Starfleet Design Bureau

[Sayle]

[X] 2 Impulse Thrusters [Maneuverability: Low] (Final Cost: A-)

The financials for the Galileo are looking absolutely fantastic by any definition, even with the unbudgeted increase caused by the new monotronic computer system. But this has come at a cost, with the dual engines providing a below-average amount of thrust compared to recommended specifications. It is your judgement that a science ship and secondary combatant is unlikely to meaningfully suffer a 20% shortfall on that front, especially when its unprecedented warp speed means it should be able to decline an engagement. Though as the ship ages that may become less true, and the Galileo could end up having to bare teeth.

Speaking of, that's the next job on the list. As you see it there are three phaser layouts you could use, all of them exploiting the specifications of the Type-2 phaser. The first is triple the firepower of the Curiosity-class, with two dual phaser banks covering the forward quarter of the ship. The additional engagement angle of the Type-2 will give the Galileo increased coverage compared to its predecessor and an additional punch. It won't win any prizes, but it should provide a basic protective armament and utility function for the ship.

The second is to double the phaser banks again, for four total. Rather than positioning the banks forwards, you could offset them to port and starboard to provide the widest possible firing range. This would essentially cover the forward three-quarters of the ship, allowing a solid all-round defensive armament which can engage every approach except the aft.

Finally you could add an additional two banks in a roughly triangular arrangement around the circumference of the saucer. This would cover almost the entire ship, but a thirty percent increase in cost for only a minor increase in security might be a compromise that needs deep consideration. Then there are the torpedoes.

The antimatter warheads are an undeniably potent armament, providing a major punch at the beginning of an engagement. However the Galileo's lackluster engines mean that it would be unable to reliably put them on target against anything smaller than a heavy cruiser. Admittedly that may be exactly the kind of opponent that you would be the most glad to have torpedoes, so there is that.

[ ] 2 Phaser Banks
[ ] 4 Phaser Banks
[ ] 4 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

	2 Phaser Banks	4 Phaser Banks	+2 Torpedoes	6 Phaser Banks	+2 Torpedoes
Coverage	38%	75%	75%	100%	100%
Single Target Rating	7	10	16	12	18
Multi-Target Rating	2	7	8	12	14
Average Damage	5	9	11	12	14
Max Sustained Damage	12	12	24	12	24
Alpha Strike	12	12	48	12	48
Infrastructure	A-	C+	D+	C-	D-
Tactical Rating	F	D+	B-	B-	A

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 

[NSMS]

The current design is shaping up so we can make it good at basically anything we want except full military action- and even there, it's not going to be helpless. Just not optimised for it. Science should definitely be the main focus, but depending on options I wouldn't mind dabbling in some some side capabilities too.

Edit: Hey, update!

 

[Alectai]

I thought you said the last phase was the last cost part!

Blargh.

Oh well, I think 6 Phasers'll do it. We can afford the hit and it gives it respectable tactical punch without breaking the bank.

 

[Sayle]

I thought you said the last phase was the last cost part!

Blargh.

Oh well, I think 6 Phasers'll do it. We can afford the hit and it gives it respectable tactical punch without breaking the bank.

Click to shrink...

Infrastructure is separate to civilian cost.

 

[Alectai]

Infrastructure is separate to civilian cost.

Click to shrink...

Ah, well then.

Still think 6 is the way to go here. The cost isn't unacceptable but it turns a Galileo into a nasty porcupine that can grind down swarms in short order, especially in conjunction with a Shark duo to provide burst on command.

Getting B- Tactical out of this for only a C- in Infrastructure is a good tradeoff.

 

[Skippy]

Hot damn, looking good!

I'm pretty sure that once the secondary hull is factored into things there's going to be quite a bit more volume to play around with, it's got 7/8 decks (depending on how you count them) verses the 5 of the Sagarmartha's secondary hull, and the warp core seems to take up proportionally less space as well as being one intermix(?) chamber shorter. There was room for two auxiliary slots in that secondary hull, so I imagine it'll be around three for the Galileo secondary.

Click to shrink...

Holy shit, you're right, this thing is going to mass something like a hundred and fifteen thousand tons more than a Sagarmatha, I just checked.

I think A,B,C ratings for the main stats in descending order of priority should be plenty doable with our internal space budget, in that case. Especially if this is roughly the same size ballpark as a Constitution, which as a contemporary explorer should be able to manage A,A-,B stats. That's probably using some more gucci components than we might put into a design like this, but even so, we don't need to hit the same targets to arrive at a ship which can do really well at everything required of it.

EDIT: This was drafted shortly before the update but posted after, and it seems like it is definitely plausible, given the B- option.

 

[Alectai]

Yeah, I'm in favor of 6 phasers but no torpedoes, this'll make it an excellent rearline combattant surpassing the Cygnus by a fair amount outside of burst damage (Which, as has been established, is perfectly well covered by Sharks--which are cheaper by way of being lightweight frigates anyway), but without breaking our infrastructure bank budget either.

It'll have a hard time bursting regardless, but being able to strike at anything in phaser range of it from any angle is a valuable niche.

 

[Tank man]

That's a really well laid out table, can't speak for the others but it makes it much easier for me to understand.

-
Four phaser banks is the minimum to get it up to Cygnus standards, six will give us an advantage of 4 in single target rating and a whopping 9 in multi target rating.

I'd say that with this in mind, six is the optimal number and if we do go for torpedoes that'd just be a nice bonus.

 

[Derek58]

Hmm, yea I'm also thinking that only 6 phasers is the way to go, since it makes up for the ship's meh agility nicely and gives it a great punch.

 

[Ambit]

6 phasers, no torpedos. B- Tactical, C- Infrastructure sounds good to me.

 

[Skippy]

@Sayle, how much does the Infrastructure Cost matter, and how much is it offset by having an exquisite A- rating for the main cost?

Because I am seriously tempted by the prospect of an A in tactical.

Like goddamn, we'd have a workhorse cruiser which can do any job, and is almost as powerful as a canon Constitution class starship. This could take the design from "Useful combatant in an emergency." to "Breakfast on Qo'noS in eight weeks.". But if it hurts the economics of the ship more than the tactical benefits offset it, then it would be a mistake.

 

[landcollector]

Given this thing can be outmaneuvered by a Sagarmartha, gonna have to apply for a temp ID Card to the coverage mafia for now. Which means 6 Phasers in the triangular arrangement. Not worth putting torps on this hull.

 

[Empress_Boog]

[ ] 4 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
[ ] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers

I am attracted to torps.

For now the ship can run away if it finds itself against some Klingon monster, I would like it to be heavily armed, this is meant to be a combat ship as a secondary role.

 

[NHO]

I just wanna working horse science cruiser and leave it with four phaser banks. But build in swarms.

 

[landcollector]

this is meant to be a combat ship as a secondary role.

Click to shrink...

As a rearline combatant, according to the design brief. Giving it a throw weight equivalent to a frontline heavy cruiser seems more than a little excessive.

Edit: And nearly outright fails the design in Infrastructure.

 

[Briefvoice]

Finally you could add an additional two banks in a roughly triangular arrangement around the circumference of the saucer. This would cover almost the entire ship, but a thirty percent increase in cost for only a minor increase in security might be a compromise that needs deep consideration. Then there are the torpedoes.

Click to shrink...

So according to the chart, this takes the tactical rating from a D+ to a B-. Yet the text itself calls it "a minor increase in security".

I'm getting mixed messages here.

 

[Tank man]

Especially if this is roughly the same size ballpark as a Constitution, which as a contemporary explorer should be able to manage A,A-,B stats.

Click to shrink...

Not just a basic Constitution, the TMP refit Constitution given the saucer diameter (a few less decks though, and by best guess at the moment equal length).

There's a reason I've been saying our actual Constitution will probably be more in the Excelsior ballpark, dimensions wise. And given the threads collective love of bespoke explorers, I dare say you'd probably be looking at that B being a B+.

 

[Alectai]

So according to the chart, this takes the tactical rating from a D+ to a B-. Yet the text itself calls it "a minor increase in security".

I'm getting mixed messages here.

Click to shrink...

Presumably, it still provides a valuable tactical role as being our swarm buster in that case.

 

[Sayle]

@Sayle, how much does the Infrastructure Cost matter, and how much is it offset by having an exquisite A- rating for the main cost?

Because I am seriously tempted by the prospect of an A in tactical.

Like goddamn, we'd have a workhorse cruiser which can do any job, and is almost as powerful as a canon Constitution class starship. This could take the design from "Useful combatant in an emergency." to "Breakfast on Qo'noS in eight weeks.". But if it hurts the economics of the ship more than the tactical benefits offset it, then it would be a mistake.

Click to shrink...

Theoretically speaking it's likely to be the main limiter for ship buildrate, but that's in relation to other ships in construction. Which is largely non-combat logistical vessels currently, since the Soyuz had a lot of production during the war. But if you were going to be simultaeneously manufacturing, say, the Soyuz and the Galileo, it'll impact the ratio of how many get made of each.

But again, these ratings are kind of the reviews going "I expect a C, if there's a D there better be a B somewhere else to justify the tradeoff". The Supermarine Spitfire gets thrashed by a Gloster Meteor, but they'd both be getting high ratings because of the time they were constructed sets the expectations. It's when you get above average in multiple categories (sometimes from a great build combination, sometimes from cutting-edge tech that hasn't been deployed yet) that you get iconically good ships for their era.

As for the mass, the secondary hull mass is about a third that of the saucer. The saucer has a lot more volume and material. The Sagarmatha masses more because of the extra nacelles, but it's a near thing.

 

[Cursix]

I think increased coverage to make up for the lesser manoeuvrability. Likewise torps will be less effective due to being less nimble. 4 phasers no torps imo.

 

[Th3Saints]

Anything with 6 phasers is mandatory the question is if we eat the cost for A tactical with torps or not.

 

[Tank man]

If not for the phasers firing simultaneously limit, this thing would probably be right at home in the Kelvin universe (with the 6 phaser bank option).

 

[Alectai]

Anything with 6 phasers is mandatory the question is if we eat the cost for A tactical with torps or not.

Click to shrink...

Benefits for torpedoes are marginal, as if this thing is 1v1ing something slow enough to be hit by them, we have bigger problems, and it's a large hit to infrastructure.

Six Phasers makes this the best swarm-buster in the fleet. That gives it a valuable tactical niche which is well suited for its intended role as a second line combattant, since most of the things that are going to be bypassing the front lines are raiders and light ships--the ones most vulnerable to this tactic.

 

[Wootius]

@Sayle, how much does the Infrastructure Cost matter, and how much is it offset by having an exquisite A- rating for the main cost?

Because I am seriously tempted by the prospect of an A in tactical.

Like goddamn, we'd have a workhorse cruiser which can do any job, and is almost as powerful as a canon Constitution class starship. This could take the design from "Useful combatant in an emergency." to "Breakfast on Qo'noS in eight weeks.". But if it hurts the economics of the ship more than the tactical benefits offset it, then it would be a mistake.

Click to shrink...

I would be willing to do 6/2. It'll let it bite more on fortifications and heavy ships, which this thing basically is at this point in the timeline.

 

[Alectai]

Most importantly, going against a Torpedo Armament means that the major Infrastructure bottleneck is Phasers--which are the secondary weapon of the Selachii class--their primary weapons (Their Photon Torpedoes) are not so limited, which means we can likely produce these in parallel for maximum synergy.

After all, Phasers are used by almost everything, they're being produced in large quantities one way or the other. But as we're seeing, the major Infrastructure cost overlay is in Torpedoes.