Starfleet Design Bureau

Aesthetically, I'm in favor of unmanned sci-fi ball turrets. Basically like this.

Pretty much what I was picturing when I read Gimball turret. Though for some reason my first immediate thought was portal? IDK why I think it might be because of the rocket turret or glados looking slightly like camera stabilizers.
 
Last edited:
These things ARE true is the thing. If the enemy makes no mistakes, they can exploit blind spots. And using cheap, disposable guns and bombs on equally cheap delivery systems to kill expensive ships with flawed defenses is in fact an excellent tactic. See the recent sinking of the Moskva and the proliferation of quadcopters carrying bombs in Ukraine.

And our argument is that the gimballed design is BETTER at countering those strategies, and can do so at a lower price point.

Please consider, for a moment, the differences between an unarmored aquatic warship designed to work in a large battlegroup, with the maneuverability of a, well, boat, no armor to speak of, and a total dependence on active defenses to defeat incoming attacks - attacks which will generally be fired at ranges so long that unguided munitions are essentially utterly impractical and warships nowadays only carry the most token of gun armaments, generally for the purposes of blowing up things that don't actually threaten them...

And a Star Trek starship, which has a thrust-weight ratio that makes supermaneuverable fighter jets look weak, shields which allow even something as overgunned and overengined (and thus implicitly undershielded) as a Kzinti interceptor to absorb multiple photon torpedo hits and extended exchanges of fire from two heavily armed attack craft of roughly comparable role and presumably size, engaging at ranges which are relatively close enough, thanks to the rather higher muzzle velocity of speed-of-light DEWs (or faster-than-light ones depending on the canon you want to use), that direct-fire gunnery is important.

The two literally do not even slightly resemble each other, and a brief moment's thought should show that your example is based on a combat paradigm that is so completely different from the one seen in Star Trek that it is utterly inapplicable.

More importantly, there is not just one potential archetype of foe in the galaxy. If you ever face people whose paradigm is based on tougher, relatively more sluggish ships, you'll end up getting smacked for exclusively trying to fight the last war.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that the damage-protection, heat dissipation and safety requirements of a combat-damage rated fusion reactor are a wee bit more rigorous than those of your backyard backup energy generation setup.
Especially at this point in the time line.

Having a small fusion bottle lose containment several hundred yards from your home has very different consequences from having it do so inside a warship.
Let alone a warship thats being shot at.
I do have to point out that the Federation uses Antimatter reactors. So if they can make fucking antimatter save enough to put on warships they should be no freaking problem in installing smaller armored fusion reactors to extend the power grid.
 
I do have to point out that the Federation uses Antimatter reactors. So if they can make fucking antimatter save enough to put on warships they should be no freaking problem in installing smaller armored fusion reactors to extend the power grid.
Fusion reactors are relatively weak compared to antimatter. And each extra fusion reactor takes up mass and bulk, consumes fuel, introduces a point of failure and requires maintenance. Having extra fusion reactors to boost weapons would be a poor choice, better to make the primary power plants more robust.

I think the issue is more how much heat can the ship dissipate. Thermal dissipation is a highly undervalued and understated but extremely important metric for determining real-world performance of many things.
 
Last edited:
@Sayle it might be a good idea to remind people of the whole "can only fire 2 phasers at a time" thing - or, if that's been dropped, the phasers probably need to be rebalanced so that Focused Emitters are actually a side-grade to the Gimballed Cannons, rather than being worse than the Type 1 in terms of firing arc.
 
I do have to point out that the Federation uses Antimatter reactors. So if they can make fucking antimatter save enough to put on warships they should be no freaking problem in installing smaller armored fusion reactors to extend the power grid.
Starfleet literally has its warp core set up to be jettisoned into space at the first sign it starts fluctuating.
So no, they arent as confident as you appear to be.

And if its Starfleet SOP to eject power reactors out of the ship?
Consider how much structural compromise you need to be able to design not just one central reactor for that measure, but an abundance of peripherally located mini reactors.

Not gonna happen.
 
tbf, a fusion reactor shouldn't be remotely as fail deadly as an antimatter reactor. Of course, Star Trek loves its explosive wiring and electronics so it'll probably be fail deadly because we can't have nice things.
 
To me it's not really a big deal which variation of the type 2 phaser wins the vote.
Both design philosophies have benefits. and who is to say that we can't have both variations developed down the line?
 
tbf, a fusion reactor shouldn't be remotely as fail deadly as an antimatter reactor. Of course, Star Trek loves its explosive wiring and electronics so it'll probably be fail deadly because we can't have nice things.
The problem with a fusion reactor is that starfleet does not use electricity to power major systems. They use EPS plasma. This is the energy dense plasma generated by the antimatter core. They are not running this plasma through a steam engine to produce electricity like we would using current technology.

It is likely non-trivial to convert less dense energy sources into EPS plasma. It may just straight up be non-feasible to produce EPS plasma using any system BUT an antimatter core.

Though I do think Starfleet needs to play around with larger and smaller antimatter cores. There is no reason a civilian ship needs an antimatter core that's as powerful as a warship's core. There is no reason our frigate and dreadnaught should have the same size antimatter reactor ether. Bigger ships should have bigger reactors.

Though - Just an idea because we ARE redesigning phasors at the moment - Deliberately designing the phaser 2s to use less EPS, lowering damage but making it so 3 can fire at once.
 
Last edited:
As I read it, the technical challenge is a matter of THROUGHPUT not output. The Warp Core can produce arbitrary amounts of energy as needed, but the EPS can only handle so much at once.
 
As I read it, the technical challenge is a matter of THROUGHPUT not output. The Warp Core can produce arbitrary amounts of energy as needed, but the EPS can only handle so much at once.

How about a 2nd EPS grid running parallel with the original and "stuff" is shared between them. That way you have more plasma flowing and if 1 is damaged you can still run some stuff off the other
 
How about a 2nd EPS grid running parallel with the original and "stuff" is shared between them. That way you have more plasma flowing and if 1 is damaged you can still run some stuff off the other
The problem there is that you'd essentially be trying to duplicate an existing EPS system - when that's already taking up a substantial amount of space just for the single system every ship has. And when it's a system that must be maintained regularly and to high standards, to prevent it from wearing out and starting to spray superheated and corrosive plasma into habitation spaces. And when serious fluctuations or damage to the EPS grid can burn out attached systems in spectacular fashion. And, of course, when this is also consuming extra cost and material to fabricate and fit.
 
The fact that the Selachii pair actually used group tactics to more effectively dispatch the Kzinti runabouts does not imply that if there was only one operative Selachii it would not have been able to defeat said runabouts and would have been destroyed.

You're right about that, I had misread the update.

More importantly, something you conveniently ignore is that an overgunned, overengined Kzinti warship (i.e. one which is going to have paper shields and poor redundancy) takes a fuckton of punishment.



It survives a single torpedo in the first exchange of fire as well as both ships' phasers without significant damage, and the Starfleet captains expected it to be resilient enough that instead of trying to destroy it with single phaser shots, they point-blanked it with two photon torpedoes after its shields were downed, a maneuver which actually does significant shield feedback damage. It also blew up from a secondary explosion, which could suggest that if the torpedo had hit at a worse angle and missed the warp core/magazines/other volatile systems, the Kzinti vessel might have still survived.

Like, fundamentally, the Federation-Kzin engagement shows that coverage is being grossly overrated - if even a relatively fragile warship is tough enough that you need a significant exchange of fire to bring down its shields and you'll want a photon hit to confirm a kill, you simply cannot rely on a single phaser to be a significant deterrence to a dedicated warship.

Aaaand wrong about absolutely everything else.

Gimballed phasers do more net damage overall, when you factor in time on target. That was the whole point that I kept harping on.

Yes, single phasers don't destroy ships, Sherlock - which means that you aren't going to destroy the enemy in one strafing run from your focused emitters. While your ship wheels around to get the enemy back in its sights, a coverage-based loadout could've been firing at the enemy nigh-continuously through the whole maneuver, dealing more total damage.

The damage numbers here are 9 and 6 per phaser, I don't know where you're getting the impression that focused emitters are mega death rays compared to a peashooter.
 
Also, just noticed something on the potential developments front.

Were we to unlock EPS systems that can handle three cannons at once, three gimbal mounts will match two focused mounts. And it would be easier/cheaper to arrange those triple overlaps than even just double focused emitters, let alone trying to reasonably get three 75 degree cones to overlap.

Pure speculation mind, no telling if such an upgrade would come before phaser strips render the entire concept obsolete.
 
2193: The War Continues
[X] Type-2 Gimballed Cannon

The decision to sacrifice power in exchange for a wider firing arc is not easily made, and perhaps in future that will be an inevitable trade off as technology advances. But for the moment the versatile defenses of Federation starships have been useful in assuring their safety. With your advice in mind, tactical moves to put the finishing touches on the design. With the necessity for moving parts, some elements have to be scaled back. The end result is not entirely displeasing.

The Type-2 will be deployed from three-and-a-half meter circular hatches along the hull, doors retracting along the inner surface to allow a lift that mates with the outer hull to deploy the phaser to the surface. The Type-2 consists of a two-and-a-half meter linear focusing assembly that resembles a cannon, fixed by a central beam channel which rises approximately a meter above the surface of the hull to meet the cannon when deployed. The phaser beam itself is generated within the ship and fired up through the channel, which is then deflected by the focusing assembly where the channel meets the cannon to a trajectory that aligns with the barrel. The necessarily limited size of the miniaturized diverter puts an upper threshold of particle density on the phaser beam, with higher energies overwhelming the system and disintegrating the cannon, whereupon the phaser beam simply fires out into space.

To increase the available firing arc, the cannon itself is capable of approximately seventy degrees of vertical movement at the beam diverter, while the entire assembly is mounted on a circular table that provides another seventy degrees of rotation on the horizontal axis in either direction. Movement is not possible when the particle beam is firing, as the particle diverter has a non-symmetrical charge and changes in attitude will result in a skewed phaser beam that intersects with the Type-2's components.

All that being decided, spooling up manufacturing and ironing out any defects will still be the work of years. In the interim the Federation-Kzinti War continues. With Starfleet assembling in force, the first offensives have begun into Kzinti territory. The main stumbling block has not been the various House Fleets that make up their defenses, but the starbases that have been constructed over major worlds to suppress slave populations and centralise control over starship operations. While the Federation also makes use of supply and repair stations, as well as defensive satellites, the kind of monumental "starbases" that combine defensive and logistical functions that the Kzinti have constructed don't have any equal in Federation space.

Having seen first-hand how effective they can be in the advance on Kzinhome, which has now stalled in the outer territories as Starfleet Command reconsiders their strategy, you have been asked to liaise with infrastructural experts on the best design for a standardised Starbase.

But to do that, you first have to define your objectives. The kind of Starbase designed to be thrown up in a small sector and act as a logistics hub doesn't have much crossover with something designed to sit over and defend, say, Earth or Andoria.

You see three possibilities. The first is for a small outpost, one that can supply starships to extend their operational range and act as a hub for civilian traffic. Defensively speaking it would only need to be able to dissuade attack, being strong enough to hold off perhaps a small squadron of enemy vessels. The second possibility is for a larger base, one meant to act as a regional hub and able to supply a small fleet. It would also require a notable (and detectable) investment of starships to destroy, allowing redeployments to support the base before an attack of sufficient force arrives. The third and final base would be for a major installation capable of stalemating even major attack forces and defending key points, such as core member worlds vital to Federation security.

What do you think the Federation has the most pressing need for?

[ ] Small outposts able to project Federation influence on the borders.
[ ] Regional bases for Federation fleet elements and expansion in outer regions.
[ ] Starbases to defend Federation core worlds.

Two Hour Moratorium, Please
 
Last edited:
[ ] Small outposts able to project Federation influence on the borders.
[ ] Regional bases for Federation fleet elements and expansion in outer regions.

i think the major investment is prohibitively expensive and wouldn't be worth it

i favor the regional bases because when they get attacked we can tell but someone will inevitably make better argument in a sec
 
Movement is not possible when the particle beam is firing, as the particle diverter has a non-symmetrical charge and changes in attitude will result in a skewed phaser beam that intersects with the Type-2's components.
Please tell me this means the TURRET cannot move while firing and not the ship its attached to, because that absolutely would constitute a trap option.
 
[] Regional bases for Federation fleet elements and expansion in outer regions.

This is what we need now. The war is not reaching the core regions. These are the sort of thing we would need eventually, but building regional bases will reduce the need for them by pushing conflicts out rather than drawing them in.

The small bases support the boarders we already have. The big star bases defend the core and do nothing about our boarders.

The medium star bases are all about expansion.
 
Please tell me this means the TURRET cannot move while firing and not the ship its attached to, because that absolutely would constitute a trap option.

All ships equipped with the Type-2 are equipped with multi-axis impulse engines and the most powerful inertial dampers in the galaxy so they can slam to a stop at a moment's notice. This resulted in most kills in the Federation-Klingon Wars being from starships locking the Klingons in a tractor beam then slamming on the breaks, a tactic colloquially known as "the Qo'nos splatter".
 
Back
Top