Linked contents
An awfully monolithic piece of reasoning. I'm sure I read Sayle said no 1 factor was sub-optimal, only a combination of them. Our weapons' firepower was reduced from canon, we mounted less weapons on our designs than canon (see the rather sensitive Kea-class torpedo incident), and then we chose to invest in pure performance at the cost of not being able to retrofit warp 7 ships with warp 8 drives.
Well if you know that Klingons chose retrofit-able drives for a speed debuff, and that canon 2230/40s Constitution-class ships can easily outrun them, then that's a data point strongly in your favour. I'm content to see how it'll pan out, and if I prove to be wrong I'll be relieved.
Yeah, who'd want greater operational range, better travel times under nominal conditions and class longevity? Such a weird set of traits for a survey ship. /s
I have a feeling we haven't learned the lessons of the designs before the Excalibur, unfortunately. If we are militarily weak, not only do we do worse at wars, they come earlier and more often. It's not war-mongering to be aware of current threats and make sure we're an unattractive target that can bite back, and that our neighbours know it. I could easily see the Excalibur-class causing the war to come to an early conclusion, then having renewed hostilities in the 2260s because we've only got 1 decent combat ship that by then will have lost its cutting-edge performance.
Last edited:
Not entirely sure on the impulse engines (since imo even one would make us more manouverable than the prime universe Connie), but a forward focused armament consisting of a RFL and a phaser bank (well, three in total) would give the ship an alpha punch of 72 - which is only 6 less than the prime universe Connie's 78.
And taking the cost of the second tranche Excaliburs into account, with their weapons budget this would allow us to ~8.5 ships weapons fits compared to their their 6 ships weapons fits
The fact the shields are going to be cheaper than I'd initially calculated (I was assuming the bulge would win) will also help here.
Last edited:
[X] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]
- Location
- USA
We can already expect good FTL speed from this ship. Better than the majority of our competitors, even.
Thanks to the Inline Deflector, our forward phaser arcs are clear of obstructions.
We just barely require 2 thrusters for Very High Maneuverability.
Our shields are our main weakness, but even with that, we're making something that can have real bite despite not being intended for war.
We may be building to a meme, but we are considering 'Should we?' before choosing memeable options.
[X] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]
Thanks to the Inline Deflector, our forward phaser arcs are clear of obstructions.
We just barely require 2 thrusters for Very High Maneuverability.
Our shields are our main weakness, but even with that, we're making something that can have real bite despite not being intended for war.
We may be building to a meme, but we are considering 'Should we?' before choosing memeable options.
[X] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]
Much nastier than a Newton. The bare minimum of one Type 3 Thruster, minimal phasers, and two forward torps is already enough to exceed the Newton in every tactical statistic, if only slightly; the only question is if we consider that sufficient.
[X] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]
- Location
- west
I personally don't see a need for 2 engines.
The main argument for two engines, to me, is the possibility that all rapid launchers are earmarked for Excaliburs and there's not enough production to mount them on the Darwin. Three standard torps, assuming we can even fit that many on the saucer (I wouldn't bet on it), would unacceptably cut into lab space.
It depends a lot on the total mass of the ship once we add the nacelles and pylons. If we're at rating of High Manoeuvrability or above, then we can afford to live with it, but the breakpoint for that is a ship weight of 120kT or less. Now the scale is linear and the ratings are just descriptive, but it's still very relevant as a descriptor. If we start to fall below that, then we're no longer that manoeuvrable, and this is a problem when fighting highly-manoeuvrable Klingon ships without a lot of weapon coverage (which we can't afford).
If the total tonnage goes above 120kT, then I think we need a second engine. It is objectively a better trade to have two phaser banks and an extra engine than it would be to have three phaser banks and a single engine.
slybrarian
Creature of Fable
- Location
- A Far and Sunless Land
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Before anyone gets too crazy about armament, I've been looking at the diagram and frankly I'm not sure how viable a modern forward torpedo armament is; based on the one example of RFLs we have in the Callie, the RFL is a two-deck affair and the only two-deck and forward-facing spots big enough are on the front of the secondary hull (probably blocked by the gangway; and only viable if you cut down the magazine section by half) and the front of the dorsal bulge (which is likely to be filled with crew spaces instead). We might be able to fit in something along the bottom of the saucer (i.e. off-centreline but still bow-facing) but that would probably end up resulting in tandem launchers, and frankly two RFLs would more than double the cost of the rest of the ship.
Edit: here's some John Maddening to demonstrate
Edit: here's some John Maddening to demonstrate
Last edited:
I would mount them on ether side of the secondary hull so they shoot out under the saucer. The warp core is right there so antimatter does not have to travel far.Before anyone gets too crazy about armament, I've been looking at the diagram and frankly I'm not sure how viable a modern forward torpedo armament is; based on the one example of RFLs we have in the Callie, the RFL is a two-deck affair and the only two-deck and forward-facing spots big enough are on the front of the secondary hull (probably blocked by the gangway; and only viable if you cut down the magazine section by half) and the front of the dorsal bulge (which is likely to be filled with crew spaces instead). We might be able to fit in something along the bottom of the saucer (i.e. off-centreline but still bow-facing) but that would probably end up resulting in tandem launchers, and frankly two RFLs would more than double the cost of the rest of the ship.
Edit: here's some John Maddening to demonstrate
Agreed. And if this class never gets into a serious fight, honestly that'd be the best outcome. If people know all warp 8 Starfleet ships are bitey enough that you must bring a D6, or a Gorn or Tholian battlecruiser, minimum to expect an easy win, then again, that makes us an unattractive target.
That also means we get taken more seriously when we negotiate, since they know pulling a fast one is going to get them a bloody nose, but our diplomats are reasonable.
Mmm-hmm, spot-on. If we could get 2 standard launchers though, that might be adequate. The Archer-class had 2, but they were dispersed, one fore one aft, maybe they'll be more effective if it can level both on-target at once?
Thoughts, anyone?
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Thing is, I just don't think that's viable. There's only barely room forward of the engineering section if that dead space isn't earmarked for something, and I've been running on the assumption frankly that the engineering section occupies the entire lateral cross-section of the secondary hull.
Before anyone gets too crazy about armament, I've been looking at the diagram and frankly I'm not sure how viable a modern forward torpedo armament is; based on the one example of RFLs we have in the Callie, the RFL is a two-deck affair and the only two-deck and forward-facing spots big enough are on the front of the secondary hull (probably blocked by the gangway; and only viable if you cut down the magazine section by half) and the front of the dorsal bulge (which is likely to be filled with crew spaces instead). We might be able to fit in something along the bottom of the saucer (i.e. off-centreline but still bow-facing) but that would probably end up resulting in tandem launchers, and frankly two RFLs would more than double the cost of the rest of the ship.
Edit: here's some John Maddening to demonstrate
I think that the RFL on the Excalibur taking up two decks is more a factor of that being the best way to fit it into the neck than it needing two decks for any engineering reason. If you look at the regular photon launchers on the 'Callie which are longer and take up one deck; the total area they take up is about the same as an RFL, and there's a space roughly that size on the front of the ship.
So I'm pretty sure it is just how @Sayle decided to fit it into the neck of the ship.
I'd be completely for a small centerline torpedo launcher blister if that was the only way to get a RFL. An off-center launcher that doesn't appear on the side view diagram we have would be even better since there's no additional mass/art requirements. Something that makes the ship not perfectly symmetrical in a top view would give the class an additional bit of character.
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Admittedly I'm putting a lot of emphasis on a single example, so you may be right. But on the other hand if you look closely at the pixel art (which I have, arguably inadvisably so) the RFL seems to load vertically and a magazine above or below the firing chamber would most effectively facilitate that.
Plus, a fully linear one-deck arrangement wouldn't really solve the problem - the only space for a single centreline launcher would still be on the upper hull with the same issues (cutting into crew spaces, needing to run an antimatter line up that far), and tandem launchers along the rim would still be way too expensive.
It would however go somewhat against the Federation's design aesthetic. Star Trek is pretty anti-greebling, especially for the Feds.
I don't know how many times I said this, but I hope that the next ship will give us the chance to design a Big Boy fighting vessel with a long service history.
- Location
- California
We just did the Excalibur
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
I'd be quite happy to slap it (EDIT: "it" being a rapid-fire torpedo launcher) in the main saucer right next to the deflector; if it's off to one side so what? Worst case we have a couple degrees more field of fire on one side than the other, but it shouldn't be by much; best case we end up with a weird shaped saucer and normal cone of fire.
Honestly, my bet would be a minimum size blister directly "under" the torpedo magazine, along the centerline of the ship, if we go for a single launcher. It'd be so small as to be darn near a rounding error in terms of tonnage, but would allow for a single launcher to have a centered firing arc without impinging on the forward deflector.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
That'll be the Excelsior