So... we were told about the capability gap in 2212... and we've gone from being able to close some of that gap in say ~9 years. 8 for the reactor, 1 for some swapping/refits... too roughly, over 23 years given that the reactor won't be ready until 2230 and the Sagarmatha took about 5 years from the proposal to certification (the Kea took 6)- wherein it was presumably allowed to start major production.
I don't care what hypothetical white room stats we're looking at if it all but guarantees our next generation ships are going to be heavily outnumbered by their near-peer adversaries, if they reach critical production at all before a conflict kicks up. Trying to meta-game based around canonical conflicts is running the very real risk of a weakness that creates a conflict to develop. Are we really going to triple down on insisting that these hypothetical ships are going to be so revolutionary that the moment they start production, the two decade lead the Klingons and potentially the Romulans have developed will vanish?
Are we really going to triple down on insisting that these hypothetical ships are going to be so revolutionary that the moment they start production, the two decade lead the Klingons and potentially the Romulans have developed will vanish?
One of her most revolutionary aspects was in the use of turbines for propulsion, a few decades after they had been rather dramatically unveiled. Of course, this wasn't her only innovation, a uniform main battery was another.
Our engine tech will definitely be ahead, and we'll most likely have the chance to similarly leapfrog with our weapons and other systems. Even if we don't we'll have one of the cores of modern starships locked down and thus the room to play some catch-up (in the unlikely event we need to).
It's too bad that the old ships won't get the new Warp Engines, but if we can make the speed gap against the Klingons larger, then it is a needed sacrifice.
I would be more concerned about retrofit capability if the speed gap was larger, but the inciting incident mentioned was the Klingons having rough parity with our ships. A slight advantage, yes, but not overwhelming.
If I'm reading the chapter right, it had Klingon ships cruising at warp 7, where our latest design in the Kea was topping out their cruise at 6.4, and the preceding design in the Sellachi topping out cruise at 6.2. They don't just have parity, we're behind.
If we going to pull them from the frontline we might as well leave them there. They still do they jobs well as is and if we pull them the Klingon empire might attack fearing we just jump tech
So... we were told about the capability gap in 2212... and we've gone from being able to close some of that gap in say ~9 years. 8 for the reactor, 1 for some swapping/refits... too roughly, over 23 years given that the reactor won't be ready until 2230 and the Sagarmatha took about 5 years from the proposal to certification (the Kea took 6)- wherein it was presumably allowed to start major production.
I don't care what hypothetical white room stats we're looking at if it all but guarantees our next generation ships are going to be heavily outnumbered by their near-peer adversaries, if they reach critical production at all before a conflict kicks up. Trying to meta-game based around canonical conflicts is running the very real risk of a weakness that creates a conflict to develop. Are we really going to triple down on insisting that these hypothetical ships are going to be so revolutionary that the moment they start production, the two decade lead the Klingons and potentially the Romulans have developed will vanish?
We already went for the delay why not for go this? Also wild what is true I say we need to go for a purely military shit that rid it self of S&E for being cheap and fast with a punch
One of her most revolutionary aspects was in the use of turbines for propulsion, a few decades after they had been rather dramatically unveiled. Of course, this wasn't her only innovation, a uniform main battery was another.
Our engine tech will definitely be ahead, and we'll most likely have the chance to similarly leapfrog with our weapons and other systems. Even if we don't we'll have one of the cores of modern starships locked down and thus the room to play some catch-up (in the unlikely event we need to).
The thing is, Dreadnaught wasn't the first 'great leap forward' that the RN had experienced she was the second such.
HMS Warrior (1860) was such a massive leap forward that she was considered capable of taking on entire battle fleets of ships of the previous generations of sailing warships with a good chance of success, yet she was considered 'obsolete' by the time HMS Devastation (1871) entered service in 1873, barely half of what would be considered a normal service life of a capital ship.
That is where the Federation currently is ... this is the transformative era of Starfleet. Or, as the FASA Trek RPG called the period, the 'Great Awakening', the period of expansion both physical and technological, where the UFP built up such a 'head of steam' that it was able to power ahead of all of its rivals and never surrender that lead.
Because frankly, when we take design and build times into consideration the new ships won't become mainstays of our fleet until probably around 2250, thats almost 40 years of lagging behind our (partly very belligerent) neighbors. And again imho with every year that passes in this state the chance of conflict grows, so being able to refit the keas and saladins quickly will give us a much better deterrent.
Also all the best to you sayle, thanks for the fantastic quest and good luck with your treatments.
We'll have to see the details next turn, but if the choice is between better shields or better maneuverability, I'm inclined to go for maneuverability. Defense vs. evasion might be a wash, but impulse engines are super expensive and only going to get more so as our ships get bigger.
We've known that the Klingons were about one full generation of tech ahead of us for literally forever, though. Honestly this is encouraging- it means they're only most of a generation ahead now.
Further shrinking the reactor is a difficult choice given the downsides - ships with the Warp 7 Engine will now be keeping it until the end of their service lives. But it does provide some advantages for future starships, as well as reducing the height of the warp core to seven decks, down from eight. The final shape of the main engine has also enabled you to work on the deuterium and anti-deuterium feed systems, which have been integrated on the decks above and below main engineering. To withstand the higher peak output, the main warp plasma conduit has also been reinforced and segmented with blast doors to prevent superheated material travelling back towards main engineering in the event of battle damage.
The final component that needs your input is not so much related to the core functions of the warp engine, but rather what you do with the final product. While much of the output of the engine goes to the nacelles to enable faster-than-light travel, a proportion of the energy is diverted into the electroplasma network that provides power throughout the ship. This is accomplished by the main energiser, which acts as an intermediary between the highly energetic warp plasma and the less intense electroplasma which is circulated through the power conduits.
The intent with the Warp 8 Engine is to integrate the main energizer directly into the overall design, but with the markedly higher temperatures and power outputs involved it is no longer possible to efficiently saturate the EPS network with the residual energy from the antimatter reaction by the standard energizer design. There are two schools of thought as to how to deal with this. The first is to expand the main energiser, allowing it to divert more power into the electroplasma relays. This would have the happy side effect of allowing a higher peak output that would be able to further magnify hypothetical shipwide technologies that might have greater power demands, like new shield generators.
The second plan is to install a dedicated shunt to the impulse drives, allowing a steady injection of warp plasma into the propulsion matrix. This would have the effect of supercharging existing impulse thrusters for greater performance. If the trend continues to larger vessels, this may prove to be a prescient choice that would help mitigate some of the disadvantages of higher-mass designs.
Ooh, 10% increase in shield output or 20% increase in impulse engine output....one would benefit future ships in combat, allowing them to last longer, while the other allows larger massed hulls some increase in maneuverability.
Both are good choices, but we can only pick one. For me, I'll pick the impulse engine increase.
Impulse Shunt, easy, our ships aren't getting smaller, and a 20% boost to Impulse power is priceless in light of that, especially given the necessity of torpedoes in a modern battlespace. Being able to cut down on even a single Impulse engine while maintaining full battle effectiveness can be decisive.
