wanted to convert 18 DN's to the DNR standard while consigning the CA and CC classes to the mothball fleet and stop construction on all ships larger than frigate class. he estimated that the DN's (which he assumed were already built, and ignores the fact that the Federation did not possess 18 DN type hulls in year 173) would cost about the same as a frigate hull to convert, and restrict new construction FFG's to just 6 hulls a year.

Thus, for a "military" investment of 24 Economic points (in F&E terms) the federation economy social spending would be about 400 EP per year. (again, chairman buckner numbers are in error, because he assumes that the Federation would stay on a wartime economy, ignores the effect of economic exhaustion, and inflation when some much of the Federation Tax revenues are spent on social programs that have zero benefit militarily.)

In retrospect, it should be remembered that chairman Buckner, was first and foremost a politician, and not an economist, war fighter or engineer. he was, however convinced that all problems could be solved if "only" enough money was thrown at it.

This was his attempt to solve the Federations problems "monetarily".

This is a proposal intended for Stellar Shadows Journal, rather than as a historically built, or unbuilt variant. At best, It could be Conjectural, but aside from using up a "useless" (in Chairman Buckners opinion) hull the value lay in getting a servicable cruiser for the price of a frigate.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

The Razee conversion is an interesting idea. I think the history needs some work though. It sets up Buckner as a liberal strawman/parody like something in National Review.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Doesn't the vanilla DN already have a turn mode of D?

By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

John Sickels: Interesting comment re National Review. Totally invalid and inappropriate, but interesting.

Mike Raper: The vanilla DN does indeed have a TM of E, IIRC. The DNG refit adjusts the angle of the struts supporting the warp nacelles to increase the firing arcs of the side phasers in the saucer from 120 to 180 degrees while also improving the TM.

As an aside, I consider the commonality of TM from the CA to the DN (eventually) to be a hidden Fed strength. Compare that with the Klingons and Kzinti, where the DN-hull has a TM two categories worse than the cruiser hull.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Frank: I dunno, I read National Review sometimes. It seems valid and appropriate to me.

But as discussed on previous topics, you and I will never agree on politics, so let's just set that aside.

Like I said, I think the Razee idea is intriguing, maybe as something that could be done in the early X-era, but the history is too political if we want to keep SFB as something that people of all political creeds can enjoy. Unless we balance this with some sort of attack on conservatives as well.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

I would prefer the social spending angle dropped also. Regardless of the character of current periodicals that element of the backstory is both prejudiced and stereotyped.

I don't think that kind of politics should intrude on the game so I supposed that would mean I'd like the social program angle dropped for apolitical reasons....

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Aside from the political angle, the backstory is just too long. Keep it simple, short, and sweet, provide an SSD, and the chances of publication would increase dramatically.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

I'd like to see an SSD too.

It sounds like a different angle toward a super-heavy crusier.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit

It's not like its a woodwork project that you can just 'whittle down'. I cannot see such extensive changes (move cost, turn mode and breakdown) improving by simply ripping systems out. The cost to reshape the hull and get any improvements out of it would be prohibitive. You'd be better off making a BCH for the same mission imo.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Not necessarily, Geoff. Much of what he proposed has already been done with the DNL; cut down hull, lowered move cost, etc. And the turn mode was improved when the change from DN to DNG by making the in-line engines. So it isn't too much of a stretch, particularly not as a ship that never was (which seemed to be the point). I'd be happy to help craft the SSD if you like, Jeff; just gimme the details via email.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit

John Sickels: I was looking for an angle that 'Chairman Buckner' would fit...since he already had a couple unflattering references in SFB history, I thought this in much the same vein.

I do not object to a different history, if you would care to make a suggestion, please do so.

If the 25% discount on the DN BPV holds consistant, we would be looking at a cruiser with (at a guess) 135 BPV and a Move cost of 1 1/4 and 45 points of warp power, and 380 crew units.

If we "toss" the history for another, we could consider a DNH or DNG razee... that much warp power and 6 photons could be some "serious" crunch power on a hull that does not suffer from shock.

Geoff Conn: Please note that the major changes are limited to 4 places on the vanilla DN.

2 each on the saucer (the left and right 'wing' positions) an the front/back of the 2ndary hull.

The saucer centerline and thecenter of the 2ndary hull, and all three warp engines remain unchanged from the original.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Jeff: There's a difference between "unflattering" and liberal-strawman-bashing. All we know about Buckner is that he tried to end a war that he thought the Federation could not win, and that he was a politician who sometimes intervened in military affairs...he was also a Major General in the Earth National Guard IIRC. He was wrong, and Baranov turned into the man-for-the-hour ala Churchill. But that doesn't mean Buckner was a liberal strawman out of GOP central casting.

I don't mean to come down on you too hard...I just thought it was out of place.

I suggest that the razee DN idea be something proposed during the end-of-the-Andromedan-War X-ship era...DNs are too expensive to operate in peacetime and are obsolete in the X-ship era anyhow, so here is a way to take a DN hull that still has some life in it, reduce the manning requirements, and use it as a cruiser.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

I had an opposite idea, compared to JohnS's.

Basically, they proposed the DNR to remove the DN from 'frontline combat' (as they had suffered 2 DN's lost (?) when the 3rd+7th SB's fell) and they proposed this to make the DN command ship to 'lead from the rear' (4 Photons+Power to use them forever as Prox's), and still have enough warp power to get out of dodge if the force was overwhelmed.

It was nixxed, because the Admiralty, wouldn't let ANY ship leave drydocks that wasn't holding as much firepower as it could cram into it's hull-size. As they needed to stop the Klingons/Lyrans before they reached the Capital Systems, and they saw this tactic as giving up Frigates, to let the loosing Admirals get away, instead of finding winning Admirals that would bring them all home.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

John:

The idea for the DNR can't be delayed too long, there was that one scenario that stated that the last DN duel happened when 2 ships came into contact when going to a common location to be demilitarized (IIRC Organina?!?)...anyway, that would put the YIS btween 190 to 202 period.

The thing about it, is the Command rating of the resulting ship would still be CR10, as it keeps the Flag Bridge boxes.

Not too many cruisers have that kind of ability, although it will be wasted on normal patrols...

By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Still chuckling at the concept of a "liberal stawman".

I have to agree that the introduction/background was way too long. Incidentally, since the entire thing is the product of a mind that thinks quite a bit more of itself than is merited, I see no problem making a purely conjectural, "It can never work", gee whiz ship. The background, as given, indicates that Buckner was taking great liberties with the basic DN design, since he was unburdened by any familiarity with starship architecture. If the background is chopped substantially to indicate the Buckner planned to strengthen Starfleet at minimal cost after the cease fire, then the concept "works".

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Okay, I finished the SSD and sent it to Jeff. What a biazzare looking thing. The first thing I noticed (if I got it right, that is) was that it is woefully undergunned...I mean, woefully, badly, and sadly undergunned. Only four phasers, and essentially no drone defense at all what with having only one tractor. I made a second one with some minor changes that looked a bit meaner (basically doubled up the FH and 360 phaser banks from 2 to 4, since there was room to do so). If they're right, I'll upload 'em and Jeff can post either or both; it's up to him.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit

The story could be written without the social spending in there at all.

He wanted to end the war and be cheap about it.

The Chairman didn't know anything about starship design, but decided to design one himself and force the Federation to use it, because he thought it was such a brilliant design.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Funny, I keep reading DNR as Do Not Resusitate.

[edit] This is not a comment about the proposal itself only the letters use for the designation.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit

I don't know about this. How likely is it that Buckner, unless he is a total nutcase, is really going to believe that he can design a major warship? That whole concept strikes me as bizarre. If a Razee Dreadnought is going to be proposed, even as an SSJ ship, I think it needs a better "back story".

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

How bizarre is it? Real world history gives an example of a man with no more than a Corporal's experience becoming the leader of a nation, making command decisions, micro-managing his generals.

Could Buckner do the same thing? It's not impossible, so it's worth basing a SSJ submission on it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Jeff;

But look at my qualifying phrase "unless he is a total nutcase". I presume the real-world corporal you are referring to is Adolph Hitler, surely a nutcase by almost anyone's definition. Buckner may not have been the greatest chairman in Federation history, but nothing I am aware of in the background material suggests anything like that level of delusion.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

History is replete with examples of poorly designed military equipment that was backed by some dipstick general or politician. The "sub carrier" that the British made and the Swedish "S tank" are two that spring to mind. I think there is room in SFB for such a thing, as an SSJ submission.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit

I do not think the Federation senate would operate in such a maner as to have such a man have so much power over it. How could Bukner have infuence over a majority (even half) of the senate? Remember the Federation is a congomorate of governments and Senate members come from all sorts of worlds. It would be nearly impossible to wield such infuence over such a varied group.

Also, with hundreds of member worlds with poulations or millions and billions the people that make it to starfleet and to the Federation Government are all extraordinary people. Not like the cross section of the people that run the realatively tiny governments of Earth today. Frankly, most of the people that make up our leadership in the world today wouldn't make the cut in the Federation and Starfleet. When you have trillions of people to choose from and an evolved education system the people in charge are going to be very sharp.

Such a person, whos job it is to be a successful Senator, would not try to be a ship designer. He wouldn't have nearly enough time away from serving his constituency. He might draw up guidelines and have a hired team of engineers try to create what he would like but he wouldn't try to do it him self. Besides, Starship design is NOT possible for a single person in any era with any level of genius. Starships are simply too complex. Even a Legendary Chief Engineer couldn't do such a thing. He could lead a team with a great chance of success but could possibly do it himself.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Mike JFYI Japan also had some sub carriers. Or at least attempted to design them. I don't remember offhand if they were ever successfull.

(And I'm to lazy to look it up)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Loren;

I think we're having a "forest and the trees" distinction here. (grin).

There is a world of difference between setting policy goals which is exactly what a political leader does and having a set of properly scaled and certified builders plans for a star ship.

Of course, Buckner would not have provided ready to use plans, thats what the Naval Architects at Star Fleet are for!

What sets Buckner apart, Like Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt and Churchil is setting the policy that the departments are required to adhere to.

Leaders look at the trees and see the Forest. detail people like professional Ship architects and engineers look at the forest and see the trees.

Let me ask you this, are you under the impression that John F. Kennedy provided the final certified plans for the Apollo program when he announce the policy goal of putting a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth? Let me assure you, JFK set the Goals and the various departments of the government labored to make the dream a reality.

OR how about FDR? When he announced the production goals for 100,000 aircraft, people in the US and in europe thought he was delusional, as it was an unacheivable goal. point is, the goal was not only met but exceeded.

OR Abraham Lincoln. when faced with rumors of the Confederate super ship, the CSS Virginia, the Navy originally reported that nothing could be done, they were months away from delivery of the USS New Ironsides. Lincoln over ruled his secretary of War, and the Navy and ordered the USS Monitor into production...and a good thing he did, too!

All I am suggesting is, leaders lead. By force of will, or charisma or whatever, there is some quality that permits certain people to motivate and inspire change.

Hitler had that ability, so did Ceasar, Washington, Napoleon and many others.

Now, If you want to argue that Buckner did not have that ability, then fine. I can beleive that. Just because Buckner had a plan does not mean he had the ability to carry it out.