Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Kartr_Kana said:
So it's going to have the same number of forward weapons? So no net increase in offensive firepower from a hypothetical upgrade to the Stingray... If this is the route you all really want to go, we should ask Sayle if we can just upgrade the Stingray's Torpedoes to Photonic models.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's no net increase from a hypothetical Stingray refit, but we've also gotten no indication that it's possible to refit photonic torpedo launchers in place of the atomics, since the photonics require a direct feed from the core to energize the containment fields and torpedo defenses. The Selachii should also have increased impulse maneuverability because of the arrowhead shape, which will give the guns more time on target compared to the Stingray.
 
Remove ads
2159: Project Selachii (Spaceframe: Part Three)
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Forward Deflector (Industry 2 -> 24) [2 Torpedo Tubes] [1 Cannon + 3 Optional]

    Having decided on a forward deflector, you draw out the primary hull to make space. Fortunately you can downsize the dish a little bit because of the smaller cross section it has to protect against interstellar debris, but it's still a massive piece of machinery. Perversely the space you create between the deflector itself and the ventral hull provides you with some internal space of its own, which you put to work as much as possible. The ship is so cramped, in fact, that you make the decision to cut the turbolift system entirely and rely on internal ladders and a couple of staircases instead. At a full sprint no part of the ship is more than forty seconds away from any other part, after all. You aren't sure a turbolift would actually save any time.

    The last major structural element to decide on is the nacelles, because there have been some interesting suggestions. While the initial plan was to mount the nacelles to the wingtips of the delta-body, a proposal has been made that they could instead be installed internally. The outer edges of the ship and its unique geometry means that you can have the bussard collectors on the leading edge and the trailing end of the nacelles sticking out the back.

    The idea is that it will offer the nacelles some protection. The disadvantage is that it will also degrade the effectiveness of the warp field and impinge on a pair of internal storage areas that were intended for the outer edges of the ship. You'll have to shift them to the central body above main engineering, which will exclude the possibility of an aft phase cannon. Is the tradeoff worth it?

    [ ] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]
    [ ] External Nacelles [Warp 3.8 Cruise]



    Two Hour Moratorium, Please.
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • Kartr_Kana said:
    So it's going to have the same number of forward weapons? So no net increase in offensive firepower from a hypothetical upgrade to the Stingray... If this is the route you all really want to go, we should ask @Sayle if we can just upgrade the Stingray's Torpedoes to Photonic models.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Your proposed stingray refit was 32 industry, because you assume upgrading to entirely new Phase cannons somehow won't mean making new ones and so only cost 1, when realistically we would pay full cost making it 35.

    5 more than this ship. Which also gains a rear facing cannon.
    That leaves out the increased maneuverability,

    And no, as far as I'm aware the photonics aren't able to just replace atomic and spatial, its an entirely new launcher.

    The biggest increase in both offense(besides the photonics) and defense is the improved maneuverability, letting it bring its weapons on target and avoid incoming fire.

    Your proposed stingray refit not only costs more than this ship, by atleast 2, more likely 5 or more, it is just as much of a death trap as the original.

    Actually it would probably have a much lower survival rate. It would just draw more fire due to its better weapons, while still being the same at avoiding it.
     
    Last edited:
    More faster and more shootier for this frigate that isn't armored to take hits anyway, internal nacelles or not
     
    Last edited:
    Zimmerwald1915 said:
    More faster and more shootier for this frigate that isn't armored to take hits anyway, internal nacells or not
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    As an aft cannon isn't the most useful thing, and the warp speed doesn't help it in a fight.

    Being a bit more survivable seems well worth the trade to me, also internal nacelles might make it a smaller target and better at avoiding fire.
     
    [ ] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

    This. Please please please. I really want to mess around with internal Nacelles.

    Plus it isn't even costing much. The Thunderchild has a cruise of 3.6 so it'll still keep pace with the rest of the fleet.

    We probably wouldn't have grabbed the Aft Cannon anyway with how nimble this thing is.

    And the extra Defense is very nice.
     
    Interesting, getting Saber class nacelle configuration much earlier than canon. A bunch of trade-offs bit higher defense rating. Tough call.
     
    AntiSanity said:
    Interesting, getting Saber class nacelle configuration much earlier than canon. A bunch of trade-offs bit higher defense rating. Tough call.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I don't think so, realistically the aft cannon is only going to be important if its getting chased, and we plan on them working in packs.
    Warp 3.6 is the same as the Thunderchild so what our fleets will be moving at.

    We're looking to make a more survivable Stingray replacement, taking the increased defense is a nobrainer to me.

    Also I think the internal ones will probably make the ship look cooler. :V
     
    I'm digging the idea of internal nacelles. I think that would look cool. The bump in defense won't hurt either and I can live with ditching the aft gun.
     
    Personally I think a higher cruise speed is worth it, especially accompanied by an aft turret. Defense rating is good, but this ship is going to be relying on maneuverability no matter what, so keeping her able to fire in the rear arc would be very nice. Higher cruise speed means she can accompany Enterprise-class ships, not just our battleships, and gives her a little more time in a post-war environment as a light patrol craft.
     
    The nacelles are always going to be a juicy target, even if it's difficult to hit them in the heat of battle. I'm leaning toward the internal nacelles, even if it means we lose some trailing firepower, which she'll be underutilizing anyways with what her general shape guides her to do; drive forward and keep enemy ships on her nose. She'll still be able to keep up with the heaviest member of any task fleet, and with how fragile this thing is, I'll take the increase in defensive capability.
     
    If the increase in defence is big enough to actually Matter against Romulan weapons, internal is absolutely the way to go, otherwise the aft cannon (to help with point defence, if nothing else) seems wiser, especially as it also lets them keep up with cruisers, if need be.

    Edit: does the internal option's lack of struts save enough mass to help manuverability at all?
     
    Last edited:
    The Stingray has a Defense Rating of 12, so I imagine something like 10 will just mean this dies even faster if it gets hit.
     
    Chargone said:
    If the increase in defence is big enough to actually Matter against Romulan weapons, internal is absolutely the way to go, otherwise the aft cannon (to help with point defence, if nothing else) seems wiser, especially as it also lets them keep up with cruisers, if need be.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I feel like the aft cannon is nice to have, but not important, this ship is not going to be working alone, they can cover eachother and that's when they're not working with our larger ships with coverage in every direction.

    Anything that stops these dying as easily as the stingrays is worth taking.

    I also see people seeming to be conflating the maneuverability we built it for with warp speed, acting like were losing what this was designed for... when we're not, those are completely separate things.
     
    Last edited:
    [ ] Internal Nacelles (-Optional Aft Cannon, Defense Rating 10 -> 12) [Warp 3.6 Cruise]

    The Refitted Stingray has a defense of 12, and a Warp Cruise of 3.4
    This option will make the speed improvement over the Stingray more marginal, but will keep it just as survivable.
     
    Definitely need the cruise option so that this white elephant can keep up with the heavier ships in the fleet.

    NavySeel said:
    Your proposed stingray refit was 32 industry, because you assume upgrading to entirely new Phase cannons somehow won't mean making new ones and so only cost 1, when realistically we would pay full cost making it 35.

    5 more than this ship. Which also gains a rear facing cannon.
    That leaves out the increased maneuverability,

    And no, as far as I'm aware the photonics aren't able to just replace atomic and spatial, its an entirely new launcher.

    The biggest increase in both offense(besides the photonics) and defense is the improved maneuverability, letting it bring its weapons on target and avoid incoming fire.

    Your proposed stingray refit not only costs more than this ship, by atleast 2, more likely 5 or more, it is just as much of a death trap as the original.

    Actually it would probably have a much lower survival rate. It would just draw more fire due to its better weapons, while still being the same at avoiding it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Old phase cannons are 2 industry and the new ones are 3 correct? Which would bring the net cost for new build Hulls to [Number of Phase Weapons] × (3—2). At least with regards to upgrading the phase weaponry of a notional refit version.

    The current cost is 30, not including optional phasers. So it's probably going to hit 39 industry before all is said and done.

    In ENT they were able to simply add a Photon Torpedo launcher into the armory space between the existing spatial torpedo launchers. No reason we couldn't pull the old launchers to free up deck space and then rebuild the armory with a pair of photon torpedo launchers.

    I'm not sure why you think the current design will be more agile than Stingray...? They both have the flattened rear for more impulse engines. The arrowhead may have slightly less mass, but that also means slightly less mass to tank a hit.

    But it's too late now. We're locked into an undergunned tin can.
     
    Worth noting that the extreme maneuverability this thing will have means that an aft turret isn't necessarily as big a deal as it might seem. If this thing can turn on a dime, it can keep targets in its field of fire just fine. I'd rather keep the industry costs down.
     
    KNakamura said:
    Hm.. more defense at the expense of lower speed and less firepower.

    Doesn't seem very worth it to me.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Lower warp speed that doesn't matter in a fight and that wouldn't be used that much anyway as everything needs to keep pace with the Thunderchild during fleet movements.

    Lower firepower that we probably won't pick up anyway as the whole point of this design is for it to be constantly pointed toward the enemy.
     
    Cannons cost industry and this one can only point backwards on an explicitly highly manoeuvrable ship. Maybe if it could point in any direction I'd be more interested in it.

    So, disregarding the aft cannon, this looks to be a pure -cruise +defence trade, and NavySeal said that our Thunderchild ships cruise at 3.6 anyway.

    [an increase in ship being able to retain manoeuvrability as battle damage accrues has a marginally greater effect on a ship that relies so heavily on that aspect. So. Yeah. Let's increase the class's aggregate battle-endurance]

    ---
    No mention of warp-sprint, so I'm assuming that will stay the same.
    Jensaarai said:
    damn this thing tiny as shit
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    IT'S A SHIP FOR ANTS!

    It needs to be at least three times as big!
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top