Starfleet Design Bureau

This is all sounding quite a bit like the Hermes-class scout and Saladin-class destroyers of the TOS technical manual. Both ship designs quite notable for having only one nacelle. In particular, the original pitch for a cloaked warship patrol vessel sounds a lot like the Hermes class, which has a huge sensor or deflector stuck on the bottom of the saucer.
 
This is all sounding quite a bit like the Hermes-class scout and Saladin-class destroyers of the TOS technical manual. Both ship designs quite notable for having only one nacelle. In particular, the original pitch for a cloaked warship patrol vessel sounds a lot like the Hermes class, which has a huge sensor or deflector stuck on the bottom of the saucer.
Basically, though as far as I'm aware the Hermes lacks torpedo tubes as described in the tech manual.

She is pretty zippy, though, warp 6 maximum cruise and a top speed of warp 8 for 18 hours. That means at her top speed she can cover 6,300 more light years than the Connie's can at theirs (warp 9 for 4 hours, or 9,216 light years verses 2,916 light years)
Edit: gonna recalc, noticed I used years rather than hours!

Okay, so in 18 hours they can go 1.05 light years, and the Connie's can go 0.33 light years. Not massive, but given you'd have more of them than Connie's in fleet unit it does mean that they can cover considerable ground around the fleet.
 
Last edited:
Crazy idea. Let's take the bottom surface of a saucer and turn the whole thing into a giant lazy susan with torpedo tubes. We would then be able to turn the torpedo tubes 360 degrees and aim at anything in the entire plane the saucer is on. With an in line secondary hull and parallel nacelles it would have an unobstructed line of fire in all directions.
 
Last edited:
Main problem: making too many things saucer-based gives me hives.
Yeah, but at one point I want to make an alpha strike king real torpedo boat with like 4 photon torpedoes and only a light phasor armament that hangs back and shoots torpedoes at things. The ability to fly in a wide circular arc around the battlespace and shoot torpedoes off it's side axis would be really cool.

If you decide to try and chase one it turns tail and runs, firing photon torpedoes backwards all the while.
 
One of the earlier skate update ideas sounded like a Norway class. Especially if we expanded the engineering hull with 2 deck inline to fill in some of the gap between the nacelle supports for cargo, torpedoes, and/or a sensor lab. I think it'd look pretty awesome and have space for everything we'd want in a short range patroller.
 
Mildly stupid question: Are carriers a thing in Star Trek?

Yes, but no, but also yes.

In strict canon? No.
In background intended materials? Yes.
In non-canon games and such? Yes.

The Akira was designed as a carrier. We never saw it USED like that, but the design was. There's a few from games.

The Galaxy could function as one, in background materials. The shuttle bay is supposed to be an entire deck and fill out the middle of the saucer.

I don't think a carrier is outlandish for Starfleet, but Starfleet shies away from military-focused ships in general. A carrier would probably have to justify itself as having a dual non-combat role, like for disaster support and evacuation or something of the nature.

Small craft seem to be of limited use in Trek overall. Capital ships are essentially just as maneuverable as a fighter would be. DS9 used Miranda's and such as "Fighters".

EDIT -

I counter with rather than a carrier for small craft, a fairly monumental project of something like a mobile starbase. A vessel that can enter a sector and function as a sector hub, with starbase-level medical, repair and fabrication facilities. Have a few smaller, Defiant-scale craft permanently attached to it.
 
Last edited:
Let me present an alternative question- should fighters meaningfully exist in a space setting where a ship's main guns have the firepower to wipe away cities and the accuracy to be used as point defense?
 
Mildly stupid question: Are carriers a thing in Star Trek?
It depends. Generally speaking carriers as we understand them do not exist, those that do tend to be in spinoff games and there they're generally just ww2 carriers in space. Star Trek: Invasion had one of the few depictions of basically modern fighter combat in space in a video game (as I understand it).
 
Mildly stupid question: Are carriers a thing in Star Trek?
Shuttle-sized fighters are technically a thing that exist around the TNG era, but not in any great numbers so it seems. So probably not in the way you're thinking, where fightercraft would constitute the main 'armament' like on a modern-day carrier - any ship that can carry shuttles can probably service fighters, but not many.

Fighters just don't seem to be very good in Star Trek - they don't have the massive powerplants to run high-powered phasers or disruptors, and they don't have the space to store many torpedoes.
 
Shuttle-sized fighters are technically a thing that exist around the TNG era, but not in any great numbers so it seems. So probably not in the way you're thinking, where fightercraft would constitute the main 'armament' like on a modern-day carrier - any ship that can carry shuttles can probably service fighters, but not many.

Fighters just don't seem to be very good in Star Trek - they don't have the massive powerplants to run high-powered phasers or disruptors, and they don't have the space to store many torpedoes.
If not shuttle-sized...are ship-sized fighter carriers something we can do? If we don't have to put any nacelles on the successor to the Skate, that'd be seriously good for shaving off volume and mass.

...I understand that the resulting carrier would be humongous, but the Skate is pretty small anyway.
 
So, something like CLACs from Honor Harrington? LACs, as I recall, were about frigate-sized (in-universe). We'd need a real chonker of a ship to carry more than one or two, though.
 
Oh yeah, the Danube runabout can serve as a bomber. Kinda. It's really a very tiny starship, but it fights as a bomber.

That's more Star Trek, yes. Rather than like, a single man fighter, a... very small starship might be more effective.

Fighters DO exist, but they seem to function most of the same way as shuttles do.

EDIT -

I feel like if absolutely needed, a carrier could be rigged up fairly quickly. Take the Galaxy-example... take a Galaxy, gut most the saucer out, and you have a massive small craft bay. Maybe replace the 10-Forward area with shuttle bay doors. Keep the ship functions in the engineering hull, the saucer primarily being a weapons platform and shuttlebay.

OR do something like the Monitor-Class from Star Trek Online... a Nebula-Class with a "Flight Deck" mission pod add on.

 
Last edited:
So, something like CLACs from Honor Harrington? LACs, as I recall, were about frigate-sized (in-universe). We'd need a real chonker of a ship to carry more than one or two, though.
Honestly, I had Battletech in mind with jumpships and magnetic dropcollars and all that. (Which I'm pretty sure wouldn't apply to Star Trek. It'd need to be a ginormous bay of some kind for holding ships.)
 
Last edited:
If not shuttle-sized...are ship-sized fighter carriers something we can do? If we don't have to put any nacelles on the successor to the Skate, that'd be seriously good for shaving off volume and mass.

...I understand that the resulting carrier would be humongous, but the Skate is pretty small anyway.
Bit pointless when enemy ships respond to you launching by... Warping away. And when it comes to hitting targets that Can't do that you could just put the weapons on the ship with the warp drive for the same effect.
 
So, something like CLACs from Honor Harrington? LACs, as I recall, were about frigate-sized (in-universe). We'd need a real chonker of a ship to carry more than one or two, though.
Really we need ONE ship with a very powerful warp core and big nacelles, then have that ship mate with 4-6 nacelleless frigate sized "fighters" who focus on high maneuverability and firepower. The "carrier" wouldn't look anything like a traditional carrier, more a set of nacelles with a tiny ship in the middle of long nacelle legs that have clamps to grab the parasite ships it carries into battlespaces.

Basically you take a dreadnaught sized ship and hollow it out so that a number of frigates without warp drives can fit stacked next to one another within it's warp field for travel.

And because there is no need for a warp drive or nacelles the fighters are literally just flying half saucers stacked with thrusters, phasors, and photon torpedoes. They stack together.
 
Last edited:
That's more Star Trek, yes. Rather than like, a single man fighter, a... very small starship might be more effective.

Fighters DO exist, but they seem to function most of the same way as shuttles do.

Yeah your not really going to see fighters in star trek often, as most everything that could fill that role is in actuality a full on spaceship, in its own right.

star trek at least in the shows is more or less trying to replicate the age of sail more than either of the world wars. As such instead of fighters, they have shuttles and runabouts fully capable of being their own spacecraft with no need to be carried around by a bigger ship, that shuttle bays exist in setting is largely so people can leave the ship at any time to go on like a side mission or make their way back to home base without having to turn the entire big ship back around.

There are also escorts that fulfil something like a fighter-crafts role, but they are usually large and independent ships as well, just purpose built for combat.
 
Not usually. Tenders usually make more sense given the tech base. There may have been a couple of exceptions, but I might also be remembering fanworks of some sort. Well, as of the end of DS9/Voyager anyway.

We could do a tender design with a nacelle-less take on the skate and a big warp carrier with crew support to compensate for their minimalist design, that'd be cool.

Really we need ONE ship with a very powerful warp core and big nacelles, then have that ship mate with 4-6 nacelleless frigate sized "fighters" who focus on high maneuverability and firepower. The "carrier" wouldn't look anything like a traditional carrier, more a set of nacelles with a tiny ship in the middle of long nacelle legs that have clamps to grab the parasite ships it carries into battlespaces.

Basically you take a dreadnaught sized ship and hollow it out so that a number of frigates without warp drives can fit stacked next to one another within it's warp field for travel.

I wouldn't make it tiny, I think it'd be worth it to give it engineering and crew tending capacity since that's one big weakness of minimalist combat ships. If it can gather even damaged tended frigates and their wounded crew that's a big upside for longevity. You may as well put all the utility your battlegroup need in it, like long range sensors, and some defenses to act as an anchor.

Think one of our big multirole cruisers but trading its main armament for a set of attached frigates.

Shape wise, I think a big cylinder for the frigates to attach to would work, but if you go for 4 frigates you can probably keep a saucer and have 2 on each "wing" of it.
 
Last edited:
We could do a tender design with a nacelle-less take on the skate and a big warp carrier with crew support to compensate for their minimalist design, that'd be cool.



I wouldn't make it tiny, I think it'd be worth it to give it engineering and crew tending capacity since that's one big weakness of minimalist combat ships. If it can gather even damaged tended frigates and their wounded crew that's a big upside for longevity.
The tender would look like a freestanding inline secondary hull. Where the saucer would normally be would just have a frame with connection points to dock 4-6 skate sized nacelle free ships.

We could do a tender design with a nacelle-less take on the skate and a big warp carrier with crew support to compensate for their minimalist design, that'd be cool.



I wouldn't make it tiny, I think it'd be worth it to give it engineering and crew tending capacity since that's one big weakness of minimalist combat ships. If it can gather even damaged tended frigates and their wounded crew that's a big upside for longevity. You may as well put all the utility your battlegroup need in it, like long range sensors, and some defenses to act as an anchor.

Think one of our big multirole cruisers but trading its main armament for a set of attached frigates.
Tiny for the size of the nacelles it's strapped to. Basically a frigate sized central hull with dreadnaught sized nacelles hanging off the sides.
 
Last edited:
There are also escorts that fulfil something like a fighter-crafts role, but they are usually large and independent ships as well, just purpose built for combat.

Starfleet just in general, even in a war time scenario, tends to go Quality of Quantity and crew is ALWAYS the issue.

Rather than building 100 fighters then need 100 pilots, build 30 small starships with more power and split the crew.
 
So, something like CLACs from Honor Harrington? LACs, as I recall, were about frigate-sized (in-universe). We'd need a real chonker of a ship to carry more than one or two, though.
Honestly, I had Battletech in mind with jumpships and magnetic dropcollars and all that. (Which I'm pretty sure wouldn't apply to Star Trek. It'd need to be a ginormous bay of some kind for holding ships.)
The best bet would be to make what's basically a MGB/MTB in space - taken over long distances by tenders/otherwise supported by them, but otherwise highly manoeuvrable & capable of extreme speeds over relatively short distances. Not the largest or most powerful craft, but their size/cost allows them to basically run in swarms towards anyone hostile and drown them and their defences in torpedos.

Thinking about it, drone ships with a manned mothership/tender might be the way to go here. From both Enterprise and TOS/TOSR we know that they can be used to great effect by the local powers (though offensive drones only really used by the Romulans in unique circumstances), and we'd get to strip them down even more/up the firepower per tonne.
 
Back
Top