I'd respectfully point out you may have overlooked module cost/size. Remember that this thing's probably gonna have to solo plenty of threats, and might be alone for a long period of time. So if it has to fight, it has to be able to reliably absolutely curbstomp its prey. I say again, we thought the Excalibur was excessive. The only thing we could've done to make it stronger would be to give it semi-experimental covariant shielding at massive cost. And even as potent as it was, the Excalibur didn't win us the war, it just prevented our civilization being conquered.
It also needs to min-max its modules as well as firepower, and Starfleet's gonna get annoyed if we increase mass purely for more shootiness. If we're gonna lose a module to torpedoes, it's probably a very good idea to get every last warhead we possibly can. That means a glut of triple-shot launchers wherever practicable.
This thing's gonna be expensive. I'm gonna vote and argue hard for quad-nacelles or any other warp-boosting too, since it absolutely needs the highest possible speeds to justify its cost (drastically increases its usefulness in and out of combat).
I usually shill efficient cruise, but... If we give it extended fuel tanks, and quad nacelles biased for sprint, that might buff it's max cruise and drastically help when, not if, we need to use it in fleet actions.
My preferred configuration is for seven torpedoes forward, which is forty percent heavier than the Excalibur's current forward armament, and still giving Starfleet the option to upgun it to nine torpedoes forward in the future
And thats not counting the phasers
Im certainly not arguing to underarm it
Im just not convinced of the marginal utility of two rapid launchers in the aft on this design at the current time and pricing, but would like to preserve the option for future upgrades as the meta evolves
Modules? Attenborough had two or three modules on a hundred and five kiloton hull
Excalibur had six or seven modules on a hundred and eighty kiloton hull. Archer had five on a one hundred and fifty kiloton hull
Kea has seven or eight on a two hundred and fifty five kiloton hull
This design is massing between two hundred and sixty kilotons and three hundred kilotons; lm assuming we get at least seven, with the potential that some optional modules on smaller ships are standard on this one
Id probably vote for quad nacelles as well; probably, as long as it didnt balloon the costs ridiculously
And Ive always been a fan of extra antimatter tanks, though I wont be surprised if those are just standard on this ship design
Starfleet's current thinking certainly favors it, and the more range the greater its lifespan as the Federation expands
Honestly I'm not sure it's worth using single launchers at this point, they take up too much space for pretty marginal benefit. Personally I'd like to see the Federation go with 2 rapid forward and 1 rapid rear, that gives it a torpedo punch superior to the Excalibur commensurate with its higher weight class, without making torpedoes into its primary armament.
First Time posting on this thread.
All of cool designs got me thinking about making one of my own version of a Warp 8 Drive Archer-Class.
I came up with this.
The Cyan Sphere is the Engineering Hull.
With the White Cylinders behind it serving as either Cargo Pods and/or Crew Quarters.
And the Lime/Yellow Cylinders are the Warp Nacelles.
The Lime Area covers all the components that require a direct line of sight.
With the Yellow Section functioning as a combination Strut/Bussard Collector Storage Area.
It would likely also have an inline Deflector but I don't currently have a model for one.
Mass: Unknown
Height/Beam: 120 Meters
Length: <340 Meters? -Edit- I basically see it being the diameter of the Sphere + however long the Nacelle ends up being.
Honestly I'm not sure it's worth using single launchers at this point, they take up too much space for pretty marginal benefit. Personally I'd like to see the Federation go with 2 rapid forward and 1 rapid rear, that gives it a torpedo punch superior to the Excalibur commensurate with its higher weight class, without making torpedoes into its primary armament.
Cost is about the only factor, but even then in real terms we're only paying 1 cost more compared to a standard launcher (before tech maturation is considered) per torpedo launched. Once the tech matures it'll be down to 9, or 3 cost per torpedo launched.
To equal a theoretical 2xRFL-f and 1xRFL-a ship (36 cost before maturation, 27 after) you'd need standard 9 launchers, which comes out to 20.25 cost (56.26% of the cost of the RFL, or 75% of the cost of the RFL after maturation).
However pure cost ignores other factors associated with having that many regular launchers, the sheer amount of space it'll take up module wise (which is a particularly important factor here, given we're kinda favouring high volume modules like cargo spaces and in general it'd likely eat into small module spaces - like dilithium prospecting, to give an example) and the fact that trying to stuff that many launchers into a forward arc will likely prove incredibly difficult and otherwise impact the design.
First Time posting on this thread.
All of cool designs got me thinking about making one of my own version of a Warp 8 Drive Archer-Class.
I came up with this.
The Cyan Sphere is the Engineering Hull.
With the White Cylinders behind it serving as either Cargo Pods and/or Crew Quarters.
And the Lime/Yellow Cylinders are the Warp Nacelles.
The Lime Area covers all the components that require a direct line of sight.
With the Yellow Section functioning as a combination Strut/Bussard Collector Storage Area.
It would likely also have an inline Deflector but I don't currently have a model for one.
Mass: Unknown
Height/Beam: 120 Meters
Length: <340 Meters? -Edit- I basically see it being the diameter of the Sphere + however long the Nacelle ends up being.
I've got some ideas and feedback here, sorry guys but I'm back with another wall of text.
Starfleet usually put the nacelles away from the habitable areas because they emit dangerous radiation. Still, something similar to your proposal is possible... If the nacelles were put back and to the side a wee bit more so the saucer, erm... Orb volume wasn't suffering so much from radiation.
Edit: Added sub-headings to organize ideas
Archer v2:
So I'm rereading the Archer-class threadmarks. Looks like we got a choice for a secondary hull deflector that would've also meant increasing the ship's mass and thus cost. There are ways to mitigate the cost, like light shielding, but I digress... We could make that work and increase internal volume even higher by using 1 of those white cylinders as an engineering area, raising or lowering it a bit so the deflector can peek out, widening it. It could easily contain a large amount of shuttlecraft and workbees, and tons of machine/repair shops, could be a +8 - +12 engineering module right there before we even get to the orb. Then the other white cylinder could be a detachable cargo pod.
Of course both cones could be used for detachable cargo pods with an inline deflector and the warp core entirely within the sphere, so long as there's a reasonably wide space between the cargo pods for the nacelles to see each other. That'd double the carrying capacity of the Archer v1, extremely valuable if we consider this hypothetical Archer v2 would have a warp 8 drive and possible be late enough to have v4 nacelles with higher cruise speeds.
Archer large cargo:
Another alternative branching off from that idea, is to have 1 white cylinder being an engineering hull as before, the other being a large cargo pod, which my math shows as ~120 kilotons of cargo as opposed to 30 kilotons. That'd drop its speeds by a whole warp factor, but that's large enough that Starfleet could use such a ship in its core and middle territories to transport virtually all the required materials to build an entire starship, outpost etc with a single transport. Assuming it's only transporting stuff like phaser emitters, warp coils or other highly technical, critical supplies that benefit could be staggering. With its speeds still being substantially better than civilian transports and a smidge higher than the Archer v1, the benefit of that speed and capacity is amplified further, since that's potentially doing something like transporting the warp coils for 2 entire sets of nacelles (not counting any interior cargo spaces, could easily be a half-dozen phaser emitters and a couple torpedo launchers etc stored internally) and them arriving in 2 months instead of 6, drastically increasing our military industrial efficiency.
Edit 2: (The Archer-class has an efficient cruise of warp 5.2 and maximum cruise of warp 6.2. If we take the canon Constitution-class as a conservative estimate of a warp 8 drive as opposed to ours, that yields efficient/max cruiser/sprint of warp 6.6/7/7.8. If we assume we take a -1 to all warp factors due to the large container, then we're looking at warp 5.6/6/6.8. Too slow to be tactically useful for retreat/evasion, but still faster than the original Archer-class in efficient cruise and slightly slower at max cruise.
I believe our warp drive/nacelles are optimized for higher speed for greater cost, so our hypothetical "Archer large cargo" probably is +0.2 warp factors higher overall, making it just as fast when time is critical on deliveries, and +0.6 factors faster when it's cruising in economy mode, meaning further advantages in operational range and day-to-day efficiency. Corrections from others gratefully appreciated, I don't have time to deep dive any more into this Quest's mechanics right now.
Remember it's transporting more than 3x the cargo, and would benefit from enhanced tactical systems (covariant or type 2 shields, possibly v4 thrusters and possible improvements in near-future armaments) making it less helpless, and a greater willingness for Starfleet to actually deploy them, and if it's that useful can be retrofitted with the warp 9 drive and v4 nacelles, vastly increasing its lifespan and utility and saving us critical $$$ and time.)
Archer Q-ship:
If we go with a couple fore and aft photorps, light covariant shields (remember the amount of shielding scales with size, if it's a chunky ship that's actually quite a lot of shielding) and maybe give it a couple thrusters (or v4 thrusters, we actually debuted the experimental v3 thrusters on the Archer and they paid off and then some) and some better phaser spreads, that means it'd be non-trivial for an enemy to disrupt our supply lines. It starts getting to the point that a few Archer v2s traveling in convoy could take on cruisers without any escorts, and such a ship sitting over one of our colonies etc could actually be a deterrent against light threats like raiders or at least single current-gen BoPs, without requiring dedicated and extremely expensive escort ships.
Edit 3: Of course, we could accept that even an orb-ship must be able to fight and give it fore and aft RFLs. Combined with the latest shielding and other battle technologies, it might be enough to keep casual raiders and pirates away from core facilities where these will be deployed in larger numbers, thus decreasing the number of ships needed to provide internal patrols, and perhaps also providing a final reserve of martial strength in dire situations.
Science Orb:
Either way we'd still have the space inside the orb for a huge cargo area and/or massive machine shops, enlarged crew quarters. Other possibilities were brought up when we were designing the Archer, including geology and geophysics labs, general science labs, a triage deck etc. I'm opposed to those options, but they're there, and I could easily be wrong about their utility and they could be a great boon.
Another alternative occurs; instead of a transport ship, a mass-science ship. We could find out whether or not it's possible for Commotion$ocks' idea for habitation areas to actually happen (radiation concerns may be moot by distance from nacelles) and thus vastly increase the module space within the orb. Or, if not possible, use those spaces for engineering hull and extra utility/science modules. Then we could have a general science ship with a vast number of labs to service our colonies, including geophysics, pharmacology, general science and
Colonial Support Orb:
possibly the long-desired triage deck, and still have enough space for a large extra module, like huge cargo bays or machine shops to provide supplemental colony or emergency ship assistance. It could service all of our mid and outer-rim colony's scientific needs, providing plague relief, keeping our vaccinations up-to-date against any emerging bio-threats and emergency support while also providing a helping hand upgrading or setting up facilities on fledgling colonies.
Could also use a module to add extra range so it can putter around our colonies for months or years between refueling cycles.
Sorry for wall of text, hope some smarter and wiser brains get some inspiration, or at the very least someone gets some enjoyment.
Thanks again for the time you spent on those images, really got my brain spinning and spitting out ideas!
Honestly I'm not sure it's worth using single launchers at this point, they take up too much space for pretty marginal benefit. Personally I'd like to see the Federation go with 2 rapid forward and 1 rapid rear, that gives it a torpedo punch superior to the Excalibur commensurate with its higher weight class, without making torpedoes into its primary armament.
Cost is about the only factor, but even then in real terms we're only paying 1 cost more compared to a standard launcher (before tech maturation is considered) per torpedo launched. Once the tech matures it'll be down to 9, or 3 cost per torpedo launched.
To equal a theoretical 2xRFL-f and 1xRFL-a ship (36 cost before maturation, 27 after) you'd need standard 9 launchers, which comes out to 20.25 cost (56.26% of the cost of the RFL, or 75% of the cost of the RFL after maturation).
However pure cost ignores other factors associated with having that many regular launchers, the sheer amount of space it'll take up module wise (which is a particularly important factor here, given we're kinda favouring high volume modules like cargo spaces and in general it'd likely eat into small module spaces - like dilithium prospecting, to give an example) and the fact that trying to stuff that many launchers into a forward arc will likely prove incredibly difficult and otherwise impact the design.
There's a practice in the real life military by the name of "fitted for but not with"
Its a practice where you plan ahead and reserve mass-volume-power-cooling budget for weapons and capabiities that you dont need or cant afford yet, but might have a need for or can afford in the future
For exampe, the new Ford nuke carriers are designed with the power capacity and space to support high-power systems such as directed energy weapons and railguns which dont exist yet, but might exist in a decade or two
Which is in part, why Im of the opinion that we do have a need for five torpedo launcher slots, even if some of them are using standard launchers instead of rapid launchers. Its going to be faster and cheaper to replace an existing launcher with an upgraded example, than to, for example, having to remove an entire lab as we saw with the Kea's mini-refit
Given as both the Federation and technology are both growing, ensuring your ship has room to grow in capabilities enhances its longevity in service
There's a practice in the real life military by the name of "fitted for but not with"
Its a practice where you plan ahead and reserve mass-volume-power-cooling budget for weapons and capabiities that you dont need or cant afford yet, but might have a need for or can afford in the future
For exampe, the new Ford nuke carriers are designed with the power capacity and space to support high-power systems such as directed energy weapons and railguns which dont exist yet, but might exist in a decade or two
Which is in part, why Im of the opinion that we do have a need for five torpedo launcher slots, even if some of them are using standard launchers instead of rapid launchers. Its going to be faster and cheaper to replace an existing launcher with an upgraded example, than to, for example, having to remove an entire lab as we saw with the Kea's mini-refit
Given as both the Federation and technology are both growing, ensuring your ship has room to grow in capabilities enhances its longevity in service
I'm very wary of building our ships with specific refits in mind. Especially when the refits are decades out, there are lots of question marks around when refits will happen, what tech will look like when they do, and what Starfleet's priorities will be.
For example, evaluate the cost vs. benefit of putting in a fore torpedo tube. The cost is clear: you spend space and resources for a torpedo tube that doesn't put out a lot of firepower. The reward is that if Starfleet decides to add in another fore RFL, that'll probably be easier. The catch is there's an if then a probably before we get to the reward, and we don't know how big the reward is.
There's no guarantee we get anything more in the refit, admittedly. Best to push for the maximum we're capable of in all categories, so the classic Starfleet squadron for the next century+ would be a gang of Mirandas following a Federation-class flagship...
There's a practice in the real life military by the name of "fitted for but not with"
Its a practice where you plan ahead and reserve mass-volume-power-cooling budget for weapons and capabiities that you dont need or cant afford yet, but might have a need for or can afford in the future
For exampe, the new Ford nuke carriers are designed with the power capacity and space to support high-power systems such as directed energy weapons and railguns which dont exist yet, but might exist in a decade or two
Which is in part, why Im of the opinion that we do have a need for five torpedo launcher slots, even if some of them are using standard launchers instead of rapid launchers. Its going to be faster and cheaper to replace an existing launcher with an upgraded example, than to, for example, having to remove an entire lab as we saw with the Kea's mini-refit
Given as both the Federation and technology are both growing, ensuring your ship has room to grow in capabilities enhances its longevity in service
I seem to recall that "for but not with" mostly showed up to allow British warships to dodge treaty limitations: the ships as they were were within the limits... But the extra/better stuff was sitting in warehouses very close to the relevant docks for shoving all that stuff into the ship in a matter of days, maybe weeks, giving them totally Not treaty compliant ships far faster than new ones could be built whenever they decided that it was a good idea to do so.
My understanding is that this has remaind pretty consistent, it's about cheating to build what you already could have, and actually want, anyway when the rules you're currently operating under don't permit you to have it.
Futureproofing is a whole other thing: allocating more space for torpedo launchers than the current ones actually take up because you expect that there'll be a need to replace them down the line and the new ones might be bigger, for example, or making sure your ship's power supply is sufficient not just fr it's current load out but whatever upgrades it might get later so it will last longer before needing to be replaced. Mostly stuff that's below the level of granularity we're generally dealing with in this quest.
I usually shill efficient cruise, but... If we give it extended fuel tanks, and quad nacelles biased for sprint, that might buff it's max cruise and drastically help when, not if, we need to use it in fleet actions.
mmmmmm not quite sure about that, really. Like, sure, boosting sprint usually increased max cruise, yeah, but max cruise is still generally capped at Warp 7, right? Because the nacelles keep overheating when sustaining anything above that. Now I think nacelle-cycling with quad nacelles should let us break that cap, because one pair can cool down while the other one is in use. But that doesn't straight-up disregard the problem; it just pushes it back until the speed at which the pair in use heats up faster than the resting pair cools down, and that's our new effective cap.
And I think the less power we need to hit a given Warp on our chosen warp field geometry- the higher our efficient cruise is, basically- the slower said nacelles will be heating up. So it pushes the effective limit on max cruise (even with cycling) a bit higher.
I expect (based on absolutely nothing besides vibes) a sprint-tuned nacelle-cycling quad to have ballpark 7.3 max cruise, 8.6 sprint, and a cruise-tuned quad to have ballpark 7.6 max cruise, 8.2 sprint.
mmmmmm not quite sure about that, really. Like, sure, boosting sprint usually increased max cruise, yeah, but max cruise is still generally capped at Warp 7, right? Because the nacelles keep overheating when sustaining anything above that. Now I think nacelle-cycling with quad nacelles should let us break that cap, because one pair can cool down while the other one is in use. But that doesn't straight-up disregard the problem; it just pushes it back until the speed at which the pair in use heats up faster than the resting pair cools down, and that's our new effective cap.
And I think the less power we need to hit a given Warp on our chosen warp field geometry- the higher our efficient cruise is, basically- the slower said nacelles will be heating up. So it pushes the effective limit on max cruise (even with cycling) a bit higher.
I expect (based on absolutely nothing besides vibes) a sprint-tuned nacelle-cycling quad to have ballpark 7.3 max cruise, 8.6 sprint, and a cruise-tuned quad to have ballpark 7.6 max cruise, 8.2 sprint.
It's a distinct possibility, and your reasoning is sound.
In any case, I really think we should go quad, both for combat/strategic uses, and to make this ship able to get to its destination and thus make use of its enormous expense as fast as is feasible. I agree that some caution would be wise, and we should study the options carefully, but if we're going for highly expensive options then we potentially get positive synergies; a super-fast ship with very strong shields, fearsome armament and decent module spread is far more powerful and valuable than if you eliminate one of those factors.
I'm also thinking refits, a warp 9 drive with quad v4 nacelles would be extremely fast indeed, and Sayle's said lack of warp 8 ships generally hurt us a great deal as we couldn't get our fleets into position fast enough. Our warp 8 fleet has the potential to be around and in use for a very, very long time indeed, giving us that reserve of combat-capable ships that polities like the Klingon Empire have and we lack.
It's not. They removed already installed stuff to make room for new weapons, there wasn't some extra room we left empty just lying around. We don't get to leave a module slot empty "just in case."
Is there even really a point not filling all the module slots? Those are effectively free cost wise after all, so you just get extra functionality for no real cost. And you can remove them if need be later if more weapons are needed. So it seems like a fairly logical way to fill any space not currently needed for other equipment.
The Kea gaining torpedoes is evidence that if under armed Starfleet will rip out modules to fit weapons in, since it replaced the (iirc) probe launcher in the neck.
The TMP era refits are basically complete rebuilds, hence the popularisation of the term Constitution II rather than refit nowadays. The ships gain considerable volume and expand in all dimensions.
So if we did 2 rapid & 2 standard fore, 1 rapid & 1-2 standard aft. That would give us a pretty decent damage right now without the costs balloning a huge amnount. Then in 40-60 years, if the technology advances combined with the enemys newest battlewagon are too great for the "base model", we can easily swap the standard launchers out for more rapids with very little effort for an instant boost in firepower. And it would be a Refit, not a Rebuild as we wouldn't be cutting labs/modules out to try to cram more weapons in.
I'm very wary of building our ships with specific refits in mind. Especially when the refits are decades out, there are lots of question marks around when refits will happen, what tech will look like when they do, and what Starfleet's priorities will be.
For example, evaluate the cost vs. benefit of putting in a fore torpedo tube. The cost is clear: you spend space and resources for a torpedo tube that doesn't put out a lot of firepower. The reward is that if Starfleet decides to add in another fore RFL, that'll probably be easier. The catch is there's an if then a probably before we get to the reward, and we don't know how big the reward is.
The fleet refits are specifically dated for around two decades after the first Federations will enter service, so we have a time frame, and we know they are pretty comprehensive, because the Attenborough science cruisers had their armor, nacelles and phasers all replaceed, while the Callies had their shields, torpedoes and warp systems upgraded
Im advocating for five launchers overall, no matter what
The question is just what goes into each launcher slot on the first ships, cost and capability wise
There's no guarantee we get anything more in the refit, admittedly. Best to push for the maximum we're capable of in all categories, so the classic Starfleet squadron for the next century+ would be a gang of Mirandas following a Federation-class flagship...
Id insist on five torpedo tube slots all around, same as the Excalibur
Id be happy with two rapid tubes + one standard tube forward, two standard tubes aft
I can probably live with one rapid tube + one standard aft instead
Two rapid tubes aft seems like goldplating at this time
Id prefer to keep this ship below 130 pts, and torpedoes below 25 percent of total ship cost
Since it appears to be a significant consensus about the necessity of quad nacelles[and we dont know what they may cost], that has to be paid from somewhere
I seem to recall that "for but not with" mostly showed up to allow British warships to dodge treaty limitations: the ships as they were were within the limits... But the extra/better stuff was sitting in warehouses very close to the relevant docks for shoving all that stuff into the ship in a matter of days, maybe weeks, giving them totally Not treaty compliant ships far faster than new ones could be built whenever they decided that it was a good idea to do so.
My understanding is that this has remaind pretty consistent, it's about cheating to build what you already could have, and actually want, anyway when the rules you're currently operating under don't permit you to have it.
Futureproofing is a whole other thing: allocating more space for torpedo launchers than the current ones actually take up because you expect that there'll be a need to replace them down the line and the new ones might be bigger, for example, or making sure your ship's power supply is sufficient not just fr it's current load out but whatever upgrades it might get later so it will last longer before needing to be replaced. Mostly stuff that's below the level of granularity we're generally dealing with in this quest.
In military usage, fit to receive or fitting "for but not with" describes a weapon or system which is called for in a design but not installed or is only partially installed during construction, with the installation completed later as needed. This can be done to reduce the vessel's build cost by not purchasing the system at the time of construction, as a method of future-proofing a design, or for security purposes.[1] The term is usually used in regard to ships but sometimes extends to military vehicles, aircraft and other hardware.[1]
I guess by then an armor/hull upgrade was available, thinking about this logically, it is probably a spin off from studying the Klingon debris. And things like hull materials would probably be one of the first one could bring in to large scale production. Something like Nacelle would after all first need the ability to make the materials, like with hull materials, and then you'd need to design a new Nacelle around it. By similar logic a next generation phaser would probably happen after hull materials.
So one can make a guess at when these might start showing up then, though it's far from a guarantee.
But well, I suppose the next upgrade cycle for some systems is perhaps coming on the early side due to the Klingon war. As things like phasers and hull aren't 'that' old yet, at least they don't seem to me like they are considering how long some things have been around like the Nacelles.
I'm skeptical about wether designing ships for their hypothetical future refit is more beneficial as a design philosophy than not.
2 fore RFLs and 1 aft RFL splits the difference neatly for cost/effectiveness, as long as there's at least 100% phaser coverage we're golden if we settle for High Manuverabilty (and maybe even stack a whole extra fore and aft phaser on top with plenty of room for modules if we're feeling cute)
I don't really think Very High (or even High) is necessary - as is we're likely to hit Medium-High on two thrusters, which seems sufficient to me. That's enough to at least match manoeuvring with a Klingon battlecruiser I would imagine; the ship wouldn't be able to match a bird of prey but having fore and aft torpedoes would restrict their angles of attack, and for the 'open' angles we can have at least one phaser array on an attacker at all times.
WRT torpedoes, two fore RFLs/one aft RFL would probably be my ideal, but I could go down as far as the Callie's armament (5 torps fore, one aft) in a pinch - though I would strongly advise against it. As I've said, for a heavy cruiser we should be treating the Callie as our absolute minimum. Keep in mind that the Klingons are probably working on the K't'inga right about now, and Christ knows what the Romulans or whoever else are cooking up.
I'm skeptical about wether designing ships for their hypothetical future refit is more beneficial as a design philosophy than not.
2 fore RFLs and 1 aft RFL splits the difference neatly for cost/effectiveness, as long as there's at least 100% phaser coverage we're golden if we settle for High Manuverabilty (and maybe even stack a whole extra fore and aft phaser on top with plenty of room for modules if we're feeling cute)
Fair point. For myself I'm thinking future-proofing, making sure not to shoot ourselves in the foot and be forced to discard hulls or have them be sub-optimal after all the hassle of redesigning our warp drive early. We need those numbers, and a slightly-less-than-bleeding-edge ship with a current warp drive has a great deal of value, especially when you have lots of them and they bring a good quantity of torpedo launchers to the fight. The number of ships themselves can deter enemies, and if warfare happens gives you a great reserve of martial strength.
I agree with you about torpedoes, we could definitely make something really, really scary if we had 2x fore RFLs, 2x fore single-tube, 1x aft RFL and 2x aft single-tube that'd casually deal with small flotillas of Klingon cruisers, however while I think the cost would be fine, it'd also eat up too many modules. We need that space in order to give this ship other features. We're already thinking pharmacology labs, enhanced range, huge cargo bay, these things are vital to our recovery from the war and our continued prosperity. The more such features we mount on our latest warp 8 cruiser (whether or not it has quad nacelles it's gonna be among the fastest and the biggest we've got) the more useful it will be.
And as for torpedoes, the current D7 would be killed outright by 6 torpedo hits, obviously more would be nice but that means losing another module (or 2!) and further inflating the cost. I'd imagine newer tranches of Klingon cruisers might be stronger, but next-gen D7s should still be killed and then some by 2 torpedo volleys, even assuming they have 50% more shield strength, which would be a huge increase.
(Also note while they no doubt will build stronger ships to counter our durability advantage, this thing has something like ~3x the shield strength of the Excalibur-class, if not a smidge more. It's unlikely their weaponry and shield improvements combined will match that advantage in our combat effectiveness curve.)
Being able to sling 3 warheads aft means D7s in our rear arc can be effectively threatened or even killed, albeit slightly slower, and BoPs (crippled by 2 torpedoes, killed by 2 torpedoes + a phaser strike) also killed outright, and a hypothetical BoP with 50% more shield strength crippled or stripped of its shields and rendered vulnerable to a single phaser strike.
Yeah, twin RFLs fore and one aft feels like a good "sweet spot" for torpedo armament, offering 3 torpedoes in an aft volley and six forwards - the latter of which is only one higher than the forward throw weight of the Excalibur class anyways, despite using one fewer launcher slots.
I don't really think Very High (or even High) is necessary - as is we're likely to hit Medium-High on two thrusters, which seems sufficient to me. That's enough to at least match manoeuvring with a Klingon battlecruiser I would imagine; the ship wouldn't be able to match a bird of prey but having fore and aft torpedoes would restrict their angles of attack, and for the 'open' angles we can have at least one phaser array on an attacker at all times.
I'm optimistic that considering the mass differences, a single type-3 thruster got the Attenborough High Manuverabilty, and that two will be enough to do the same for this design. Though Quad nacelles would probably put the kibosh on that working out.
