Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
random_npc said:
ok a thought, the bird of prey sounds like a glass cannon right? burst damage, maneuverability and cloaking to punch up by killing the other guy before the fact its made of tissue paper comes up. What if we made a frigate meant to take the first shot on the chin and shoot back? Go full saucer and good phaser coverage so no matter where they pop up from they can get shot.

I don't think we can match the BOP at its own game, starfleets just not that willing to spend blood, but we could build a ship built to counter it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Weird thought what if we reorient the warp drive to point "down" single through a full saucer and move in warp like that while side to side in space having a full ring of phasers around us around the rim and under a full impulse drive system perhaps some on the under edge of the phasers band for omptimal movement
 
the swarm said:
Weird thought what if we reorient the warp drive to point "down" single through a full saucer and move in warp like that while side to side in space having a full ring of phasers around us around the rim and under a full impulse drive system perhaps some on the under edge of the phasers band for omptimal movement
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hmm, like this? It'd work if we could make a shorter Nacelle, and I can't think of a good place for the deflector. It would make sense if they had to be in front enough to deflect things, but we'd have a very flat warp profile.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
Wootius said:
Hmm, like this? It'd work if we could make a shorter Nacelle, and I can't think of a good place for the deflector. It would make sense if they had to be in front enough to deflect things, but we'd have a very flat warp profile.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's where I have been thinking can we make the body itself a deflector dish or propose a hybrid deflector nacelle hybrid to channel in the desired particles or would it be unfeasible if not deflector placement can be flexible as it's possible to place on the secondary hull in some cases
 
As far as a name goes, given this is meant to be a mass produced class of escorts, why not name it after weapons, like the Weapon-class destroyer of WW2? Amongst the various members of the Federation there's likely no shortage of weapon names, and it's also one of the easier ones for us as players to take from an existing non-human weapon name.
 
Why not go for a fun name. Like Puteketeke.

Cold Dust said:
[X] Arrowhead (160,000 Tons, No Secondary Hull)

It's very rare we go for a polarized design that isn't an enormous money-sink. We're overdue for an internal planetary/system defense ship, as the political landscape changes we can design other ships as required.

I'd also point out, we're not only building a batch of ships right now, we're designing them right now. If they're not really needed, we only build a few. If the Kzin invade and we need cheap warships fast, they're already available. If something else is required, we've got a solid layer of combat ships to lean on in the meantime.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We already designed a planetary defense ship - the constable class.
 
Last edited:
Remove ads
2186: Project Soyuz (Spaceframe: Part Two)
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Arrowhead (160,000 Tons, No Secondary Hull)

    Having decided on an integrated arrowhead design, the team gets to work drawing out the basic fundamentals of the spaceframe. It's quite a bit larger than the Skate was, but follows similar design principles with the ship being built up vertically from a flat ventral aspect. The center of the arrowhead is elevated to provide space for the bridge as well as a crew and command deck intended to house the majority of the non-essential systems. The wider expanse of the arrowhead itself, two decks thick, is intended for the vital functions of the ship. But here the future of the Soyuz diverges, and you have to make a choice.

    The problem is the main deflector. The Skate originally used a blister, and that is an option here as well. But the larger nature of the Soyuz presents an alternative: by recessing an inline deflector at the nose, you can minimise the forward and aft profiles of the ship. It will impinge somewhat on the internal space, but it avoids having to add extra mass for the ventral blister. With the main deflector fitting in an inline position, the nacelles would then be moved to the wings. The Type-3 nacelles are too large to integrate into the ship entirely, but the inner surfaces can be partially internal to reduce exposure to enemy fire.

    The second option, of course, is to follow the same design as the Skate. The deflector blister would add mass, but it would also avoid taking up existing design space for the ship's interior. With the deflector hanging beneath the plane of the ventral hull, the best place for the nacelles would be in what the design team is calling an "ice skating" configuration, shielded by the bulk of the primary hull and located to either side of the deflector blister. This would avoid an increase in the width of the ship's beam in addition to the height increase added by the blister. You feel fairly confident that you can avoid any firepower losses in either case.

    [ ] Inline Deflector and Nacelles (Reduced Space)
    [ ] Blister Deflector and Ventral Nacelles (+20,000 Tons)



    Two Hour Moratorium, Please
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [ ] Inline Deflector and Nacelles (Reduced Space)

    This is a mono-role ship, it shouldn't need too much space. We can afford partially integrated nacelles.
     
    [ ] Inline Deflector and Nacelles (Reduced Space)

    I think this is the better option. Given the same firepower is going to be acquired with either option, lower tonnage is better as you get superior maneuverability due to superior thrust:mass ratios (and also lower costs). As a side benefit, it would be aesthetically distinct from the Skate.
     
    Last edited:
    Hm. I'm inclined to go the blister route. I imagine interior space will already be at a premium, and given this hull is likely to be on extended deployments of multiple months I want to be sure there exists enough volume for some crew accomodations.
     
    I figure if there's any bit of utility we can add onto these beyond the initial design, it's having an exceptional sensor suite to counter Cloaks, which will let them double as... Not surveyors, we won't have the internal capacity for that, but general patrol ships that can mark out Things of Interest for actual surveyors to look at.

    The question is if that's worth another 20K tons of Mass, when the intent here is that we spit these out in job lots. Added non-Tactical utility is a stretch goal after all rather than something we absolutely need. So the question is if the added 20K of a blister and ice-skate design will cause enough Problems in production to limit the value.

    Hrm, actually, that's a good point. At a current total of 160k Mass vs 300k Thrust, we're only 20K away from getting Maximum Effective Maneuverability. Which is something we might be able to achieve with some Prototype stretch goals or other engineering wizardry. 180K Mass vs 300K Thrust though means that's probably out of reach.

    So to me, the choice seems to be between "Manage to get a little more Utility" vs "Achieving Maximum Mobility". Tough call.
     
    Last edited:
    The entire advantage of this shape was the low total mass (and thus cost). That makes the option to not increase the mass seem like a fairly obvious pick for me.

    Additionally, less mass means more maneuverability which we need to keep the limited firing arcs on target.

    [ ] Inline Deflector and Nacelles (Reduced Space)
     
    Last edited:
    I think the design will look a lot more balanced with some things on the bottom so I support the blister for that reason alone. Also, another 20,000 tons for no extra size on the beam is great, keeps the engines in the same relative position.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top