Hey all, just wanted to give you a little update/insight into my Yorktown CV re-write.
This, I think, will be a more difficult/time-consuming write up. The background (everything leading up to launch) was easy enough and I’m particularly proud of the fact the Four Years War only got a tangential mention in a single paragraph. The hard part comes in making the case for the Carrier and describing it’s role and activities throughout the 2250’s and 2260’s.
In my mind, that period–what most of us would associate with TOS in general–is not unlike the world we’re living in today. There’s a lot of asymmetric/unconventional/hybrid warfare going on in different spots throughout the world, but no one issue or group of issues stands above any other as justification for building ships like aircraft carriers. In my vision of the TOS period though, the emphasis is on capital ships/patrol combatants and the tit-for-tat buildups of such between the Federation and Klingons. Sure, in a lot of novels and maybe an errant episode or two, there might be mention of random “patrols”, but such mentions are almost always left ambiguous. My aim is to address that ambiguity by way of the “Carrier Strike Group”, utilizing ships never seen on routine missions hardly mentioned so that the UFP’s priorities of exploration, colonization, commerce and diplomacy can be carried out unimpeded.
While appearing defensive at the outset, I see them as being more offensive in operation (i.e. when it comes to anti-piracy, you wouldn’t send one of these to the ‘Triangle’ or Taurus Reach and have them wait and react to incidents of piracy, they would go on the offensive and carry out operations to flush out & eliminate pirates altogether).
A problem I see with this is one of numbers. Many of the recent ships I’ve written on make explicit mention of production numbers in one context or another. This runs into conflict with the way I have things organized. For my purposes, a Strike Group is equivalent to a Battle Group in size. Just one is made up of 54 total ships, 3 Starship Squadrons (10 ships/ea) and then 2 support squadrons (12 ships/ea). This is pretty easy to work out – you’d have the carrier and then a squadron each of Cruisers, Frigates and Destroyers making everything nice and clean. Go back and look at my Surya/Coventry or perhaps my Pyotr Velikiy publications and you’ll understand what I’m talking about. I can’t recall specific numbers, but there’s hardly enough of them to fill more than 2 or three Strike/Battle Groups while also leaving some available for independent operation.
So what to do? Well, the only solution I see is to eliminate this specific point altogether. Getting specific when it comes to production/service numbers helps keep things plausible, but the more I think about it, the more I think that doesn’t matter. In my quest to revamp my TOS stuff, esp. with the recent classes I’ve done, I’ve taken pains to craft some reasonable backstories with plausible justifications for why this class or that class came to be in the first place. That said, specific numbers would seem to be an unnecessary constraint – esp. if you buy into what’s presented at the link below.
So starting with Yorktown, I’m going to dispense with any mention of production/service numbers and revise past publications when I start throwing everything together.
Hope everyone has a good weekend.