Starfleet Design Bureau

[NavySeel]

The update states that we're quite simply unable to make a warship that can go toe-to-toe, and that we're going to have to make some hard decisions. The only numeric ratio stated was that Stingrays need to outnumber Warbirds 2-to-1 to be confident of victory.
I am advocating for a minmaxed Arrowhead with two to three torpedo tubes and supermaneuverability, which is implied to be possible if we select the appropriate design options.
I am okay with a Manta Ray as a Stingray successor, but Arrowhead was denied last time around and I'd prefer to see it at least present in our design principles.

Click to shrink...

The idea of more torpedoes tubes to the rear of the ship than the front is just kind dumb to me, especially for something people seem to want to work in wolfpacks.

Supermaneuverability is great but people are stacking so many ideas of how it will apparently make the ship survivable, it's kind of ridiculous, even claiming it makes romulan ambushes useless, ignoring the fact the crew still have to realise they're being ambushed and react.

I'd rather make something that actually has a chance of surviving a hit rather than pinning all our hopes on that.

 

[Enthusiast#117]

A more maneuverable ship can get off more torpedo shots, and can dodge more fire.

The half saucer might have a larger volley, but it will have fewer opportunities to fire and will die more quickly.

 

[inirlan]

It's clearly stated the arrowhead will have no frontal torpedo without the prototype nacelles and one with it.

Click to shrink...

Did we read the same update? It said 1 with an underslung hull & deflector dish (ie, like later Starfleet designs), with the potential for more with prototype vertical nacelles.

 

[NavySeel]

A more maneuverable ship can get off more torpedo shots, and can dodge more fire.

The half saucer might have a larger volley, but it will have fewer opportunities to fire and will die more quickly.

Click to shrink...

...like the NXs die more quickly than the Stingrays?

The half saucer is noted to be a medium cruiser.

 

[Strunkriidiisk]

I would argue that torpedoes are indeed the more important factor here. Both the Thunderchild and Enterprise*/NX-class fairly bristle with phase cannons so we're not exactly at a loss there.

*IMO we should just call them the Enterprise-class, NX just feels weird especially now that they're production models instead of experimental platforms

 

[Steven Kodaly]

I'm inclined to the more daring experimental nacelle layout.

 

[Dessard]

What we've seen

But when it takes two Stingrays to be comfortable with taking on a Romulan warbird and you're coming up against force concentrations that equal or exceed your own, something has to give. The order comes down from on high with a simple directive: give Starfleet a replacement for the Stingray, preferably as cheap but definitely more effective.

Click to shrink...

I'm definitely in the half-saucer camp for this. This is the core request - unlike the original Stingray war capability is more important than unit cost, and we've consistently seen larger ships trading better for cost than smaller ones. If this ends up with the tactical capacity of an NX at a lower price (and probably better speed) it'll be great.

 

[Driven by Apathy]

We have no shields. That means we're left with either armor or evasion for defense.

Thunderchild went the armor route, to mostly satsifactory results. But that method has limits, and I doubt it scales down well. There has to be a reason Stingray loses are so high. I suspect the Stingray is not large enough to tank hits and not small and maneuverable enough to evade them. So therefore, I'm inclined to go for the arrowhead in the hopes that it will result in better survivability.

 

[Tolack]

Hmm... Design a ~25i Escort that we can spam as a replacement to the Stingray but better, or a ~35i medium cruiser that will be less agile but have more durability, under the assumption that the medium cruiser design would cost less than the NX which we've been considering as a heavy cruiser.

Might be worth it for greater tactical output and staying power, but it certainly won't be as cheap or agile with the nacelles and secondary hull restricting engine placements.

Click to shrink...

If the maneuverability of the medium cruiser is going to be limited to medium at best due to restricted engine placement, then it will require more coverage like the NX and the Thunderchild, increasing the cost to the point I worry it might cost as much as a NX. The Stingray was able to be kept cheap because of the high agility meaning it didn't need extra rear facing guns, and as a Stingray successor I think we want to design something cheap yet effective.

[ ] Arrowhead. Aim for a cheap light cruiser. (Industry: 2)

E: I do wonder if we can get the maneuverability above high though. If it's possible, I'd go for it since at this weight speed is armor too.

 

[Strunkriidiisk]

Did we read the same update? It said 1 with an underslung hull & deflector dish (ie, like later Starfleet designs), with the potential for more with prototype vertical nacelles.

Click to shrink...

No, the experimental nacelle configuration might 'alleviate problems' which may include torpedo mounting but I fail to see how. It seems to me that the issue with the arrowhead hull is that there physically isn't room to mount torpedoes, and I doubt changing the nacelle orientation will meaningfully change that. It's more likely that underslinging the deflector is going to fuck up the ship's warp geometry somehow and the experimental nacelle configuration would be to compensate for that.

 

[Nyvis]

Did we read the same update? It said 1 with an underslung hull & deflector dish (ie, like later Starfleet designs), with the potential for more with prototype vertical nacelles.

Click to shrink...

If you're adding a secondary hull you're giving up the industry gains you made by chosing arrowhead so I didn't factor that in, that's defeating the point. And I'm not sure how compatible that is with the vertical nacelles.

Taking a massive drawback then hoping we can heap prototypes and extra costs to correct it doesn't feel like the right choice when we have a straightforward answer with a hull more suited to fitting our torpedo launchers.

I'm definitely in the half-saucer camp for this. This is the core request - unlike the original Stingray war capability is more important than unit cost, and we've consistently seen larger ships trading better for cost than smaller ones. If this ends up with the tactical capacity of an NX at a lower price it'll be great.

Click to shrink...

I'm also not sure how much bigger this is going to be if we don't go for a big secondary hull. If we go half saucer for the better frontal torpedo fits but keep the rest compact it could be within budget still.

We have no shields. That means we're left with either armor or evasion for defense.

Thunderchild went the armor route, to mostly satsifactory results. But that method has limits, and I doubt it scales down well. There has to be a reason Stingray loses are so high. I suspect the Stingray is not large enough to tank hits and not small and maneuverable enough to evade them. So therefore, I'm inclined to go for the arrowhead in the hopes that it will result in better survivability..

Click to shrink...

The stingray is actually pretty maneovrable, and both choices here will be too. Half saucer has plenty of room for engines too, even if it's slightly less streamlined. What it's really lacking to win fights with warbirds is firepower capable of matching their shields before it gets shredded. Light cruisers are never going to tank hits that well regardless. We need to keep fights short and the way we do that is a powerful torpedo volley.

If the maneuverability of the medium cruiser is going to be limited to medium at best due to restricted engine placement, then it will require more coverage like the NX and the Thunderchild, increasing the cost to the point I worry it might cost as much as a NX. The Stingray was able to be kept cheap because of the high agility meaning it didn't need extra rear facing guns, and as a Stingray successor I think we want to design something cheap yet effective.

Click to shrink...

Half saucers have good engine placement, they're just slightly less streamlined than arrowhead. The stingray is half saucer so I don't really get your comparison either. We're picking between two maneovrable options really.

 

[Driven by Apathy]

I'm definitely in the half-saucer camp for this. This is the core request - unlike the original Stingray war capability is more important than unit cost, and we've consistently seen larger ships trading better for cost than smaller ones. If this ends up with the tactical capacity of an NX at a lower price (and probably better speed) it'll be great.

Click to shrink...

Two small ships unable to take hits but able to evade them seem a better option to me than one medium-sized ship unable to either take or evade those hits. IRRC the Ushaan in the quest this one is a prequel to was extremely survivable in spite of it's small size and thin skin because it was so good at avoiding being hit. Lacking other options for a strong defense, we should try for that.

The stingray is actually pretty maneovrable, and both choices here will be too. Half saucer has plenty of room for engines too, even if it's slightly less streamlined. What it's really lacking to win fights with warbirds is firepower capable of matching their shields before it gets shredded. Light cruisers are never going to tank hits that well regardless. We need to keep fights short and the way we do that is a powerful torpedo volley.

Click to shrink...

Does it matter whether that volley comes from 2 small ships or 1 larger one? What if the 2 small ships are better at remaining alive, giving them a chance to fire more often? Better at maneuvering into position, so that an entire group of such ships can concentrate fire on one target at a time? And easier replaced if we do lose them.

 

[Skippy]

Vertical nacelles worked out fairly well on the Renaissance class, other than that one time they almost exploded and killed everyone on board the ship.

More seriously, the drawbacks we'd have to deal with for a vertical nacelle layout on the arrowhead design if we get a bad prototyping roll are one of two things:
(a) Lower warp cruise speed.
(b) Cost increase.

Neither of these make the design unviable as a warfighter. The cost increase is balanced by extreme manoeuvrability, firepower, and savings from a smaller ship. A decreased cruise factor would be a pity, but not a huge issue given this will have to keep operate with slower ships anyway. The maximum cruise we'd be getting a reduction from is almost certainty going to be significantly higher than the cruise speed of a Stingray.

So I would support going for an arrowhead primary hull, and then trying out the vertical nacelle layout.

 

[NavySeel]

Two small ships unable to take hits but able to evade them seem a better option to me than one medium-sized ship unable to either take or evade those hits. IRRC the Ushaan in the quest this one is a prequel to was extremely survivable in spite of it's small size and thin skin because it was so good at avoiding being hit. Lacking other options for a strong defense, we should try for that.

Click to shrink...

To be honest blindly asserting that the Medium version won't be able to take any hits at all, or dodge them is the opposite of convincing to me.

The Ushaan also had shields to take a certain amount of hits, which we currently don't, so it's weak Hull wasn't anywhere near the issue that would be for ships at our tech level.

 

[Enthusiast#117]

...like the NXs die more quickly than the Stingrays?

The half saucer is noted to be a medium cruiser.

Click to shrink...

Do we ever see the NXs try to fight without Stingray support?

Their role in the fleet is different.

 

[Nyvis]

Two small ships unable to take hits but able to evade them seem a better option to me than one medium-sized ship unable to either take or evade those hits. IRRC the Ushaan in the quest this one is a prequel to was extremely survivable in spite of it's small size and thin skin because it was so good at avoiding being hit. Lacking other options for a strong defense, we should try for that.

Click to shrink...

Except it's not going to be a 100% cost difference. That's a really extreme claim to make. I also don't think the half saucer will be totally inept at evasion. It's been described as an option with good engine space in the past.

If it's the difference between 3 ships with 1 front torpedo each and 2 ships with 2 each, I think the added firepower is going to save more lives than being marginally more evasive. And that's assuming it stays cheaper despite the extras needed to even get 1 front torpedo fitted to the arrowhead.

Vertical nacelles worked out fairly well on the Renaissance class, other than that one time they almost exploded and killed everyone on board the ship.

More seriously, the drawbacks we'd have to deal with for a vertical nacelle layout on the arrowhead design if we get a bad prototyping roll are one of two things:
(a) Lower warp cruise speed.
(b) Cost increase.

Neither of these make the design unviable as a warfighter. The cost increase is balanced by extreme manoeuvrability, firepower, and savings from a smaller ship. A decreased cruise factor would be a pity, but not a huge issue given this will have to keep operate with slower ships anyway. The maximum cruise we'd be getting a reduction from is almost certainty going to be significantly higher than the cruise speed of a Stingray.

So I would support going for an arrowhead primary hull, and then trying out the vertical nacelle layout.

Click to shrink...

Cost increase would completely invalidate the gains made by going arrowhead though. This feels like gambling for the worse while sacrificing firepower.

 

[abominable]

Arrowhead VS half-saucer! Round 1! Fight!

Click to shrink...

Half-Saucer used torpedoes. It's super effective!

 

[Tolack]

Half saucers have good engine placement, they're just slightly less streamlined than arrowhead. The stingray is half saucer so I don't really get your comparison either. We're picking between two maneovrable options really.

Click to shrink...

You're right, but...

Might be worth it for greater tactical output and staying power, but it certainly won't be as cheap or agile with the nacelles and secondary hull restricting engine placements.

Click to shrink...

I guess this does say cheap OR agile, conditioned on nacelles and secondary hull restricting engine placements?

Did I misunderstand then? Does it mean we can design a Manta Ray with a secondary hull and high maneuverability engines? If so, I'll be happy with a half saucer win. I do like the arrowhead though for extra forward facing firepower (otherwise what's the benefit of the arrowhead besides 2i lower cost?).

 

[Driven by Apathy]

To be honest blindly asserting that the Medium version won't be able to take any hits at all, or dodge them is the opposite of convincing to me.

Click to shrink...

OOC we have insufficient data to really do anything other than "blindly assert". The assertion that the medium version will survive long enough to use its larger torpedo volleys to good effect is likewise not really backed by anthing.

The Ushaan also had shields to take a certain amount of hits, which we currently don't, so it's weak Hull wasn't anywhere near the issue that would be for ships at our tech level.

Click to shrink...

The Ushaan excelled the most when fighting opponents who could crack those shields (and those of its larger compatriots) like an eggshell. Not entirely different from our current situation, though in this case the cause is lack of defensive technology on our side, rather than overwhelming enemy firepower.

The "evasion is life" school of thought seems at the very least plausible to me. It could be the game changer we need. Meanwhile, if we go for a half-sauer, we'll end up building a slightly better Stingray. And the Stingray is a fine ship, but as we've learned it's not the right tool for this job.

 

[Zimmerwald1915]

Do we ever see the NXs try to fight without Stingray support?

Click to shrink...

In the Battle of Denobula the NXs were grouped in their own bespoke squadron while the Stingrays escorted Thunderchild. Enterprise engaged in operations independent of any supporting fleet elements in the lead-up to that battle. The only fleet engagement where I think we did see a mixed NX-Stingray fleet was the Battle of Earth, where it was a case of throwing every available asset at a problem and doctrine be damned.

 

[Rockeye]

I want the m4 Sherman of space. That means cheap, means arrowhead.

 

[Skippy]

If you're adding a secondary hull you're giving up the industry gains you made by chosing arrowhead so I didn't factor that in, that's defeating the point. And I'm not sure how compatible that is with the vertical nacelles.

Click to shrink...

Going from previous projects, I believe "underslung" does not actually refer to a secondary hull, but instead a configuration where the deflector is fused to the bottom of the saucer. It would be worth confirming with @Sayle though.

Cost increase would completely invalidate the gains made by going arrowhead though. This feels like gambling for the worse while sacrificing firepower.

Click to shrink...

Not really? We're probably talking about 2 Industry. That's affordable if the design offers greater manoeuvrability and is cheaper to start with.

 

[abominable]

Not surprised the NX's went at it on their own. They're the fastest of our ships and it looks like the captains decided to make the most of it.

 

[Nyvis]

Does it matter whether that volley comes from 2 small ships or 1 larger one? What if the 2 small ships are better at remaining alive, giving them a chance to fire more often? Better at maneuvering into position, so that an entire group of such ships can concentrate fire on one target at a time? And easier replaced if we do lose them.

Click to shrink...

Again, this is hardly going to be a 100% cost increase, especially factoring in the extras needed to fix the arrowhead torpedo problem. It's not going to be two small ships versus one bigger one.

I don't think torpedoes are continuous fire either so volley size matter a lot if you want to finish off an enemy right ahead and make sure it stops firing. The easier torpedo fitting on the half saucer and possibility to avoid having to spend on experimental nacelles or big secondary hulls is going to be very hard to beat in term of firepower per industry. And shields are the main advantage the Romulans have over us so we really need the edge in damage potential.

I guess this does say cheap OR agile, conditioned on nacelles and secondary hull restricting engine placements?

Did I misunderstand then? Does it mean we can design a Manta Ray with a secondary hull and high maneuverability engines? If so, I'll be happy with a half saucer win. I do like the arrowhead though for extra forward facing firepower (otherwise what's the benefit of the arrowhead besides 2i lower cost?).

Click to shrink...

If we value maneovrability over low cost, I think underslung nacelles would make fitting engines easier than in line ones, I guess? That might also net another torpedo fitting since those have been found on secondary hulls in past designs. I guess we could also use the experimental nacelles here if we wanted, though I think that's an unacceptable risk for something we need to mass produce right away.

The arrowhead doesn't have extra front facing firepower without some creative solutions to move the deflector, right now.

OOC we have insufficient data to really do anything other than "blindly assert". The assertion that the medium version will survive long enough to use its larger torpedo volleys to good effect is likewise not really backed by anthing.

Click to shrink...

I don't get that logic. The whole point of a torpedo volley is that it's just that, a volley, rather than continuous fire. It doesn't need longer engagement time to pay off, you fire both tubes as quickly as you fire one tube.

 

[Iridium Flare]

We're already being told it's unlikely we'll get a single torpedo tube in the Arrowhead - where are you getting the logic that we'll be able to cram two or more in?

Click to shrink...

It's clearly stated the arrowhead will have no frontal torpedo without the prototype nacelles and one with it. I want to make the choices that maximize torpedo per industry rather than just minimize the cost of individual hulls but end up with less overall firepower because they all have one frontal tube instead of 2. I'd also really like to avoid the experimental nacelles for a mass produced design we don't have the time to iterate on.

Click to shrink...

Once again, assuming baseline nacelles, it's none if we go for a standard deflector and one if we go for an underslung. Add the experimental nacelles to that, which will alleviate the space issues somewhat, and you can likely expect one or two more depending on how efficient it is.

Granted, the concerns about the experimental nacelles are legitimate, but I am still going to argue in favor of the Arrowhead, because I want an Arrowhead.

The idea of more torpedoes tubes to the rear of the ship than the front is just kind dumb to me, especially for something people seem to want to work in wolfpacks.

Supermaneuverability is great but people are stacking so many ideas of how it will apparently make the ship survivable, it's kind of ridiculous, even claiming it makes romulan ambushes useless, ignoring the fact the crew still have to realise they're being ambushed and react.

I'd rather make something that actually has a chance of surviving a hit rather than pinning all our hopes on that.

Click to shrink...

I never said the torpedoes would be aimed rearward, please reread my post. Likewise, I never stated they would be immune to ambushes, I stated they would have a much better chance of reacting in time to do something about it - the difference between being alpha-struck from existence and managing to maul the enemy before going down, or the difference between a fleet being savaged or a fleet losing several ships and then rallying. Please refrain from exaggerating in such a manner.

It is apparent that this is devolving into yet another argument, and so I am now going to recuse myself from the thread until Sayle's next post, because quite frankly I have better things to do with my time.