Starfleet Design Bureau

The Newton... for now.



I'm gonna be real, I kind of hate this. It feels too big, even though if I didn't fuck up my math too badly it's actually undersized - I made it smaller after I started running out of things to put in and still had several module-sized holes in the diagram.

I might redo it at some future point, I might not. But for the time being, this is the Newton-class light cruiser.
Front view of Newton looks like someone tried to use the Star Wars X Wing fighter as a base design for a Star Trek The Orignal Series Era Federation Ship.
 
Yeah Im not a huge fan of this design
The Newton... for now.



I'm gonna be real, I kind of hate this. It feels too big, even though if I didn't fuck up my math too badly it's actually undersized - I made it smaller after I started running out of things to put in and still had several module-sized holes in the diagram.

I might redo it at some future point, I might not. But for the time being, this is the Newton-class light cruiser.
Im not a huge fan of this design.
 
And looks even better in a TOS style, imo (450m for the Kelvin timeline one being the generally accepted fan estimate)



Though going by STO the proper class name is Einstein.
Eh, I think the original style is fine for a transition between the NX and TOS periods, especially the coloring. It's supposed to be an older ship compared to the Enterprise. Sort of like the Shezhou/Walker in that regard.
 
That would be lovely and definitely a boost in terms of firepower, but given the Newton is our bread-and-butter workhorse ship, and two standard launchers come to 4.5 Cost versus the 12 Cost for the RFL, I'm not sure the extra torpedo's worth of damage is necessarily worth the cost increase? But if enough players prefer the idea of adding an RFL then sure. Like I would hope maybe we could discuss this and then if enough players are in favour, we could ask @Sayle about it.

There's a torpedo rollbar on some Miranda and Nebula class starships but not others IIRC, so in-universe being able to refit a torpedo rollbar to ships not initially designed for one must be plausible engineering-wise to some degree. But honestly even if it was only for the ones we build to replace losses during the war, it'd still be a shot in the arm for an older design.

Not unlike the 76mm Sherman or upgunning the Spitfire to use the Hispano cannon, if we're pulling from wartime analogies. And much easier on our logistics than designing or rushing into service a whole new ship.
If we were going that route, then having the rollbar module feature a pair of forward launchers and a single aft launcher plus their support systems and AM storage (likely loaded whenever the ship docks at a starbase, to negate the need to plumb up dedicated transfer lines for it through the nacelle or auxiliary hull pylons) would be IMO the way to go - it concentrates all the newly required storage for explosive materials outside of the pressure hull, which makes it easier to vent in an emergency and less likely to cause casualties in the event of a weapons fire induced hiccup.

Alternatively, having the extra fore launchers on "bumps" installed along the nacelle pylons (with antimatter piped in from the engineering section), with the new aft launcher in the aft of the primary hull extension could also work.
I might redo it at some future point, I might not. But for the time being, this is the Newton-class light cruiser.
As for the look of the class, honestly IMO it'd be better if the struts to the auxiliary hull were shortened and the aft extension on the primary hull was better blended into the lines of the saucer section. It looks weird in part because the saucer just abruptly ends halfway around the center, as contrasted with the Excalibur where the trailing edge of the half-saucer slopes in towards the hull extension or the Cygnus where the central "hub" of the Curiosity-class' saucer section is also trimmed, and the saucer actually hooks back around both sides of that flattened area. Doing that would move mass back into the saucer section, thus allowing the auxiliary hull struts to be shortened. The current look is vaguely reminiscent of the Stingray, but I think the saucer is just too big relative to the nacelles we've got for that to "work" aesthetically. It might work if the nacelles and secondary hulls were flipped, positionally, but that'd interfere with assumptions regarding warp geometry.

It might also be worth it to use some of the mass savings form the shorter auxiliary hull struts to allow the front of the auxiliary hulls to be extended for a small cargo-bay in each, to give a more obvious place for cargo to be stored, as the current design doesn't seem to feature anything I recognize as a "cargo bay" module - and this again would allow for the auxiliary hulls to be closer to the primary hull, which IMO would improve the aesthetics when viewing the ship from the front, back, and sides. The front of the auxiliary hulls being taken up by cargo storage would also necessitate that what's already in those areas be relocated into the saucer section, thus providing more visual variety in the saucer section's MSD.
 
The Defiant-class were pretty small and very, very powerful. I think it might be problematic condensing power that small though, and probably has issues beyond the purely technical ones of implementation; not much cargo capacity, nor passengers, nor extensive labs or medical facilities, poor crew comfort etc.

The Defiant-class was great at destroying the enemy, not much else. You can't ferry colonists, or run long-term long-range missions off it reliably, or do major scientific research.
The Defiant-class is actually the sort of ship you want. It's really good at doing what a warship needs to do, is very efficient at it, and is small (and thus cheaper) than the bigger, multipurpose ships that are often expensive as fuck for their combat capability.

As this war shows, the versatility of having a long of engineering and science ships goes out the window when enemy warships come in and slaughter your weak-ass "not really a warship" ships in droves.

The Archer is a classic example of designing a ship to do noncombat roles really well while only having a barely adequate defense capability because only a moron or someone exceedingly desperate would push them into combat against a military.

What I want to know is why the Federation allowed itself to expand so much when its navy was so utterly overwhelmed at the job of protecting all of its territory. It had so few proper warships to go around that its outer colonies were utterly defenseless indefinitely, and when Starfleet consolidated as much as it could while sacrificing its colonies to buy time, the scratch force was still anemic. Its core worlds are now directly threatened and its colonies are still utterly defenseless.

All of that cargo capacity and science for cataloging distant weirdness beyond even the expanded borders falls utterly flat in the face of not having built enough warships to protect the Federation from just getting its face punched in.
 
What I want to know is why the Federation allowed itself to expand so much when its navy was so utterly overwhelmed at the job of protecting all of its territory. It had so few proper warships to go around that its outer colonies were utterly defenseless indefinitely, and when Starfleet consolidated as much as it could while sacrificing its colonies to buy time, the scratch force was still anemic. Its core worlds are now directly threatened and its colonies are still utterly defenseless.

I'm sure they had a great plan for how this was just a temporary imbalance and the resources from all of these new colonies and territory were going to allow for a measured fleet expansion that would close the gaps. It's just temporary, we'll get it sorted out over the next few production cycles. Why build a bunch of soon to be obsolete ships when our next generation warp core is going to be coming online soon?

Well it's like Mike Tyson once said. Everybody has a plan, and then they get punched in the face.
 
As this war shows, the versatility of having a long of engineering and science ships goes out the window when enemy warships come in and slaughter your weak-ass "not really a warship" ships in droves.
The ships we've seen slaughtered in droves are the Selachii, i.e. the purely military frigate that's gone obsolete; the Saladin, which is sufficiently ancient that it got reassigned to Tactical from Science because its labs were so insufficient and always had "really, really cheap" as its primary selling point; the two Sagarmathas that got pulled out of boneyards because their decommissioning hadn't actually been completed yet; and the Newtons.

Thing is, the Newtons are basically what you're asking for: small, high-maneuverability, lots of forward firepower, not much extraneous equipment. Their problem is that they just don't have much HP, and their agility can't make up the difference in fleet contexts.

The closest thing to a modern "not really a warship" science cruiser we've got is the Refit Kea. Those did just fine at Pharos 7 - they have HP to spare.
 
Last edited:
Yeah… Credit where it's due, it looks better than some of the Canon art, while still fitting in with any other Federation design.

But at this point, I think even rotating the hanger-bits 90 degrees and essentially attaching them to the back of the saucer like you're taping a pair of coin-rolls to the flat back end might be a good idea. Even if the asymmetry of having them point different directions pains me, it might make the design look better, while still having that "this could probably land at least once" look that a lot of the more important ships have.

Edit: Heck, looking at the art again you might be able to fit both bays on the back in one row with a little room to spare! They look to be a bit shorter than half the saucer width each. Pointing out to the side would still be weird, but they'd be tucked away with clear access for the bays. It might not even interfere with the central nub that sticks out of the saucer. They're certainly slimmer than the actual saucer, so they'd even be more protected than other ships' bays.
 
Last edited:
[x] Forward Rapid Launcher (Cost 53 -> 65)
[x] Forward Rapid Launcher, Two Aft Torpedoes (Cost 53 -> 69.5) [-1 Modules]
 
It might also be worth it to use some of the mass savings form the shorter auxiliary hull struts to allow the front of the auxiliary hulls to be extended for a small cargo-bay in each, to give a more obvious place for cargo to be stored, as the current design doesn't seem to feature anything I recognize as a "cargo bay" module
...What?



They're not big, but they're there. Frankly, I might have oversized them when you consider that the Newton only carries 2 points of cargo.
 
Id rather have a hanger design similar to the star wars trade federation providence class. I figure to get something similar we can turn a saucer section into primarily hangers.
 
The Defiant-class is actually the sort of ship you want. It's really good at doing what a warship needs to do, is very efficient at it, and is small (and thus cheaper) than the bigger, multipurpose ships that are often expensive as fuck for their combat capability.
Watsonian: Yeah, agreed, as long as you actually build enough of them to make its insanely long and deeply troubled development worth the time and expense; otherwise you end up with...well...the F-22, basically.

Doylist: This is not possible with current cost mechanics; modules are free and the tonnage and shielding to house them are relatively affordable enough (in comparison to the cost of engines, warp cores, nacelles, and weapons) that light pure-combat ships don't make sense.



For the record, I think this is an entirely natural outcome of a sudden, massive quantum leap in sublight drive power; it basically just deleted one of the major balancing factors that normally favor smaller ships- agility- because we have the sheer thrust to make anything or at least anything we can afford to build at all highly maneuverable at an affordable price.

It also feels realistic (plausible? truthy?) to me that warp cores and nacelles are a humongous fixed cost and that large ships be generally more cost-effective in consequence.

So in short I don't see the current lack of sensible frigate options as a problem; I just want it to be recognized that we can now effectively make, power, and propel much, much larger ships.

Like, the answer (imo) isn't to rework the mechanics so a Selachii-replacement makes sense; that takes all the value out of risking and winning our massive gamble on the theoretical Type 3 thrusters. The answer is to realize it's now practical to build way bigger ships and if we go light shields they'll still be acceptably tough (because yuge) and won't be insanely expensive, either. Postwar, after the Darwin? Reclassify the Darwin and Newton to "frigate" and everything else in inventory to "light cruiser", give me a 275-300kt Warp 8 "medium cruiser" for internal duties (and maybe stick the Kea-II saucer on a new engineering hull and build couple dozen more of 'em [and a handful more Excaliburs]), and when the Type 4 nacelle comes out give me a 400kt demigod for our first dedicated flagship explorer, even if we only get six or eight or ten of 'em.

Edit: This is assuming the Federation's membership is sufficiently traumatized by the Four Years' War to bump Starfleet's funding up from 0.2% to 0.5 or even 1% of their budgets. I am making a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek assumption about the actual numbers involved and they are definitely wrong and probably way wrong- although I do damn well hope we get some significant funding increase out of this and the general idea of "clearly you guys have been cutting it way too close, come on, when you stop quivering in terror could you please loosen the purse strings" still applies
 
Last edited:
I'm sure they had a great plan for how this was just a temporary imbalance and the resources from all of these new colonies and territory were going to allow for a measured fleet expansion that would close the gaps. It's just temporary, we'll get it sorted out over the next few production cycles. Why build a bunch of soon to be obsolete ships when our next generation warp core is going to be coming online soon?

Well it's like Mike Tyson once said. Everybody has a plan, and then they get punched in the face.
The problem is that Starfleet's entire purpose is to be the answer for when someone tries to punch the Federation in the face.

Sure, it does science on the side, but stuff like the Archer is the kind of bonus stuff that helps you build the infrastructure to support your expanding navy, not building a whole swathe of infrastructure long before your fleet has even substantially expanded.

Infrastructure that you can't defend from your unfriendly neighbors is, at best, ablative armor, and very poor ablative armor at that. That said ablative armor was numerous colonies that got swiftly conquered by the Klingons doesn't paint Starfleet in a good light.

Starfleet is so unprepared for a fight with one of its biggest neighbors whose whole culture revolves around honor and fighting that everywhere that isn't a core world is undefended. The colonies were bereft of security, but the Klingons decided to stop messing around with undefended colonies and Starfleet still got savaged.

For where Starfleet went wrong? At a glance, the fact that only the Excalibur was designed as a response to the alarming shifts in the Klingon Empire when you've got the Selachiis that could use a modern replacement too (and expanded numbers). You start rapidly churning out warships when the warning signs are starting to get serious, not after your neighbor is digging into your innards. United Earth could be easily excused for being unprepared for a surprise war with the Romulans, being very behind technologically and being a quite young spacefaring polity at the time. If the Warp 8 engine was ready for the Excalibur project, another project should have been started simultaneously for a smaller combatant meant specifically to answer the threat of the Klingons deciding to have a go with the Federation.

As it is, the Darwin Project is years too late. The Archer was specifically an engineering support ship. There was an option for a limited run of a diplomatic cruiser, which is laughable if you're trying to prepare for potential war with the Klingon Empire, and a limited run of a patrol cruiser that emphasized kludging together faster, longer cruising for responding to non-state actors rather than being a warship. As a response to the rising Klingon threat, the Excalibur was excellent, but it was a large cruiser standing alone amidst a fleet composition that was old, slow, and not well-suited for war in the first place, Excalibur and Selachii excepted.

EDIT: If the mechanics are such that a modern Selachii is not cost effective, why do birds of prey exist and continue to exist prevalently in canon for centuries? But even if we just accept it, then Starfleet should have been maximizing its production of the Excalibur-class so that it would have more than a dozen. Like, building as many as possible right up until the Klingons invade or Starfleet is satisfied that it has enough to actually defend itself against the Klingons. If our Archers and Engineering focus should be rewarded, it should be in expanded ship-building infrastructure. Clearly, having more space stations throughout the territory does jack shit if you don't have nearly enough ships to actually supplement the things when it comes to defense.
 
Last edited:
"Why is the Darwin so flat?"

ANSWER 1
"Well how else is it going to flip on its side and fit through narrow canyon walls during a dramatic chase scene?"

ANSWER 2
"You try hitting that profile with a disruptor when it's coming at you head on. Gotta be worth at least a point of tactical, right?"

ANSWER 3
"How else is it supposed to hide and then ominously rise up from behind a hill?"
 
"Why is the Darwin so flat?"

ANSWER 1
"Well how else is it going to flip on its side and fit through narrow canyon walls during a dramatic chase scene?"

ANSWER 2
"You try hitting that profile with a disruptor when it's coming at you head on. Gotta be worth at least a point of tactical, right?"

ANSWER 3
"How else is it supposed to hide and then ominously rise up from behind a hill?"
Answer 4
"We got drunk that week during spaceframe design meetings and binged on pre-WW3 internet naval memes."
 
(and maybe stick the Kea-II saucer on a new engineering hull and build couple dozen more of 'em [and a handful more Excaliburs])
I've been poking around ideas of what the Kea refit actually looks like ever since I noticed that we've not seen any casualties among the refit Keas yet. And even if all the refit does is add two standard torpedoes (no Covariant shields, no Rapid Launcher, no Type 3 Impulse) it's actually something of a monster, with more shields than the Excalibur and as much firepower as the Newton versus anything that can't get out of the way - say, because they're stuck in formation.

And the Kea actually has decent warp speeds; same max cruise as the Newton, higher sprint, lower standard cruise.

If we'd given it that pair of standard launchers in the first place, it'd still be a poor combatant on its lonesome, but we'd have much stronger options for a fleet wall right now.
 
EDIT: If the mechanics are such that a modern Selachii is not cost effective, why do birds of prey exist and continue to exist prevalently in canon for centuries?
It's not inherently cost-ineffective for any civ in this state of the rules. (Although for a hypothetical "generic average" civ, it probably would be slightly cost-ineffective, which is made up for by being outright effective for anybody who needs to patrol a lot of places.)

It's very cost-effective for the Klingons because their weapon and shield tech are dramatically ahead of their thruster (and to a much lesser extent, hull construction) tech- thus, small ships are adequately tough and deadly while being far cheaper and more agile.

It's very cost-ineffective for us because our thruster (and to a much lesser extent hull construction) tech is far ahead of our weapon and shield tech- thus, large ships are adequately agile while being far tougher and only modestly more expensive.
 
The Defiant-class is actually the sort of ship you want. It's really good at doing what a warship needs to do, is very efficient at it, and is small (and thus cheaper) than the bigger, multipurpose ships that are often expensive as fuck for their combat capability.

As this war shows, the versatility of having a long of engineering and science ships goes out the window when enemy warships come in and slaughter your weak-ass "not really a warship" ships in droves.

The Archer is a classic example of designing a ship to do noncombat roles really well while only having a barely adequate defense capability because only a moron or someone exceedingly desperate would push them into combat against a military.

What I want to know is why the Federation allowed itself to expand so much when its navy was so utterly overwhelmed at the job of protecting all of its territory. It had so few proper warships to go around that its outer colonies were utterly defenseless indefinitely, and when Starfleet consolidated as much as it could while sacrificing its colonies to buy time, the scratch force was still anemic. Its core worlds are now directly threatened and its colonies are still utterly defenseless.

All of that cargo capacity and science for cataloging distant weirdness beyond even the expanded borders falls utterly flat in the face of not having built enough warships to protect the Federation from just getting its face punched in.
Oh absolutely. I'm definitely in the camp that the Federation should have at least a moderate number of Defiant-class ships on standby for threats, and modern designs ready and optimized for emergency war production if required. If things get tense, crank out an extra couple hundred just in case. I was just explaining that they do have downsides and the Federation was obviously leery of such a vessel, some of which was due to genuine issues, though yes, some of it was just they were arrogant, stagnant and unhelpfully pacifistic in the face of an enemy.

It would've been quite amusing if somehow the Cardassians didn't know about this hypothetical proto-Defiant and initiated their early wars against the Federation, and thought, "We can take on their Excelsiors, their Mirandas, even their mighty Nebula-class battlecruisers, mwahahaha!" and then got paid a visit by a wolf pack of a 2 dozen proto-Defiants who carve through their spearhead, local defense fleets and leave their orbital defense stations and yard facilities as rapidly expanding clouds of metal droplets. :rofl:

The treaty "negotiations" afterwards would basically just be a Federation diplomat dictating whatever terms suited the Federation.

The Borg also might've been stopped if Starfleet even just had a half-dozen Defiants at each major world; it would've almost doubled the number of ships at Wolf 359, and they would've had a much tougher meal with far less materials and personnel to assimilate. It would be less efficient to keep trying to feed on the Federation under those circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top