Yeah. Our next battleship will come when we unlock all the shiny new prototypes.
What we need to build is a workhorse. It doesn't need to be able to take out everyone else's shiny new battleships one on one, that's not its job. The only reason I even bring up the D7 is because anything we build that can 1v1 a D7 we can be pretty damned sure will 1v1 any of the future vessels even remotely in its class; the theoretical D8 is going to be fighting our new Explorers, or the Excalibur if those haven't been built yet.
As a side note? Our workhorse isn't going to need "Very High" agility. It probably doesn't even need average agility, but I've been assuming I'm not going to be able to argue people into going that low. It's going to be a high-coverage phaser based design, after all.
Yeah. Our next battleship will come when we unlock all the shiny new prototypes.
What we need to build is a workhorse. It doesn't need to be able to take out everyone else's shiny new battleships one on one, that's not its job. The only reason I even bring up the D7 is because anything we build that can 1v1 a D7 we can be pretty damned sure will 1v1 any of the future vessels even remotely in its class; the theoretical D8 is going to be fighting our new Explorers, or the Excalibur if those haven't been built yet.
As a side note? Our workhorse isn't going to need "Very High" agility. It probably doesn't even need average agility, but I've been assuming I'm not going to be able to argue people into going that low. It's going to be a high-coverage phaser based design, after all.
1) The D-series of cruisers/battlecruisers are a mass-produced ship design.
Just by the sheer numbers that we have seen them deployed in, their peer-equivalent in our order of battle are our cruisers and heavy cruisers, not our explorers.
Remember, the Sagmarthas were a 12-ship class. The Thunderchilds before them were either 3 or 4.
Andoria saw almost 50 D-class ships: 22x D7s + ~36 D6s.
2) Its going to need as high agility as we can give it, along with everything else.
Because, its going to be serving into the future, against enemy ship designs that have not yet come off the design table and with the benefits of advancements of technology.
If you use two-decade old designs as your benchmark instead of your minimum, you end up always behind the technological curve.
^^^
It takes around eight years to design a new ship class from scratch, and roughly two years to build a new one.
At that rate, a single slip will build 5 ships in a decade.
This is the source of the aphorism: Naval strategy is build strategy.
Every ship design is already obsolete by the time its finalized, and by the time you get significant numbers into production its falling behind the tech curve. Which is why its generally wise to try to aim for performance as far ahead as you can manage.
If you persistently use benchmarks representing vessels that were designed decades before as your pacing threat, your designs and the navy that uses them will keep giving up technological and force-parity advantages to your potential opposition.
And you keep needing heroes to bail you out.
1) The D-series of cruisers/battlecruisers are a mass-produced ship design.
Just by the sheer numbers that we have seen them deployed in, their peer-equivalent in our order of battle are our cruisers and heavy cruisers, not our explorers.
Remember, the Sagmarthas were a 12-ship class. The Thunderchilds before them were either 3 or 4.
Andoria saw almost 50 D-class ships: 22x D7s + ~36 D6s.
2) Its going to need as high agility as we can give it, along with everything else.
Because, its going to be serving into the future, against enemy ship designs that have not yet come off the design table and with the benefits of advancements of technology.
If you use two-decade old designs as your benchmark instead of your minimum, you end up always behind the technological curve.
^^^
It takes around eight years to design a new ship class from scratch, and roughly two years to build a new one.
At that rate, a single slip will build 5 ships in a decade.
This is the source of the aphorism: Naval strategy is build strategy.
Every ship design is already obsolete by the time its finalized, and by the time you get significant numbers into production its falling behind the tech curve. Which is why its generally wise to try to aim for performance as far ahead as you can manage.
If you persistently use benchmarks representing vessels that were designed decades before as your pacing threat, your designs and the navy that uses them will keep giving up technological and force-parity advantages to your potential opposition.
And you keep needing heroes to bail you out.
For one thing?
Like Shard points out, its been explicitly pointed out that the procurement priorities of Starfleet have changed towards bigger, multirole ships following the lessons of the war.
We arent likely to be goldplating new designs without good reason(and yes, there will be reasons to do so IMO, like when doing a new explorer or diplomatic ship), but we are strongly incentivized to try to maximize capability per ship, because that ship is likely to be the only one within range during normal operations.
For another, its not a competition where success is measured in procurement numbers.
Else we wouldnt have designed the Attenborough and doubled down on specializing it in a small niche, since that ship isnt going to be procured in more than single digit numbers.
I think there is a place for cheap, light ships, it's just not right now. Or likely for quite a while into the future. They're the sort of design that's most suited to total war (so no real modules) when you have effectively no cap of strategic resources (i.e. build volume is the limiting factor), and you either massively outclass or are massively outclassed by your opposition. In the first case, the lowered shields, hull survivability, and weapons output doesn't matter as much. In the latter, you're getting destroyed in one hit anyway and you've a better shot at doing damage with a load of torps than sustained phaser fire.
What I'm saying is, I eagerly await the return of the Ushaan.
For one thing?
Like Shard points out, its been explicitly pointed out that the procurement priorities of Starfleet have changed towards bigger, multirole ships following the lessons of the war.
We arent likely to be goldplating new designs without good reason(and yes, there will be reasons to do so IMO, like when doing a new explorer or diplomatic ship), but we are strongly incentivized to try to maximize capability per ship, because that ship is likely to be the only one within range during normal operations.
For another, its not a competition where success is measured in procurement numbers.
Else we wouldnt have designed the Attenborough and doubled down on specializing it in a small niche, since that ship isnt going to be procured in more than single digit numbers.
Note what I'm proposing costs more then the 2nd run Excalibers for the weapon tactical costs. Shields will cost more just from weight alone.
2 (up and down coverage) Forward and backward phaser banks, 1 on each side for broadsides, and three forward and two backward tubes costs 35.25 vs 33.75 for standardized Excalibers. It will double the Kea combat stats overall and there's almost no way we go below medium speed.
@Sayle sorry if it's been asked before, but do older generation ships get a malus on speed comparison vs newer ships?
Yeah. Our next battleship will come when we unlock all the shiny new prototypes.
What we need to build is a workhorse. It doesn't need to be able to take out everyone else's shiny new battleships one on one, that's not its job. The only reason I even bring up the D7 is because anything we build that can 1v1 a D7 we can be pretty damned sure will 1v1 any of the future vessels even remotely in its class; the theoretical D8 is going to be fighting our new Explorers, or the Excalibur if those haven't been built yet.
As a side note? Our workhorse isn't going to need "Very High" agility. It probably doesn't even need average agility, but I've been assuming I'm not going to be able to argue people into going that low. It's going to be a high-coverage phaser based design, after all.
I think there is a place for cheap, light ships, it's just not right now. Or likely for quite a while into the future. They're the sort of design that's most suited to total war (so no real modules) when you have effectively no cap of strategic resources (i.e. build volume is the limiting factor), and you either massively outclass or are massively outclassed by your opposition. In the first case, the lowered shields, hull survivability, and weapons output doesn't matter as much. In the latter, you're getting destroyed in one hit anyway and you've a better shot at doing damage with a load of torps than sustained phaser fire.
What I'm saying is, I eagerly await the return of the Ushaan.
^^^
Cheap light ships should be for long, existential wars.
And at that point, you're probably slapping fusion bottles into the hulls for power because you simply cant source enough strategic resources to build M/AM reactors.
Note what I'm proposing costs more then the 2nd run Excalibers for the weapon tactical costs. Shields will cost more just from weight alone.
2 (up and down coverage) Forward and backward phaser banks, 1 on each side for broadsides, and three forward and two backward tubes costs 35.25 vs 33.75 for standardized Excalibers. It will double the Kea combat stats overall and there's almost no way we go below medium speed.
@Sayle sorry if it's been asked before, but do older generation ships get a malus on speed comparison vs newer ships?
But that said, looking at that proposed weapons loadout(8x phaser banks at 3 cost + 5x standard tubes at 2.25 cost), for 25% more cost I can pull one of those forward tubes and put in an RFL for 60% more forward firepower and increasing the design's dual-target engagement capacity and its combat redundancy.
That seems very much a worthwhile upgrade to me; if its only a 25% increase in weapon suite costs, its going to be less than half that for the cost of the entire ship design.
I definitely lean more towards a workhorse than a dreadnought or explorer. The Federation is gonna be focused inwards for a while, so a modern General Purpose Cruiser that can tackle a wide variety of problems. The Excaliber is nearly there, though it could be improved upon. I am curious to see if we get any new design options from Federation members or salvaged Klingon tech.
^^^
Cheap light ships should be for long, existential wars.
And at that point, you're probably slapping fusion bottles into the hulls for power because you simply cant source enough strategic resources to build M/AM reactors.
Hopefully things never get that bad.
Cant design a ship in isolation.
But that said, looking at that proposed weapons loadout(8x phaser banks at 3 cost + 5x standard tubes at 2.25 cost), for 25% more cost I can pull one of those forward tubes and put in an RFL for 60% more forward firepower and increasing the design's dual-target engagement capacity and its combat redundancy.
That seems very much a worthwhile upgrade to me; if its only a 25% increase in weapon suite costs, its going to be less than half that for the cost of the entire ship design.
So you want the workhorse generalist cruiser that we want to build very large numbers of to be: larger, more powerful, fast, and more capable in utility then our explorer?
That's gold plating in my opinion. We need like 40 or more of these things and we not going to get that many by being 25% more expensive in the Excalibur only counting weapons. : p
So you want the workhorse generalist cruiser that we want to build very large numbers of to be: larger, more powerful, fast, and more capable in utility then our explorer?
Personally I think one of the few ways to resolve the situation for that matter is to just make the ship far larger then Excalibur by a very large margin, at that point you can downgrade the shield level by one as that is one of the main cost issues. But due to size scaling the shield in such a case would still be as strong or a bit stronger then an Excalibur, making it good enough. And then you'd have all the space of pretty much free modules to get all the abilities.
Weapon wise you'd then only have to stick to at most only a modest bit more then the Excalibur. In absolute terms you'd probably be a little more expensive then an Excalibur, but in general abilities you could probably double it, maybe even more.
Personally I think one of the few ways to resolve the situation for that matter is to just make the ship far larger then Excalibur by a very large margin, at that point you can downgrade the shield level by one as that is one of the main cost issues. But due to size scaling the shield in such a case would still be as strong or a bit stronger then an Excalibur, making it good enough. And then you'd have all the space of pretty much free modules to get all the abilities.
Weapon wise you'd then only have to stick to at most only a modest bit more then the Excalibur. In absolute terms you'd probably be a little more expensive then an Excalibur, but in general abilities you could probably double it, maybe even more.
Covariant Standard is still a little more expensive then Type 1 Heavy was. Same HP so it's definitely what I'd want to go for, but we can't even save costs by going down one level.
Skipping on HP when it's supposed to be the anchor design seems like a bad idea to me.
So you want the workhorse generalist cruiser that we want to build very large numbers of to be: larger, more powerful, fast, and more capable in utility then our explorer?
That's gold plating in my opinion. We need like 40 or more of these things and we not going to get that many by being 25% more expensive in the Excalibur only counting weapons. : p
We dont have an explorer. The Excalibur is a cruiser. EDIT Heavy cruiser, but still a cruiser. The Kea is larger in mass.
The only explorers in the Federation right now are the 290 kiloton Sagmarthas, which were being retired when the war broke out, and the 7x 500 kiloton Kishara-class of the Vulcan Explorer Corps, which are still in service.
And technology advances with time, as does need and capability.
This new proposed ship will begin design ~20 years after the Excalibur's design process first began in 2225, and only enter service in the mid-2250s.
Yes, its worth remembering that the Excalibur is a 20 year old design, and as of the end of the Four Year War, it has been in service for a decade; the first Callies were commissioned in 2234.
Its now 2244-2245.
Covariant Standard is still a little more expensive then Type 1 Heavy was. Same HP so it's definitely what I'd want to go for, but we can't even save costs by going down one level.
Skipping on HP when it's supposed to be the anchor design seems like a bad idea to me.
Granted getting it cheaper then the Excalibur is unlikely, but do we really need to if it has far more general capability?
Also there the craft would be far larger in my proposal, the Covariant Standard would probably actually grant it more shielding then a Type 1 Heavy does for Excalibur. Especially as the Covariant just gives more shielding at same mass already.
In which case it's now more tanky, but at not much increased cost to do so. And you get all that extra module space to greatly enhanced the overall abilities.
We dont have an explorer. The Excalibur is a cruiser.
The only explorers in the Federation right now are the 290 kiloton Sagmarthas, which were being retired when the war broke out, and the 7x 500 kiloton Kishara-class of the Vulcan Explorer Corps, which are still in service.
And technology advances with time, as does need and capability.
This new proposed ship will begin design ~20 years after the Excalibur's design process first began in 2225, and only enter service in the mid-2250s.
Yes, its worth remembering that the Excalibur is a 20 year old design, and as of the end of the Four Year War, it has been in service for a decade; the first Callies were commissioned in 2234.
Its now 2244-2245.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree and see what the next brief looks like.
The Excalibur would become the most common exploration ship in the Starfleet roster for some time, if not the foremost scientific platform. It provided a vital service in identifying lifebearing stars, cataloguing stellar phenomena, and carrying out First Contact with a number of new civilizations. In the era in which the Federation was constantly discovering novel new demonstrations of heretofore-unknown sciences it was the Excalibur that reported the first sightings.
I think at least some of the issue/exception is that they're not explicitly what we have been/would call an explorer, yes they fulfil the same role to a high degree (and outside of the context of being a war fighting design they probably would have been given the label) but they're not labelled as such.
Thats fair.
But for the record, this is the stated intent of Project Constitution, which became Excalibur:
Enter the Heavy Cruiser Project. This is a cooperative project with San Francisco, with your teams liaising with each other to increase pace and reduce delivery time. Starfleet has issued a challenging brief for Project Constitution, a heavyweight cruiser capable of going toe-to-toe with the threats of the modern era. The Klingon D6 has long been an awkward measuring stick to match ships like the Newton or Kea against, and with signs of increased resource flows to the Klingon interior there are concerns that there has either been a major uptick in production of an already tactically problematic design or even a new and more dangerous vessel.
The metrics are simple: it needs to take a punch and hit back, the cheaper the better. While Starfleet will never say no to engineering and scientific capability, what it really needs is something to dissuade the eruption of open hostility with neighbouring powers. Increased spending needs to be tactically justifiable, and the more ships the fleetyards can pump out of the resulting heavy cruiser design the better. For that reason the expectation is the ship should mass around two hundred thousand tons, which is what your cost and efficiency metrics are assuming.
A 200 kiloton heavy cruiser whose primary role is to break face and damn the science.
While Starfleet rebuilds post-war, its probably the only design that can pinch-hit for the role and reliably be expected to survive; it has far and away the highest range and speed in the fleet in addition to the heaviest punch.
But thats not its job, and its not really designed for it, as evidenced by its Science/Engineering C.
"I'm not sure we can justify such a limited run of refits, given the number of bespoke components needed to completely overhaul the Attenborough's systems. Nobody is manufacturing the landing system anymore, or the atmospheric-rated thrusters."
"The advisory board didn't blink at the cost of the Excalibur-class refits, and those were substantially more expensive."
"The Excalibur represents a key strategic asset for Starfleet, Patricia."
"Sir, with respect, the Attenborough has been running around Federation space for thirty years at a breakneck pace in the service of making sure the places we're sending people are actually safe. That is a vital strategic asset for the entire Federation, not just Starfleet."
The UFS Attenborough launched from drydock in 2244 to much applause and public interest thanks to its novel capabilities, but circumstances conspired such that it did not take up scientific duties for some time. The depletion of Starfleet by the Four Years War instead saw the ship taking up duty as a patrol and anti-piracy vessel in the vicinity of the Orion Stars while the rest of the fleet finished repairs and redeployments after the cessation of hostilities. It proved itself militarily capable in its own right with the destruction of an Orion raider in late 2245, when the Attenborough lured the ship in by concealing its true capabilities with single-torpedo salvoes until the raider approached to close range, accruing in the process the only prestigious honour accrued to the class in its service history - exempting the Ad Astra Memorial Medal issued to the crew of the Humboldt after its disappearance with all hands in 2284.
The Attenborough began its main work at the same time as Starfleet ordered a further five vessels: the Humboldt, Linnaeus, Mendel, Bock, and von Sachs, all built in sequence between 2248 and 2253. The ships were dispatched immediately to begin the investigation of planets that had been marked as promising colony sites, with biological incidents and nuisances having become an unfortunate problem with sometimes fatal results for Federation citizens and settlements.
The Attenborough soon distinguished itself as a very competent survey vessel, identifying ideal colony sites and then landing to assess the immediate area in detail. In addition to compiling an exhaustive catalogue of local flora and conditions, it was also able to rule out prospective settlement areas if the surrounding environment was unfavourable. In this manner the Attenboroughs rejected dozens of prospective colony sites that would have otherwise gone ahead, and completely excluded several M-class planets with otherwise fatal dangers that had been unnoticed by the orbital scans and sample collections.
The ability to land on planets soon exposed its advantages and disadvantages to wider scrutiny. The propulsion systems often struggled against the combination of gravity and aerodynamic forces, forcing the ship to come down in wide spirals that made a precise touchdown challenging for all but the most skilled pilots. While the landing legs certainly helped to distribute the weight of the ship, they were only meant to support the secondary hull rather than take the weight themselves. The resulting jolt occasionally resulted in injuries and required substantial preparation for a landing to secure any loose items.
However the capability proved invaluable to the Attenborough's missions. Once planetside the ships would often spend months on-station, creating small settlements in their own right as the scientific personnel conducted sample collection and analysis before approving transport onto the ship proper. Despite the dangers represented by the landing system and its use, the Attenborough suffered no critical accidents or fatalities as a result. The advantages proved so useful to planetary surveys that a four-ship run of the Atwater-class was spun off the Attenborough spaceframe, specialising in geophysics rather than plant biology.
While consisting of a small stable of vessels, the ship was nonetheless refit as part of the New Fleet Program in 2275, replacing the hull plating, nacelles, and phaser banks. The scientific facilities were likewise modernised, guaranteeing them another half-century of use. However by 2320 wear-and-tear concerns were beginning to spell the end of its expeditionary work and for its final decades it was restricted to orbital work only.
In 2332 the ships were slated for decommissioning over the next decade. Attenborough went first to the scrapyard, followed by Mendel. The Bock and Linnaeus were retained as training and target vessels until 2360 before being likewise broken up for raw materials. Being in the best condition, the von Sachs was saved as a non-interactive historical exhibit until it was donated to a Risian resort in 2374 and the interior stripped and modified into, appropriately, a starship-sized arboretum.
The fate of the Humboldt remained a mystery until 2392, when the UFS Vesta discovered a colony of over five hundred built around the crash site of an Attenborough-class cruiser. Closer investigation determined the Humboldt had made a controlled landing on the planet and was still partially functional, providing both power and shelter to a wider colony populated by descendents of the missing crew. The ship had encountered a major gravitational anomaly which displaced the ship over twenty thousand light years in a matter of minutes and caused serious damage. With no hope of rescue or an understanding of the phenomenon that had caused their displacement, the crew used their limited warp power remaining to identify a habitable planet and land there.
With few sensor recordings of the incident surviving, the cause of the initial displacement may never be known. Humboldt's Planet for a time became the most distant Federation planet on record, and the ship itself has remained in place and been re-registered as in active service.
... I think that's one of the highest rated ships we've ever made, very nice. Any ship successful enough to warrant an entire spin-off class is invaluable, and a nearly 100 year service life on a science vessel is insane. Only the Archer can boast something better, and that was one of the most damned useful ships we've ever built.
I do wonder if this will cause Starfleet to run one class of landable ships in the future since it seems that they found enough use to launch a spin off class with a different scientific focus and that it seemed to do its work rather well, plus there are lessons to be learned to make future landable ships better.
