Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
A single phaser 'shot' seems to be at most a second in length, and the time to cycle between emitters/arrays appears to be negligible.
Linked contents
I think it might be useful to keep some perspective in mind in relation to the Excalibur for deciding what is heavily armed. Specifically the Excalibur is already quite heavily armed, so anything at a similar weapons tonnage ratio to it would presumably also be heavily armed for its size.
Our current design if it took just the normal two nacelle is heading for 260.000 tons, this is about 45% more tonnage then the Excalibur, in any case well below 50%. One could take a four nacelle design of course, how ever that's mostly tonnage and space that's already spent on more warp systems then, it does not actually really contribute much to combat capability beyond giving a bit more phaser and shield power, you certainly won't get much space from it.
So I think it's reasonable as such to focus on the 260.000 ton variant for comparison here, as that is how much effective extra space you will be getting. As such, one is getting less then 50% extra useful mass and volume to put weapons in.
Now going by the official spec sheet for the Excalibur it has 1 RPL and 2 normal tubes, so a burst damage of 5 torpedoes, it also has 4 phasers total. So based on this you'd already be getting more then 50% increase of weapons per tonnage if you had a burst fire of 8 torpedoes and 6 phasers.
As such even 2 RPL forward and 1 RPL rear is an enormous 80% firepower increase far beyond the tonnage equivalence, the main difference being that the firepower has become a bit more equally spread out, with the rear being more covered. Even so, this is quite the escalation in firepower and pushing the design a bit more towards being a warship first. Most suggestions also seem to be suggesting more then 6 phasers for the design, instead potentially thinking of 8 or possibly even more, which would be then at least a 100% increase in installed phaser power.
If one really put that much weaponry on this barely larger then a Kea class spacecraft, you'd effectively be heavily upgunning it compared to the Excalibur standard, with it substantially exceeding the weapon density that the Excalibur has. This might not make it a pure warship, but certainly it would be a substantial step in that direction. As such, I think that is something to keep in mind.
To put it another way, In the end unlike the dreadnought and super dreadnought era ships, we did not create much larger ships to hold a vastly larger array of weapons and instead crammed it all in basically similarly large hulls as last gen. The increased engine power basically all going to improve maneuverability instead making last generations ships of more average agility levels, highly agile instead. In that sense I guess what we've done is more equivalent with the treaty era battleships, where one tried to use better technology, more efficient packing of weapons and improved armor schemes to try and get more out of the same hull sizes. And maybe that works for one generation or so, but in the end there is but so much one can do in a same size hull before it starts getting a bit overloaded.
Well these are my thoughts on the current weapon discussions, I hope it is a useful perspective to everyone else.
Our current design if it took just the normal two nacelle is heading for 260.000 tons, this is about 45% more tonnage then the Excalibur, in any case well below 50%. One could take a four nacelle design of course, how ever that's mostly tonnage and space that's already spent on more warp systems then, it does not actually really contribute much to combat capability beyond giving a bit more phaser and shield power, you certainly won't get much space from it.
So I think it's reasonable as such to focus on the 260.000 ton variant for comparison here, as that is how much effective extra space you will be getting. As such, one is getting less then 50% extra useful mass and volume to put weapons in.
Now going by the official spec sheet for the Excalibur it has 1 RPL and 2 normal tubes, so a burst damage of 5 torpedoes, it also has 4 phasers total. So based on this you'd already be getting more then 50% increase of weapons per tonnage if you had a burst fire of 8 torpedoes and 6 phasers.
As such even 2 RPL forward and 1 RPL rear is an enormous 80% firepower increase far beyond the tonnage equivalence, the main difference being that the firepower has become a bit more equally spread out, with the rear being more covered. Even so, this is quite the escalation in firepower and pushing the design a bit more towards being a warship first. Most suggestions also seem to be suggesting more then 6 phasers for the design, instead potentially thinking of 8 or possibly even more, which would be then at least a 100% increase in installed phaser power.
If one really put that much weaponry on this barely larger then a Kea class spacecraft, you'd effectively be heavily upgunning it compared to the Excalibur standard, with it substantially exceeding the weapon density that the Excalibur has. This might not make it a pure warship, but certainly it would be a substantial step in that direction. As such, I think that is something to keep in mind.
To put it another way, In the end unlike the dreadnought and super dreadnought era ships, we did not create much larger ships to hold a vastly larger array of weapons and instead crammed it all in basically similarly large hulls as last gen. The increased engine power basically all going to improve maneuverability instead making last generations ships of more average agility levels, highly agile instead. In that sense I guess what we've done is more equivalent with the treaty era battleships, where one tried to use better technology, more efficient packing of weapons and improved armor schemes to try and get more out of the same hull sizes. And maybe that works for one generation or so, but in the end there is but so much one can do in a same size hull before it starts getting a bit overloaded.
Well these are my thoughts on the current weapon discussions, I hope it is a useful perspective to everyone else.
Last edited:
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
We really need a ton of module space free if we want this ship to be anything other than a beatstick. If that means less torpedoes, then that's the price of a balanced ship. 3 RPLs is already a whopping 36 cost. Can the ship really afford that many?
Last edited:
Chargone
Invisable operator
- Location
- New Zealand
Consider that 3 RFL is actually one Less launcher than the excaliber (which has three forward and one aft, though three of those are standard) though I believe the rapid fire launchers are individually larger than the standard ones. May be relevant, along with the tech maturing (I forget their current status and when it changes, but that's important if relevant).
Also we're working with a full saucer this time.
Also we're working with a full saucer this time.
*checks*
The current benchmark is the Excalibur, which had four torpedo launchers: 1x rapid + 3x standard
The following is a list of varying torpedo configurations suites for the Federation's 260kt to 300kt final weight, as well as estimated costs for each, using different combinations of rapid and standard launchers and a hard cap of no more than half again the Callie's torpedo suite
Excalibur: 1x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 18.75
Configuration A: 3x rapid launchers = 36
Configuration B: 2x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 30.75
Configuration C: 3x rapid + 2x standard launchers = 40.5
Configuration D: 3x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 42.75
Worth noting that none of this includes phaser costs, which is its own separate chunk of expenditure
But it does illustrate that torpedo costs can easily get out of control if we let them
EDIT
I should have added a 4x launcher(2x rapid + 2x standard) option for the Federation, but it only just occurred to me and I dont feel like redoing this
The current benchmark is the Excalibur, which had four torpedo launchers: 1x rapid + 3x standard
The following is a list of varying torpedo configurations suites for the Federation's 260kt to 300kt final weight, as well as estimated costs for each, using different combinations of rapid and standard launchers and a hard cap of no more than half again the Callie's torpedo suite
| CONFIGURATION | Total launcher number | Forward Rapid number | Forward Standard number | Forward Max Salvo | Forward Cost | Aft Rapid number | Aft Standard number | Aft Max Salvo | Aft Cost | Total Torpedo Salvo | Total Cost (<2060) | Total Cost (>2060) |
| Excalibur | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 16.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2.25 | 6 | 18.75 | 15.75 |
| Fed Config A: Rapid Only | 3 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 9 | 36 | 27 |
| Fed Config B: Forward Rapids | 5 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 26.25 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4.5 | 9 | 30.75 | 24.75 |
| Fed Config C: Aft Rapids | 5 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 26.25 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14.25 | 11 | 40.5 | 31.5 |
| Fed Config D: Max Rapids + Standard | 6 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 28.5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14.25 | 12 | 42.75 | 33.75 |
Excalibur: 1x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 18.75
Configuration A: 3x rapid launchers = 36
Configuration B: 2x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 30.75
Configuration C: 3x rapid + 2x standard launchers = 40.5
Configuration D: 3x rapid + 3x standard launchers = 42.75
Worth noting that none of this includes phaser costs, which is its own separate chunk of expenditure
But it does illustrate that torpedo costs can easily get out of control if we let them
EDIT
I should have added a 4x launcher(2x rapid + 2x standard) option for the Federation, but it only just occurred to me and I dont feel like redoing this
Last edited:
I haven't been following the quest too well but I recently found a weapon of mass comedic destruction that would fit it. I ask that one of the thread sacrifices themselves like a redshirt and watch it so it can be posted when most appropriate for the thread to see it. If you are unwilling, refrain from this sacrifice so the final effect can be most powerful
- Location
- California
That seems rather logical, you'd probably need a Connie II torpedo box style refit (where you know, they've ripped out all the old torpedo systems and have specifically built a new section to house them, which is reasonably voluminous) and given how big this ship is already going to be (saucer or secondary hull wise) I doubt we'd see something like that where you get a whole new section to put them in.
Until stated otherwise it is logical to assume that we can only upgrade like for like as far as torpedoes are concerned.
Doubly fitting given she cut a German submarine in half with her bow, which is the only confirmed incidence of a battleship sinking a submarine (Warspite's walrus aside, and that was more an aircraft kill - also the first aircraft kill of a submarine in ww2, I believe).
The existence of more powerful Mark 4 torpedoes as an upgrade suggest otherwise
Basically, photon torpedoes are matter-antimatter annihilation devices
Since Star Trek does not load AM until the torpedo is in the tube, the adoption of a more powerfu torpedo requires upgrades of the ship's ability to deliver antimatter safely to the launchers
And that throughput is essentially the most important element of adopting rapid fire tubes that I can see
Of course, this is my opinion of the data we have
The QM might disagree, whether in interpretation of the technical data or even just for game balance reasons