Starfleet Design Bureau

[Strunkriidiisk]

You still don't seem to understand why having more ships lets you service more territory

Click to shrink...

You get more ships sooner, at the cost of those ships being mediocre and not actually having a (noticeably if at all) higher upper limit. Short term gain, long term loss.

It's possible that the compacted warp core that the Attenborough had an option to get required less dilithium, but I highly doubt that it would result in savings of more than like 5-10 percent in terms of resources consumed.

 

[Tank man]

You still don't seem to understand why having more ships lets you service more territory.

Click to shrink...

The Excalibur is an exceptional ship, having less but only exceptional ships serves us better than having more but shit ships.

 

[Lohjak]

The Excalibur is an exceptional ship, having less but only exceptional ships serves us better than having more but shit ships.

Click to shrink...

If the Attenborough is too small, then so is the Excalibur. For something like 20% more cost you could have a ship that's superior tactically while also carrying enough modules to be a really good generalist, as opposed to the Excalibur which is good tactically and mediocre in peacetime.

There's just no reason to build any smaller than a ship which can carry enough modules to do everything, and a ship that size will simply be good at everything so why bother going larger? The only other plausible designs are orb specialists that suck at everything but carrying niche large modules. If the only small ships worth building are extreme specialists and large ships can all do everything, then what are we even designing?

 

[Tank man]

If the Attenborough is too small, then so is the Excalibur. For something like 20% more cost you could have a ship that's superior tactically while also carrying enough modules to be a really good generalist, as opposed to the Excalibur which is good tactically and mediocre in peacetime.

There's just no reason to build any smaller than a ship which can carry enough modules to do everything, and a ship that size will simply be good at everything so why bother going larger? The only other plausible designs are orb specialists that suck at everything but carrying niche large modules. If the only small ships worth building are extreme specialists and large ships can all do everything, then what are we even designing?

Click to shrink...

From this point on I'm going to stop responding to your posts, because it's rather clear that you're just grasping at straws.

We have the world of god that these ships (the Excalibur-class) contribute massively to the Federation during peacetime, pushing it forward in much the same way as the canon Constitution-class did. If you are willing to disregard this stated basic fact then the arguments you are making are entirely baseless and are already collapsing like a house made on sand.

The Attenborough is in a weird place, yes, it's a highly armed but otherwise highly specialist ship. But it's existence doesn't invalidate the Excalibur weight as the broad minimal range that's acceptable for generalist heavy cruisers, it just goes to show that we can make a small specialist ship fight well if push comes to shove, but it'll cost the ship in capabilities in a way that it won't for a larger generalist design.

 

[Hot co co]

@Lohjak welcome to the club of people who have realized that we need more ship to do stuff and that the current thread think is that having less ships is somehow going to solve the issue of not having coverage

 

[Horologer]

Post-mortem time!

For Starfleet the war had been a trial by fire against a superior opponent with difficult lessons. The front-heavy armaments which had been increasingly favoured for starships of all types had shown serious weaknesses against more maneuverable Klingon craft,

Click to shrink...

The message here is pretty clear: two phasers is not going to cut it for our next design. We need better coverage– fortunately, this is something that our phasers are pretty good at.

and much of the war had turned on the question of strategic range and speed. Had the fleet been operating at a higher warp factor then lines of defense and strongpoints could have been established much further forward and the loss of Arcadia could have been prevented entirely.

Click to shrink...

We need better strategic speed and range, which means we need better Cruise. Range specifically implies better Efficient Cruise: Max Cruise doesn't give a ship better range, because it's burning fuel inefficiently. This feeds into the next point, actually...

That said, the usefulness of the high-cost and high-performance Excalibur-class could not be overstated. The war had thoroughly discredited a once-popular viewpoint that the future was to be found in light cruisers which could be inexpensively built to carry out the myriad of duties needed in the ever-expanding Federation and then consolidated in the event of warfare. While there was still a place for specialist vessels, military theory in the coming years would be more focused on how to deal with the long-range deployments and individual engagements necessitated by deep interstellar warfare.

Click to shrink...

Right now, Starfleet's problem is that it has a lot of space to cover, and not a lot of ships with which to cover it. It needs lots of ships, even more than it usually does, but this update makes it clear that there's a hard capability floor. Our next ship needs to have the capability to operate alone for relatively-long periods, and it needs the firepower to win one-on-one battles.

Which means this ship isn't going to be cheap (it can't be, not with these design specs), and so there will be fewer of them. So each ship is going to have to cover even more space on its own. And that means each ship needs to be able to handle a wider range of problems. In most cases, if there's a problem, it won't be able to call for backup, because it will be the backup.

The upshot of all this is that the next ship needs:

1. a minimum of four phasers,
2. better Efficient Cruise,
3. broad generalist capabilities,
4. enough firepower to reliably win a duel, and
5. enough durability to return home afterwards.

 

[Lohjak]

We have the world of god that these ships (the Excalibur-class) contribute massively to the Federation during peacetime, pushing it forward in much the same way as the canon Constitution-class did. If you are willing to disregard this stated basic fact then the arguments you are making are entirely baseless and are already collapsing like a house made on sand.

Click to shrink...

Yes, the same post which said that the role of an Explorer was formalized because Excaliburs suffered heavy casualties while performing those duties?

The Excaliburs were used as explorers because they had little other utility beyond their long range and survey suite, but they were evidently not properly equipped for the role. If we had made them actually large ships for apparently a minor cost, they'd be much, much better explorers.

There's simply no reason to accept the Excaliburs, which we deliberately built smaller with the understanding that we were sacrificing module space for cost, if the cost saved is negligible. I get that people want to like the Excalibur because it's the Enterprise and it's a cool ship that won the war, but it's objectively a suboptimal design in the current system. For just ~25 cost more, you could get another 100kt of shields, another thruster to maintain maneuverability, two more phasers (each more powerful due to mass) for all-round coverage, and now have sufficient module capacity to build a well-rounded generalist explorer/battlecruiser rather than the tactical cruiser that sacrificed utility for warfighting prowess. And with 50% better defenses and much better phaser firepower, it's probably disproportionately better in combat to boot.

The Excalibur was an exercise in maximizing tactical capability for cost, but if the cost of a warship is largely fixed then warships should be as large as is practical. The cost system was relatively new when we designed it, and we were specifically told that mass was a concern, so I don't think we should've made significantly different choices, but the way the cost system has worked out the Excalibur ends up spending all the fixed cost to build a warship and then doesn't pay the small mass tax to be good at everything. It just doesn't make sense anymore.

 

[Hot co co]

Post-mortem time!


The message here is pretty clear: two phasers is not going to cut it for our next design. We need better coverage– fortunately, this is something that our phasers are pretty good at.


We need better strategic speed and range, which means we need better Cruise. Range specifically implies better Efficient Cruise: Max Cruise doesn't give a ship better range, because it's burning fuel inefficiently. This feeds into the next point, actually...


Right now, Starfleet's problem is that it has a lot of space to cover, and not a lot of ships with which to cover it. It needs lots of ships, even more than it usually does, but this update makes it clear that there's a hard capability floor. Our next ship needs to have the capability to operate alone for relatively-long periods, and it needs the firepower to win one-on-one battles.

Which means this ship isn't going to be cheap (it can't be, not with these design specs), and so there will be fewer of them. So each ship is going to have to cover even more space on its own. And that means each ship needs to be able to handle a wider range of problems. In most cases, if there's a problem, it won't be able to call for backup, because it will be the backup.

The upshot of all this is that the next ship needs:

1. a minimum of four phasers,
2. better Efficient Cruise,
3. broad generalist capabilities,
4. enough firepower to reliably win a duel, and
5. enough durability to return home afterwards.

Click to shrink...

So basically Sagarmatha again, also didn't we sorta start sticking with phasers 2 after wog said our whole paradigm was wrong so we couldn't use long arcs but low damage but alot of them which in fact was really really annoying for everyone involved.

 

[luckless21]

So basically Sagarmatha again, also didn't we sorta start sticking with phasers 2 after wog said our whole paradigm was wrong so we couldn't use long arcs but low damage but alot of them which in fact was really really annoying for everyone involved x i

Click to shrink...

Yeah.

 

[Candesce]

Our next ship needs to have the capability to operate alone for relatively-long periods, and it needs the firepower to win one-on-one battles.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't need a full Excalibur's worth of power to win one-on-one duels, fortunately. Even versus D7s.

Important note: the wider field of coverage demand comes up most frequently versus multiple Birds of Prey or equivalents, so it's not just a matter of buying extra phasers and calling it done; we should be evaluating how ships handle multiple light vessels as well as their capability of winning duels against single heavies.

 

[Horologer]

So basically Sagarmatha again, also didn't we sorta start sticking with phasers 2 after wog said our whole paradigm was wrong so we couldn't use long arcs but low damage but alot of them which in fact was really really annoying for everyone involved.

Click to shrink...

You can only shoot with two phasers at once, which is why the thread went with only two front phasers for the Excalibur. This is optimal if you can always keep your enemy in those phasers' sights. This update tells us that's not something we can guarantee (E: well, not something we can do reliably enough), so we need more than just the front two, and probably more than the three the Excalibur had.

It doesn't need a full Excalibur's worth of power to win one-on-one duels, fortunately. Even versus D7s.

Important note: the wider field of coverage demand comes up most frequently versus multiple Birds of Prey or equivalents, so it's not just a matter of buying extra phasers and calling it done; we should be evaluating how ships handle multiple light vessels as well as their capability of winning duels against single heavies.

Click to shrink...

A good point. Aside from coverage, I'd say the most important factor there is durability. If you're fighting two or more ships, you need to be able to take a lot of shots.

 

[Chargone]

then the Excalibur is actually pointlessly small.

Click to shrink...

To my recollection, part of why the excalibur is as small as it is so the maximum possible number of ship yards could build them, preventing That from bottlenecking construction. It was apparently considered relevant by the admiralty at the time.

@Lohjak welcome to the club of people who have realized that we need more ship to do stuff and that the current thread think is that having less ships is somehow going to solve the issue of not having coverage

Click to shrink...

No, the current thread think is that we've been repeatedly told that We're Not Getting the coverage Regardless, and that these ideas that "get us more ships" actually Don't. One or two more hulls is Not enough for the substantial durability hit, nevermind the loss in firepower and/or non combst capability that comes with it.

Also, more specialst ships vs less generalists ships is actually more complicated onthe coverage front than just comparing hull numbers, and which is better depends on what you're focusing on and the exact numbers in question.

I'll grant you that one or two people do seem to be confused about coverage, though.

 

[Candesce]

Aside from coverage, I'd say the most important factor there is durability. If you're fighting two or more ships, you need to be able to take a lot of shots.

Click to shrink...

Durability is most cheaply acquired by building bigger ships, which means more utility built into the hull.

Gonna be interesting working out just how heavy the shielding will need to be; for a ship bigger than the Excalibur, we "theoretically" could get away with light Covariant and still have similar defenses, but for a ship that big even medium Covariant is going to give it monstrous defense for, like, 10 more cost.

 

[Razzocnor]

As I was pointing out earlier, the root problem is that the smallest possible viable combat starship still costs 3/4 as much as an Excalibur.

There isn't a 'build lots of small ships' button. The Federation just flat out can't. End of story, no ifs ands or buts about it. It's not some political failing or anything either, it is literally limited by the absolute maximum number of Warp Cores the Federation is physically capable of producing. At their very best they can squeeze out 25% extra ships per tranche, but it just plain isn't worth it for the loss in capability. Building twice as many ships half the size just plain isn't something they can do, no matter how much you want it.

Size is cheap. Size directly feeds into military capability in the form of shield strength and ability to take a hit. It is flat out impossible to design a small gunship that is worth actually manufacturing. So we won't.

 

[CuriousRaptor]

I'd argue that while Size is more efficient, it's not cheap. Look at how we made double the numbers of a Saladin as compared to the Kea. The Kea, especially once it got it's refit was a better ship, easily. Yet it was in far inferior numbers and would the Klingons have attacked earlier the Saladin would have been vastly more useful then it was.

We need to keep in mind that the bigger the ship the longer it takes to make, in addition far fewer shipyards can actually MAKE said ship as well. Like how we had many shipyards that were active than couldn't even MAKE the Excalibur, when more ships were direly needed. Or how even with a Crash build with full focus it still took so long for the new tranche to be made that if Karhammur had won at Andoria they'd be far too little too late.


In short Big ships are more efficient and better combatants, but they lack the ability to made quickly when they fall or made in large numbers, so we will have to have some smaller ships just to fill out the balance, serve as escorts and if needed fall on the sword for the bigger ships so we take a comparative lesser loss.

Also something to account for is breadth. Starfleet already was missing ships it needed for patrolling and protecting its borders. While one large ship is preferable to keep security as it will enforce it's will upon raiders, reavers, pirates and the like, it can still only be at one place at a time. Meanwhile if you can build two ships of lesser capability but still sufficient to see interlopers off, they are a comparative better pick.


Now granted due to paradigm shifts this isn't and can't be absolute, as things do shift, and can shift incredibly rapidly, That being said going only for big ship is just as likely to bite us in the ass as it is for smaller lighter cheaper ships alone.

 

[Wootius]

I'd argue that while Size is more efficient, it's not cheap. Look at how we made double the numbers of a Saladin as compared to the Kea. The Kea, especially once it got it's refit was a better ship, easily. Yet it was in far inferior numbers and would the Klingons have attacked earlier the Saladin would have been vastly more useful then it was.

We need to keep in mind that the bigger the ship the longer it takes to make, in addition far fewer shipyards can actually MAKE said ship as well. Like how we had many shipyards that were active than couldn't even MAKE the Excalibur, when more ships were direly needed. Or how even with a Crash build with full focus it still took so long for the new tranche to be made that if Karhammur had won at Andoria they'd be far too little too late.


In short Big ships are more efficient and better combatants, but they lack the ability to made quickly when they fall or made in large numbers, so we will have to have some smaller ships just to fill out the balance, serve as escorts and if needed fall on the sword for the bigger ships so we take a comparative lesser loss.

Also something to account for is breadth. Starfleet already was missing ships it needed for patrolling and protecting its borders. While one large ship is preferable to keep security as it will enforce it's will upon raiders, reavers, pirates and the like, it can still only be at one place at a time. Meanwhile if you can build two ships of lesser capability but still sufficient to see interlopers off, they are a comparative better pick.


Now granted due to paradigm shifts this isn't and can't be absolute, as things do shift, and can shift incredibly rapidly, That being said going only for big ship is just as likely to bite us in the ass as it is for smaller lighter cheaper ships alone.

Click to shrink...

I disagree. The Saladin has all the problems that the report points out. It was strategically and (warp) tactically slower, had less range, it lacked coverage, the Kea had 33% more HP, it didn't save enough to have that many more made, and it barely had more single target damage vs then the torpedo-less prerefit Kea. If Starfleet had built 12 more Keas instead of 16 Saladins things would have been better off. It's basically the height of Tactical's "penny-wise but pound-foolish" design philosophy.

 

[CuriousRaptor]

I disagree. The Saladin has all the problems that the report points out. It was strategically slower, had less range, it lacked coverage, and it barely had more single target damage vs then the torpedo-less prerefit Kea. If Starfleet had built 12 more Keas instead of 16 Saladins things would have been better.

Click to shrink...

Which isn't always possible, given Keas are 40% larger than the Saladin and shipyards are not all plug and play, a shipyard that can build one might not be big enough or have the right facilities to build the other. Furthermore it took longer to build Keas than it did Saladins. Having a perfect weapon made after a fight does you no good if the fight is already over and you lost it before they get finished.

While yes bigger ship is the preference, and if we could make them fast enough and, in enough volume, to drown the enemy in big ship good, we absolutely should, we don't have the logistics for that either, else we'd have even more Excaliburs on hand than we do. Ignoring escorts and using our smaller but willing to contribute shipyards solely on the altar of Only big ship is as likely to cause us immense issues as going for a plethora of ricky dinkers will.

 

[Lavaflow]

Out of curiosity, what do people think the cost rating is about? Because I was under the impression that the cost rating we see is for the strategically limited resources?
It then follows that cheaper ships do, in fact, lead to more total ships. I see some arguments that make me people think that isn't the case, and that confuses me.

 

[OmegaS]

a shipyard that can build one might not be big enough or have the right facilities to build the other.

Click to shrink...

Considering that the limit seems to be total Warp Core production, the number and capability of specific yards seem like a secondary factor for what gets built.

 

[Archduke]

Meanwhile if you can build two ships of lesser capability but still sufficient to see interlopers off, they are a comparative better pick.

Click to shrink...

Current strategic planning calls for an emphasis on independent operations. I'd rather design a ship that can stare down a D7 on its own vs. 2 ships that aren't garunteed to operate together all the time. and considering how spread thin we are, it's very likely they'll be spread out.

military theory in the coming years would be more focused on how to deal with the long-range deployments and individual engagements necessitated by deep interstellar warfare.

Click to shrink...

 

[uju32]

We need better strategic speed and range, which means we need better Cruise. Range specifically implies better Efficient Cruise: Max Cruise doesn't give a ship better range, because it's burning fuel inefficiently. This feeds into the next point, actually...

Click to shrink...

Disagree with this statement in particular.


Efficient Cruise is what you use when range and fuel-efficiency is the priority.
Max Cruise is what you use when response time is a priority, like during a war, or in emergency response.
And we already established a logistics doctrine that goes a fair way to compensate for fuel use.

For a military, or an organization performing the roles of a military, or even emergency responders TIME is the priority.
Not efficiency of fuel use.
Noone cares if your ambulance or police car is burning 5 miles per gallon if that means it can get to an accident on time.

We arent a shipping company, and we dont have to balance the books at the end of the year to minimize fuel costs per trip.
Its a nice to have, but very much not an overriding design priority.



Look at our recent history. When we called the clans to the defense of Andoria, time was the priority, hence Max Cruise.
When the Callies were executing deep strikes on Klingon logistics, response time and operational tempo were the priority, hence Max Cruise.

When Captain Fair Fight April was responding to the fungal outbreak and famine on Tarsus IV in 2246, time was the priority, so he pushed the Enterprise past Max Cruise of Warp 7 to Warp 8 for two weeks, which was only sustainable because the Max Cruise of the Excalibur class was so high in the first place.

Basically, Max Cruise is way more important in our designs than Efficient Cruise.

 

[OmegaS]

Basically, Max Cruise is way more important in our designs than Efficient Cruise.

Click to shrink...

There's also a cap on max Efficient Cruise due to material limitations right now.

 

[DragoonPreston]

Can people please stop saying the answer to all problems is lots more ships? We have been told there is no feasible way to get lots more ships.

STOP IGNORING THE WOG. Please.

Also there have never been any shipyard limitations, its space, if you want to build a 100 Million Meter ship you can do so just as easy as a 100 Meter ship. The only 'hard' part is Getting The Stuff To Build With and putting it in place. Please note this is BUILDING the ship, Designing and Operating it is a very different story.

 

[Candesce]

There's also a cap on max Efficient Cruise due to material limitations right now.

Click to shrink...

The cap is on Max Cruise, actually.

 

[uju32]

Now granted due to paradigm shifts this isn't and can't be absolute, as things do shift, and can shift incredibly rapidly, That being said going only for big ship is just as likely to bite us in the ass as it is for smaller lighter cheaper ships alone.

Click to shrink...

Its not our job to maintain or upgrade the Federation's shipbuilding infrastructure.
If we're asked to keep below a specified tonnage because of industrial concerns, thats fine.
Other than that, we simply design as good a ship as we can and trust that other people have their shit together.

That said, its worth noting that the Sagmartha was a ~300 kiloton design built more than half a century ago.
So I really doubt that the Federation really has a shortage of slips for big ships, or cant invest in upgrading them before the new designs become available.