Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Mechanis said:
The main issue is that this ship has exactly one job: Kill Klingon Battlecruisers. It's not a patrol ship, it's not a raider, it's certainly not an exploration vessel; it's a big knobbly stick with nails in to bash Klingons over the head with until they stop trying to conquer the Federation. That's it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't disagree, merely point out that with higher cruise range it's more likely to be close enough to respond in time given it's patrolling a similar area to a slower craft while on the other hand with a faster sprint it's response radius and times within that radius from it's current location is effectively larger and faster.

Both can have similar effects but doctrine and usage will change depending on the choice. Regardless if it's to be effective it's going to have to patrol to some degree as Starfleet can't build and crew enough to cover every (relevent) cubic lightyear of it's space, not even just the border regions. Further patrols add uncertainty to hostile actor's ability to plan as static basing means predictable range and response times to incursions.

Now the Klingon's want a fight so it's not a problem with them but outside of that war their going to be scaring the crap out of would be pirates and the like that one could be nearby. Even with the Klingon's that their might be two of them in the same theater of operation is going to make them ask if it's worth poking the nest. That however runs back in a circle round to quantity, loiter time in the black, response time and radius and Klingon intelligence on Starfleet dispositions.
 
In an attempt to bring logic to my very illogical decision, I recall that our starbases (and thus presumably our doctrine) are designed aroumd regional bases with QRF forces. Sprint speed sounds useful for that.
 
Horologer said:
Another is power projection. If this ship has limited range, it'll struggle to bring the war to the Klingons. The Pharos will help mitigate that, of course, but only if the Klingons don't destroy it first. And I'd put good odds that the opening shots of the upcoming war involve the Klingons attacking and probably destroying the nearest starbase.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A good argument for one of this hull's modules to be extra AM pod storage then.
 
SaltyWaffles said:
Right, it's just that you'd think Starfleet would look at its Warp 8 Engine project and realize at some point over 14 years that it would need to also need to design a more advanced nacelle to properly take advantage of the new engine. Otherwise, why the rush to make the Warp 8 Engine if the nacelle technology wasn't ready to properly harness the engine in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because they've had 10 fewer years to actually work with the new Warp Eight Engine, without it being easily rolled out across the fleet for maximum examination of it, and we picked an option that then pushed requirements on nacelles even harder than otherwise.

We made a gamble on when Type-4 Nacelles would be available, trading current capability for future capability, in the hopes that the gap in current capability wouldn't cause problems. Turns out, that's a bad gamble to make when next to the Klingon Empire.
 
Going to vote for cruise configuration because strategic mobility is important. Sprint has tactical advantages to be sure, but cruising speed has strategic and logistical advantages, and those win wars. Not hugely fussed about which wins however.

Honestly I'd be tempted to split the difference and go for a linear setup, except the linear nacelles are in the Uncanny Valley for me for some reason?
 
LOLROFL said:
TLDR regular Type-1 Large if you want affordable tankiness, Type-1 Covariant Large if you want to turn the ship into the Juggernaut, Type-1 Covariant Standard if you want a middle ground approach.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Covariant Small if we want cheap tech advancement.

I do want tech advancement, and I do want to keep the ship reasonably cheap, so that's what I might go for, but that could easily change with more information.
 
I'm finding myself leaning more towards linear. We still have a fast sprint when we need it, and its efficient cruise keeps up with our other ships at their maximum cruise. Plus the visual seems really cool to me, more of a predatory style. Not as flat as a Skate or Selachii perhaps, but still fitting that general style.
 
LOLROFL said:
TLDR regular Type-1 Large if you want affordable tankiness, Type-1 Covariant Large if you want to turn the ship into the Juggernaut, Type-1 Covariant Standard if you want a middle ground approach.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll need to see the other ship costs first, but I'd say that for the extra 2.5 cost over Type 1 large the T1 covariant standard is a decent pick, it'll speed up tech maturity and our ability to get more affordable covariant shielding out to other platforms.
 
I'm inclined to go Linear Configuration, honestly - it's the nicest balance between extended range thanks to a higher efficient cruise and a high performance maximum sprint. There's also the factor that, unless the D7 has a breakthrough in Klingon warp coil endurance, the Linear Configuration's maximum sprint will actually cover more distance in the 12 hours our coils can remain at maximum sprint compared to the D7. Warp 8.5 for 10 hours covers approximately 0.7 light years in that time, while Warp 8.4 for 12 hours covers 0.8 light-years.

I don't know if they have to drop completely out of warp when the sprint limit is reached to cool down the coils, or if they can just slow down to their suspected "supercruise" velocity (which I'm inclined to doubt is actually 8.1 in this timeline/time period) - if they can, it just about keeps them ahead of a pursuing Constitution with linear configuration coils, but if they can't then they've got less than 2 hours before the pursuing Federation ship will catch up to them.
 
Here, this should give us a better idea of the speeds, distances and times they can achieve, as well as the speed % compared to each other:

Nacelle arrangementWarp FactorCDays/LyLy/Dayspeed Vs Cruisespeed Vs Linearspeed Vs Sprint
Cruise Configuration6.6287.501.270.79109.67%120.63%
7343.001.060.94
8.2551.370.661.5193.03%86.69%
Linear Configuration6.4262.141.390.7291.18%109.99%
7343.001.060.94
8.4592.700.621.62107.50%93.18%
Sprint Configuration6.2238.331.530.6582.90%109.99%
7343.001.060.94
8.6636.060.571.74115.36%107.31%

Based on this, I wouldn't go for Linear, but I am edging more towards:
edit - was 10 min too early to vote
 
Last edited:
[X] Linear Configuration (6.4/7/8.4) [268c/343c/592c]
[X] Sprint Configuration (6.2/7/8.6) [238c/343c/636c]

I'm personally more favourable to the Sprint Configuration. As I said before, it's outright stated by Sayle that it's complimented by the underslung secondary hull.
 
Last edited:
TheShadowDeamon said:
Here, this should give us a better idea of the speeds, distances and times they can achieve, as well as the speed % compared to each other:

Nacelle arrangementWarp FactorCDays/LyLy/Dayspeed Vs Cruisespeed Vs Linearspeed Vs Sprint
Cruise Configuration6.6287.501.270.79109.67%120.63%
7343.001.060.94
8.2551.370.661.5193.03%86.69%
Linear Configuration6.4262.141.390.7291.18%109.99%
7343.001.060.94
8.4592.700.621.62107.50%93.18%
Sprint Configuration6.2238.331.530.6582.90%109.99%
7343.001.060.94
8.6636.060.571.74115.36%107.31%

Based on this, I wouldn't go for Linear, but I am edging more towards:
[X] Cruise Configuration (6.6/7/8.2) [287c/343c/551c] lets get that cruise speed up nice and high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You duplicated the Linear vs Sprint for the Sprint vs Linear, which makes it look like you're claiming that Sprint is faster in efficient-cruise than Linear.
 
[X] Sprint Configuration (6.2/7/8.6) [238c/343c/636c]

Has to be sprint for me, we need to be able to force what battles we can and quickly withdraw from those we can't. Tactical speed (the maximum warp factor) will be important for this, like with cruisers and battleships of the world wars - a moderate cruise but the ability to outpace their opponents for sort periods (when they're properly identified) makes hunting the enemy down much easier a task.
 
If we oversimplify so that efficient cruise is strategic redeployment speed, max cruise is patrol speed, and sprint is tactical speed.... I think I want sprint for this ship.
 
[X] Sprint Configuration (6.2/7/8.6) [238c/343c/636c]

Got to keep up the speed if we want to face off a D7.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top