Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
I want to propose a 5 or 6 gun design. I even have two techical picture describing them if someone can vouch for a picture hosting site.

It is based on the Type2 phaser having 135° firing arc. To point two guns in every arc (in two dimensions) there must be enough guns to cover 720°. 5 guns fall short by 45° leaving 9° in front of each gun holes were only that gun has line of sight. 6 guns can cover everything except the first few 100m in front of a gun and that only because the width of the ship is in the way.

@Sayle Would you accept this write in?
 
Candesce said:
I'd say it's less about having more wiggle room than it is a matter of us having any. The prototype shields are probably enough to put us in the D ranks for cost with no further expenditures.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Once we'd laid in the spherical design of the primary hull, we weren't ever really going to truly compete in terms of cost. Our hope, largely, was then to offer something that, while costly, would be offset by the remarkable level of capability in several fields that the spherical primary hull gives us the space to mount. More likely than not, with how our current ship designs are arrayed, the Newton-class and the Halley Project will be compatriots in some sense or another, with at at least a run of both ships making their way into the wider galaxy.

There's as good a chance as any that, despite my vote, the regular Type-1 shielding is still going to win out, so cost, in that case, will be less of an issue. But it was never going to be the case that we made something as cheap as the Newton's going to be.
 
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
The difference in effectiveness is small enough that for this design it's better to skip.

[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
I'm hesistating with the minimum, but keeping an extra bank at those two places does give a lot of extra coverage.

This combo would conserve the existing cost gap with the SanFran project. We could go for minimum tac and match the SanFran design in cost at the cost of being greatly outshined in tactics.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
But it was never going to be the case that we made something as cheap as the Newton's going to be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's true, we're never going to compete with the Newton on cost.

But I'd like some budget for potential shinies directly applicable to this ship's role, and if we actually manage to crater the Halley's cost rating to the absolute minimum, well, that means fewer ships built. And ships that don't get built don't protect anybody, no matter how powerful their theoretical protection would have been.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

Just as a reminder that even on a single Type 2 Thruster the Hailey is expected be able to have decent maneuverability.

With the Type 3s looking good so far we're looking at potentially even greater maneuverability (at a low end probably High-Medium instead of Medium w/o cargo pod and Medium instead of Low-Medium with cargo pod).
Sayle said:
The low mass of the Halley is an advantage with even a single engine assembly able to comfortably manoeuvre the ship, though a small performance drop is only to be expected when the cargo pod is fully loaded.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With 4 Phasers and 2 Torpedos it's weapons loadout would be comparable if not superior to the Saladin which with Medium maneuverability was considered a decent solo combatant in high risk regions up until the 2240s and this is supposed to be an Engineering and transport ship rather than a frontline vessel.
Sayle said:
The Saladin-class was for a time Starfleet's favoured tool on the border, being used to stake a claim on nearby territory and analyse accessible star systems for resources. Unfortunately by 2240 their vulnerability to more maneuverable Klingon designs like the Bird of Prey and outmatched systems against the new D7 cruiser consigned them to a more protected survey and local patrol role in Federation space proper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given the fact that the Newton is looking to be much cheaper while being an excellent combatant (it'll probably be nearing Selachii levels of maneuverability if one Type 2 Thruster on a heavier hull gives you Medium maneuverability with superior firepower) but have far less cargo capacity (less hull space and no cargo pod) I suspect the Hailey and Newton will be complementary rather than fighting for the same role.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
 
Candesce said:
But I'd like some budget for potential shinies directly applicable to this ship's role, and if we actually manage to crater the Halley's cost rating to the absolute minimum, well, ships that don't get built don't protect anybody, no matter how powerful their theoretical protection would have been.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's entirely a fair stance to have, and quite honestly, I've been swayed. The Covariant system is something of a sidegrade, and leaving it out now means the cost comes down for other ship classes we design down the line. My vote has changed.
 
Last edited:
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

A +4 cost being offset by what is functionally a -5 cost for double the phaser firepower seems like a fantastic deal for me. It may not be intended for the front lines, but it literally cannot be overstated how valuable a mobile engineering vessel is to pirates and other criminals.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
 
My inclination is to go minimum on phasers and use the ship to testbed the new shields, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
[] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
 
Alectai said:
Real question is, are they doing another Discount Dan's Bargain Starships again like the Saladin? Or is it just "We didn't do anything special at all so it's cheap as hell"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a flying shuttle hub with a little bit of cargo, a single science lab Just In Case, and nothing else. Very much a support ship that can deal with minor emergencies and play a basic support role. About the only extra expense on the Newton is the second shuttlebay/cargo section and the extra engines so its weapons are viable. It's all-in on forward weapons and has nothing covering the aft quarter.

It's a light cruiser with some proactive engineering capabilities, essentially.
Portec said:
I want to propose a 5 or 6 gun design. I even have two techical picture describing them if someone can vouch for a picture hosting site.

It is based on the Type2 phaser having 135° firing arc. To point two guns in every arc (in two dimensions) there must be enough guns to cover 720°. 5 guns fall short by 45° leaving 9° in front of each gun holes were only that gun has line of sight. 6 guns can cover everything except the first few 100m in front of a gun and that only because the width of the ship is in the way.

@Sayle Would you accept this write in?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure quite what you're describing, but it's much too late for a write in at this stage.
 
Sayle said:
It's a flying shuttle hub with a little bit of cargo
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ignoring its lack of other capabilities, this would synergise quite well with the Halley as is. We've got the cargo, we're gonna have the engineering modules and as long as we don't also make this something of a shuttle carrier it's shuttles would aid quite a bit in allowing system wide construction efforts (since our shuttle compliment kinda precludes us working in one place in one with the shuttles working in another).
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
 
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
 
Candesce said:
... Did it go 1x phaser bank and 4x torpedo tubes? I can't help but notice that that and the basic shields comes out to the same 17 cost as our "two tubes, 4x phaser banks" buy, and would give it a hell of a forward punch.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the one hand, Churchill tank - not the best defended, but reasonably tough and can be modified for a lot.

On the other, Shitbarn.

I'm pretty sure engineering stops being engineering when your preferred method of engineering is "all the explosives, we'll make up some crap about what to do with the rubble later."
...
...
...
Wait a minute, are these alternate designs just you stealing some of the sillier conversations in your quests and posting them as designs, @Sayle ?
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
 
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
 
CanYouMeme said:
Wait a minute, are these alternate designs just you stealing some of the sillier conversations in your quests and posting them as designs, @Sayle ?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Newton is just a design seen in the Kelvin timeline in the first movie's big fleet jump sequence. We've had discussions of, quite frankly, some far stranger ship designs (for the time period, at least).
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top