Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Bout the same here. I'd settle for Medium-High, but prefer High. I doubt we need Very High but if the thrust/mass works out that way* then...sure I guess? Can't hurt. Medium would be quite disappointing and Medium-Low or Low would be totally unacceptable, imo.

I do hope we can pick nacelle configuration before sublight, though, since that could impact mass and therefore thrust/mass.

*such as if X drives only gets us Medium but X+1 is enough to push all the way to Very High.
 
I'm waiting to see what engines we can get and what we'll get for the price. Higher is better, and I'm absolutely willing to spend what I have to for this ship to do it right, but...
 
Ebiris said:
Yeah, I'd be fine with high or medium really. See what two engines gets us? The Kea with two type 2 engines without the impulse shunt was low, two type 3s with the shunt should get us something decent but we don't really need to prioritise it for the ship's role.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not entirely sure where the breakpoints would be, but if one of the far back posts on this is right, then for a completely average performance in maneuverability for 2 impulse, you'd need to be at 380.000 tons. And you'd be at about maximum possible agility at very high with the Excalibur, with 180.000 tons.

So assuming those assumptions are correct we can try to make some guesses for this upcoming ship which one would estimates to be around 260.000-300.000 tons. Now I'm not entirely sure how many ratings that are between very high and average, but if it were, average - above average - high - very high; then one could make a guess on what the rough tonnage levels should be for a single engine, so I made such a listing below.


90.000-104.999 tons - Very High
105.000-134.999 tons - High
140.000-164.999 tons - Above Average
165.000-194.999 tons - Average
195.000 tons and above - Poor or worse

If there is one tier less inbetween then the exact numbers would shift of course.

But based on the above estimates a 260.000 ton ship with two impulse would be 'High' and a 300.000 ton ship with two engines 'Above Average'.



PS, The relative small range of Very High is based on our 105.000 ton ship being rated 'High' and not 'Very High'. Alternately maybe one could argue that some more maneuverability isn't in use there then if one thinks it should cover a larger range. I can't really know for sure, as it's not like I have that much to go on with just a few numbers to estimate a range from.
 
Klingon Chancellor: "What are your chances?"
Federation Class Captain: "Fair."
Klingon Punk Captain: "What are your chances of getting out of here with that ship?"
Instantly does a flip, somehow, winding up behind them with torpedoes locked
Federation Class Captain: "Better than average."
 
stakenbake said:
I know we're gonna want maximum weapons, but what about our Thrust options? Maximum Thrust/Maneuverabilty as well? A high Medium or (pardon my oxymoron) a low High?

Considering it's intended role to hold the center of a battleline, a Very High might not be necessary. How much does our much larger mass change our thruster requirements anyway? I doubt going for a single type-3 mainline thruster would give as much thrust as it gave the Attenborough, though idk what the Newton it's replacing had for maneuvering in the first place.

I'm thinking for torpedoes, maybe we can swing three rapid torpedo launchers in the front, and two rapids in the back? Just say "fuck klingon d7 wolfpacks, all my homies hate d7s" with a healthy torpedo spam? Just saying, if our aft weaponry is powerful enough, we don't need excessive maneuverabilty.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My opinion:
We are in a post-Excalibur world, and future warships will use it as a benchmark for capability
We want Medium-High Maneuverabiity as the minimum, and preferably High.
Extra High would be nice to have, but not mandatory

Torpedoes are about salvo density and multi-target engagement;We want to be able to engage two targets at the same time

The Exca had a five torpedo salvo from 1x RF + 2x standard tubes
I assume the refit will either upgrade both standard tubes to RFLs, or it will convert 1 standard tube to an RFL and remove the other for module space.

For the Federation? Given as internal module space is important?
We can save space on the design by going to 2x RFLs forward for a six torpedo salvo, which has a price of 24 Cost before 2260, and drops to 18 Cost after it

Id advocate 1x tube aft
But whether its an RFL or a standard depends on how many nacelles we want, the ship's final weight and how that impacts its maneuverabiity

If we go with 2 nacelles at 20ktons each, weight is 260kt; if we go with 4x nacelles, 300kt

With 1x RFL at 12 Cost, 1x standard tube at 2.25 Cost, and an impulse drive at 5 Cost?
Its probably more cost-effective to go with a standard tube + an extra impulse drive for improved maneuverability[on a 300kt ship], than to go with an RFL and reduced maneuvrability

Why? Because improved maneuverabiity = improved ability to bring the forward tubes to bear
 
Last edited:
uju32 said:
With 1x RFL at 12 Cost, 1x standard tube at 2.25 Cost, and an impulse drive at 5 Cost?
Its probably more cost-effective to go with a standard tube + an extra impulse drive for improved maneuverability[on a 300kt ship], than to go with an RFL and reduced maneuvrability
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Two things to keep in mind here:

One, RFLs will become cheaper when their technology Matures.
Two, chances are good this ship will receive a TMP-era refit, and could find its torpedo tubes getting upgunned at that time like we anticipate happening for the Excaliburs (And the Excali-basuras that exist in our hearts!)
 
stakenbake said:
'm thinking for torpedoes, maybe we can swing three rapid torpedo launchers in the front, and two rapids in the back?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My thoughts as well.

uju32 said:
For the Federation? Given as internal module space is important?
We can save space on the design by going to 2x RFLs forward for a six torpedo salvo, which has a price of 24 Cost before 2260, and drops to 18 Cost after it
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that's undergunning it a bit. Yes, it would outgun the Excalibur with 3 forward RFLs, but i think this ship is going to outlast the Excaliburs.

We're building this thing in a way that means it's going to be useful for a looong time; I don't think it'll be obsolete until our next (warp 9?) set of cores/nacelles come out. (Or when the frame starts falling apart, maybe.)

IF that prediction holds, we ought to build this ship so that it is able to wallop future ships two (or more?) generations more advanced than itself.

We could plan/hope for an eventual upgrade, but as short as we are on hulls right now, I think making them extra-imposing right now is beneficial in its own right.
 
I don't think the Excalibur refit is going to swap out the regular torpedo launchers for Rapid Fires.

The Excalibur retrospective mentions that the existing launchers were expanded to handle the new Type-4 warheads due to the fact that they are heavier.
Sayle said:
Regardless of losses the Excalibur entered its fourth decade with enough hulls to justify a refit which replaced or improved the shields, onboard laboratories, warp coils, phasers, and built out the torpedo systems for heavier Type-4 warheads. The improvement in capabilities and performance kept the ships in service for another three decades before larger vessels and improvements in basic technology made keeping the Excalibur active an increasingly costly proposition in personnel and upkeep.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That suggests that the launcher type wasn't changed at all, just the warhead they used.

The increase in size to the launchers in order to handle the new warheads likely precludes any possibility of swapping the standard launchers for Rapid Fires since it would probably eat into the space used for the non-combat facilities.

My guess is that post refit the Excalibur's torpedo throw count remains at 5 but each warhead is more powerful due to the new warheads which means that if we cram 2 Rapid Fires onto the Federation class it'll still pump out more torpedoes.
 
Quickshot0 said:
Isn't two phasers and two RFL in the front arc enough already? I thought people wanted to put some more phasers in other directions to give it a better overall coverage instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
porque-no-los-dos.jpg

We also want good phaser coverage.

The spec we were given was for a "line cruiser", which, as I understand it, means: several ships fly relatively-slowly in formation, providing continuous coordinated coverage of their area of space. This allows more nimble (or fragile) combatants to fly into/through the line for protection. This lets ships either take a break to boost shields, and/or scrape off any pursuing hostiles.

The idea is that any small&nimble enemies get fried by the all-round phaser coverage, and larger enemies are subjected to concentrated torpedo fire.


Personally, I also want to up our firepower to try to get the maneuverability-enthusiasts to be more willing to settle for medium/med-high maneuverability. If we only have firepower in one direction, they're liable to try for four impulse engines or something.
 
Yeah a problem Sayle pointed out with our phaser setup is there aren't enough emitters to reliably hit enemy ships, even with ours being very agile. We keep getting outmaneuvered by numbers of enemy craft. We really do need more emitters.

Also 3 fore and 2 aft RFL photorps does seem extremely excessive. The Excalibur can almost pop the shields of a D7 with one volley, this thing has, what, ~3x the Excalibur's shield strength? Besides, I don't even think we'll get the option for that many launchers, nevermind the cost.

I could get behind 2 fore RFLs and 1 aft. That added to our vastly superior shields and stronger phasers would make this ship quite a feisty little number.

I do reckon we should aim for really high agility though, people keep saying line cruiser, I'm sure I remember Sayle saying that future warfare starts to turn to lone or small groups of cruisers in deep space more than fleet actions with smaller vessels. This ship needs every advantage it can get to guarantee a curbstomp if it's caught alone.


Also, by the way, Merry Christmas! Hope everyone has a nice holiday period, best wishes for the New Year! :)
 
Last edited:
Adhoc vote count started by RedWake on Dec 24, 2024 at 5:02 PM, finished with 424 posts and 122 votes.
Click to expand...
 
KlavoHunter said:
Two things to keep in mind here:

One, RFLs will become cheaper when their technology Matures.
Two, chances are good this ship will receive a TMP-era refit, and could find its torpedo tubes getting upgunned at that time like we anticipate happening for the Excaliburs (And the Excali-basuras that exist in our hearts!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
RFLs drop to 9 Cost in 2060, around when the second tranche of this ship should be entering production if its considered a successful design
That drops 2x RFLs from 24 to 18, and 3x RFLs from 36 to 27

TeaMug said:
My thoughts as well.


I think that's undergunning it a bit. Yes, it would outgun the Excalibur with 3 forward RFLs, but i think this ship is going to outlast the Excaliburs.

We're building this thing in a way that means it's going to be useful for a looong time; I don't think it'll be obsolete until our next (warp 9?) set of cores/nacelles come out. (Or when the frame starts falling apart, maybe.)

IF that prediction holds, we ought to build this ship so that it is able to wallop future ships two (or more?) generations more advanced than itself.

We could plan/hope for an eventual upgrade, but as short as we are on hulls right now, I think making them extra-imposing right now is beneficial in its own right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As I understand the current math?

At the moment, our ships have the fire control to manage two engagements simultaneously as far as I can recall, and a single 3-round torpedo burst from an RFL is around 54 damage
A third forward launcher seems like it would be superfluous at our current capacity

If you want to reserve space for a future upgrade, just add a standard tube instead, which is only 2.25 Cost instead of 12 Cost, That would give you 2x RFLs + 1 standard at the cost of 26.25 Cost for a 7-torpedo salvo

And it saves almost 10 Cost to spend the money right now on impulse drives or more phasers
Both of which also impact tactical scores
LOLROFL said:
I don't think the Excalibur refit is going to swap out the regular torpedo launchers for Rapid Fires.

The Excalibur retrospective mentions that the existing launchers were expanded to handle the new Type-4 warheads due to the fact that they are heavier.
That suggests that the launcher type wasn't changed at all, just the warhead they used.

The increase in size to the launchers in order to handle the new warheads likely precludes any possibility of swapping the standard launchers for Rapid Fires since it would probably eat into the space used for the non-combat facilities.

My guess is that post refit the Excalibur's torpedo throw count remains at 5 but each warhead is more powerful due to the new warheads which means that if we cram 2 Rapid Fires onto the Federation class it'll still pump out more torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That phrasing is entirely compatible with a launcher replacement
Given as torpedos are only loaded at the launcher, if you are going from 1 to 3 torpedoes per burst, you need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle three times the antimatter to load those torpedos

Same with if you are using a new torpedo design with a heavier warhead, because if you want more boom in a photon torpedo, you need more antimatter
 
Given the role of this ship, I don't think it's necessary for it to have more firepower than an Excalibur. Or even the same amount of firepower.

It's going to have significantly more shields (even after any hypothetical Excalibur shield refit) and somewhat more powerful phasers; I'm pretty sure it'd be able to fulfill its role effectively with one forward RFL.
 
I'd be remiss if we left this ship, which is likely to face ambushes whilst alone by enemy task forces, go with less forward firepower than the Excalibur class. Besides, depending on how they're mounted now the eventual refit of the class might give it 3-4x launchers if we go for 2x here.
 
Candesce said:
Given the role of this ship, I don't think it's necessary for it to have more firepower than an Excalibur. Or even the same amount of firepower.

It's going to have significantly more shields (even after any hypothetical Excalibur shield refit) and somewhat more powerful phasers; I'm pretty sure it'd be able to fulfill its role effectively with one forward RFL.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Disagree

I might be of the opinion that 3x RFLs is probably too much(2x is fine, or 2x RFLs + 1x standard ), but I do think that dropping below the Callie on a tactical cruiser thats anywhere from 40 to 70 percent heavier than the aforementioned heavy cruiser is foolhardy in our threat environment

We already made that mistake with underarming the pre-refit Kea by omitting torpedoes

Excalibur and the war it helped win have had profound effects on Starfleet, and arguably Alpha Quadrant strategic thinking
The comparison that comes to mind is HMS Dreadnought making all pre-dreadnought battleships obsolete. Any new peerstate cruiser designs or refits will have the Excalibur as a pacing threat, and will be aiming to defend against its armament

In the light of those implications, armament loadouts significanty inferior to the Callie on a heavy cruiser is just asking for it

I mean, the Darwin came with 1x RFL + 2 standard launchers on its 105 kiloton mass
Im betting the Miranda will come out with around four tubes, one of them an RFL
The Federation is going to need to match the current Callie loadout at least.
 
Last edited:
Candesce said:
Given the role of this ship, I don't think it's necessary for it to have more firepower than an Excalibur. Or even the same amount of firepower.

It's going to have significantly more shields (even after any hypothetical Excalibur shield refit) and somewhat more powerful phasers; I'm pretty sure it'd be able to fulfill its role effectively with one forward RFL.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree... Against lone D7s that'd be fine, but I'm concerned about the possibility of being overwhelmed by superior numbers if this isn't so fearsome that the cost required is too excessive for any single House to green-light. Also, the Klingons are not stupid, they'll be studying their encounters with our Excalibur-class ships, and they'll know they need to start building bigger and tougher. It's entirely plausible that they make something drastically larger with more shields that can soak up a couple of volleys of 5 torpedoes before its bubble goes pop, and remember their shields and especially weapons are, I believe Sayle said, "nakedly superior to yours" or words to that effect. Their tech' is better, but due to internal politics etc they tend to build very small, so our ships tend to win in 1v1. It would be dangerous to simply assume their doctrine isn't going to change in response to us.

Assuming a full spread of phaser banks, and just 1 forward photorp RFL that's a wee bit undergunned to deal with a hypothetical Klingon heavy cruiser*, especially with D7 escorts. Even just 1 aft single photorp launcher on top is a bit light. I could get behind 1 fore RFL if it had a single rear RFL too and maxed out agility, that would mean it could spread firepower over more targets more reliably both for single and fleet action, give it some chase protection and let it bloody anything that gets too interested in its butt cleavage.

Edit: I still think at least the ability to put 5 warheads into its foreward arc is more sensible, especially as someone else commented that hostile nations will be using the Excalibur as a baseline for what their new designs need to be able to deal with.

*-I qualify my reasoning, I'm assuming a worst-case scenario where this hypothetical Klingon cruiser is drastically bigger than the D7, I'm assuming it has weapons and shields equal or half a gen better than what we've seen and its captain has either served in or studied the war we just came out of. I'd remind everyone, we assumed the Excalibur was vastly better than what we needed and it'd body the Empire and scare them off, instead we stalemated them. Just. This doesn't diminish our or the Federation's achievements and the Excalibur truly is the wondrous murder-ship we needed, but it does show that any complacency regarding the Klingons' technical and combat prowess can easily be disastrous. They are smart, powerful and have better technology than us, they're watching us, and they're thinking about us and our last confrontation.

And that isn't accounting for the Gorn or Tholians, who are also most likely observing us, nor the Romulans, who have been getting the Klingons to weaken us while studying us intently and seeing how we react. No doubt their analysts are also compiling a list of weaknesses and vectors for attack.
 
Last edited:
I personally favor maxing out on both weapons and maneuverability, and making it the best tactical vessel for its size that we can do.
 
Maxing weapons and speed, as much as is practical, also serves another purpose. The generation of ships after this one are going to start with a much higher floor for armament and speed, both at home and abroad, so it's a bit of future proofing.
 
@Tank man raises a good point to keep in mind
The surviving 180kt Excaliburs are all decommissioned in 2290, two years before the 255kt Keas all go to the scrapyards in 2292
Thats a service life of around 55 yrs for the Caies, and 82 yrs for the Keas

The Feddies, if successful will outlive the Excalibur design by decades
Some future proofing might be in order
 
You have to be built to have a future. Refits can always up arm it if it needs it, like going from 4 forward tubes to two RFLs.

Personally, I'm expecting a lot of complaints about why we have so few ships in the next war again. This thing is on track to be 33% more expensive than the Excalibur before any nacelle shenanigans. :V
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top