Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

From the Battleship vote you guys should know what I lean towards. I'm going Arrowhead on all of our specially-designed military ships. I've already given my reasons several pages ago. Plus, I can't argue with this being cheaper.
 
Skippy said:
Sorry, why is the arrowhead a "death trap"? One thing we do know is that manoeuvrability has a major impact on survivability. The extra mass of a larger half-saucer cruiser will improve survivability as well, and it's fair to note that, but let's not be unfair here.

Also on a different note, after re-reading the paragraph about the arrowhead design, it seems like the vertical nacelles are actually about offsetting an underslung deflector, rather than offering a second torpedo launcher. So it seems like the underslung deflector reduces our cruise speed at warp - depending on by how much, we may or may not care about the vertical nacelles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The reduction in cruise speed is probably because it makes the profile less streamlined than a front deflector. And the role of the nacelles makes sense.

In terms of survivability I think it's going to balance itself out. Arrowhead being a bit more manoeuvrable and half saucer having a bit more room to absorb hit and probably a more streamlined profile since it doesn't need to go for the underslung deflector.

I have some hope for finding enough room for a 2nd frontal torpedo tube on the half saucer design though.
 
How many more torpedoes would the half saucer even have? 2 forward 1 aft max? It won't even have that much more, if any more, internal space unless we add a secondary hull making it even bigger, more costly, and less maneuverable.

Right now, the Half saucer is just looking like a way to make a slightly cheaper and less effective NX class. We already have the NX class, we don't need another ship design that fills an identical roll in battle.

What we need, and are replacing, is a better stingray. Something small, fast, and packs a punch.
 
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

I'm all for capitalizing on our best weapon roll right now.

Artowhead could use strafing runs to make use of rear torp tubes... but that sounds extremely dangerous when we're up against this tech imbalance.
 
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

We made the brick through the window, now its time for Something that can be made in bulk
 
Phalfpipe said:
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

Partly for torpedoes, but mostly for the extra internals, like cargo holds, workshops and antimatter.
The war is moving into Romulan space , which is a long trip even at warp 5.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do remember, the half saucer is explicitly gonna suffer in internal space. The nacelles HAVE to be mounted on the main hull port and starboard, so the transfer conduits take up a ton of space.
 
Rereading, the arrowhead ship is, from the beginning, going to be smaller than the half-saucer. And in light of the fact it's replacing the stingray, which is supposed to be a small escort, I'm changing my vote to arrowhead. My hope is the new ship is as numerous, plus we can definitely get two forward tubes with the experimental nacelles. Which sound like enough to me honestly. Also, looking at the actually stingray design? It only has two tubes anyways.
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)
 
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

I feel like whatever we design here will likely be gone fairly quick post war anyway, we might as well get a number of them out.
 
Sayle said:
The after-action reports from the Battle of Denobula make one thing painfully clear - the Stingray is out of its depth. This is understandable, certainly: the poor thing was designed to be an in-system patrol boat, or at most an anti-piracy patroller. Nobody at the bureau considered the possibility that it would be serving in a wartime capacity even remotely seriously. War with who? Before the Stingray was phased out? Not likely.

But it's happening, and the reality is that for cost it is still more effective than the NX-class, simply because you need raw numbers to spread hostile fire. But when it takes two Stingrays to be comfortable with taking on a Romulan warbird and you're coming up against force concentrations that equal or exceed your own, something has to give. The order comes down from on high with a simple directive: give Starfleet a replacement for the Stingray, preferably as cheap but definitely more effective.

Easier said than done. The new deflectors are three decks high and even with Vulcan help the first United Earth manufactured shield emitters are several years away. There is no reality where you create a starship that can go toe-to-toe with a Romulan warbird for anything like the cost recommendations you're being given. So you're going to have to make some hard decisions right out the gate.

Main hull first. Arrowhead configuration would give you plenty of space for engines, opening the possibility for a hyper-manoeuvrable vessel with a concentrated armament that is nonetheless capable of staying on target. Problem: with the new deflectors you won't have any forward torpedo tubes unless you can undersling the deflector dish, and even then a single tube will be all you'll get. There might be some way to get a vertical nacelle configuration that alleviates some of the problems, but that would be experimental work.

Possibility two: half saucer. You might be able to get away with the deflector in-line with the hull, but having to mount the nacelles port and starboard instead of from a midline truss would mean occupying substantial internal space with the warp engine and transfer conduits. Optionally a secondary hull would solve the deflector and nacelle problems, but increase mass. Might be worth it for greater tactical output and staying power, but it certainly won't be as cheap or agile with the nacelles and secondary hull restricting engine placements.

[ ] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)
[ ] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

Two Hour Moratorium, Please.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sayle, if I might offer a suggestion:

Typically, design bureaus will work on more than one design for ships rather than deciding one element at a time with finality. This is because making the decision between final designs works best when you have more than one relatively fleshed out design that differ substantially rather than one design that is a take-it-or-leave-it choice.

In this sense, it's hard to decide between an arrowhead or a half-saucer design because the difference between the two basic hullforms is rather unknown--just two industry. However, the effects the choice will have on all subsequent choices is something of a mystery, with the only comment being that the arrowhead form will allow for one torpedo tube max, but also will be much more maneuverable.

So maybe give us the ability to flesh out two designs simultaneously, then choose which one to submit for actual prototyping?
 
Nyvis said:
It wouldn't be "more torps" it would be "any torps at all". There's no point to maneuvrability if you have nothing to aim at the enemy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More like "one torpedo tube" or "maybe two". Worth noting that our current torpedo tech is actually superior to Romulan torpedoes, and that extra speed and maneuverability might mean that that one torpedo tube gets in decisive blows that would otherwise miss.

@Sayle : Could we go with an arrowhead that forgoes energy weapon armament in favor of more torpedo tubes? It would definitely be an unconventional design, but the great mobility and maneuverability, plus our very hard-hitting torpedoes would make them viable.
 
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)
10ebbor10 said:
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

I wonder whether we can do something silly to get that extra torpedo launcher. For example, torpedo launchers don't need to fire fixed forward, you could have an assymetric armament with two torpedo launchers jutting out one side, rather than forward.

As the long as the ship is maneuverable enough; it won't be a problem.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure--and if the tubes aren't too tall, stack on another pair pointing to port. Four tubes, bit of a spread but that mostly just reduces effective range, if I understand correctly.
 
DecaffeinatedOwl said:
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)

Sure--and if the tubes aren't too tall, stack on another pair pointing to port. Four tubes, bit of a spread but that mostly just reduces effective range, if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I believe the QM said that torpedoes need to be parallel to the direction of travel, so no offline or broadside launchers unfortunately.
 
[X] Half-saucer. Aim for a capable medium cruiser. (Industry: 4)
[X] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

Painful. I'd rather go Arrowhead, but that hit to torp tubes..

Like I'll be very honest, I feel phase cannons should be doing more damage, but absent a prototype for that being guaranteed to pull up I can't see the virtue in sacrificing burst damage for potential steady damage. The additional maneuverability in Arrowhead may not mean much against the Warbird's apparent edge in it.

Still, I can hope for a phase cannon upgrade.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top