In other words, that aspect of PR is handled by Federation Popular Science running articles about the new Cardassian starbase-killer missiles and how they obsolete our military strategy, after which Starfleet uses the resulting public outcry to request budget increases? :V

Anything officially from Starfleet also has to dodge around the Pacifists on the Council, who don't particularly enjoy being told a specific threat exists that will require an overtly military solution, and also around our diplomatic strategy, who don't really want us pointing fingers at anyone specific because it will affect existing diplomatic attempts. The latter is a legitimate concern, in my opinion, the former is a political reality.
 
AD - Excelsior Variant: Project Excalibur
And for fun, here's another proposal in in-verse document style. Thoughts?

The reason why the part about the Excelsior-B is collapsed is definitely not because I was too lazy to write it.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Fleet Design Document 2318-028408(S)<D>
An Excelsior Future (Summary) <Draft>

A Feasibility Study and Analysis of Proposed Excelsior Refits.
Fleet Design, Fleet 2330, Excelsior, Project Excalibur, Refit, [12 Additional Tags]

Commander William Solberg, Group 15 "Lathriss Analysis"
[7 Additional Contributors]

SECRET // NEPTUNE-BLUE // NOFORN
––––––––––––––––

With the serial construction of the Ambassador and Enterprise in Utopia Planitia, the Excelsior class's forty year reign as the Federation's flagship Explorer is over. However, the Excelsior platform, suitably upgraded and modified, can continue to serve the Federation for at least another fifty years.

[-] Key Points
  • The Excelsior possesses a unprecedented capacity for upgrades, due to its large frame and warp core
  • New builds of the hypothetical Excelsior-B refit will be cost ineffective relative to the Ambassador and other proposed ship designs
  • The Project Excalibur subclass is cost-effective for new builds, and will fill the critical superheavy cruiser gap, countering Cardassian and Horizon heavy cruisers
  • The Excelsior is a suitable platform for new high-capacity auxiliary classes
[-] Introduction

Starfleet faces many challenges in planning ship building - interstellar high-capability ships are expensive, requiring substantial amounts of berth time, crew, and strategic resources. Although Starfleet's strategic resource allocation has significantly increased since the start of the 2300s as a result of a large expansion campaign, and increased member resource contribution, responsibilities have also increased, stretching fleet resources thin. Current Starfleet doctrine and fleet composition planning relies on a core of heavy explorers handling diplomatic, scientific, and medical tasks, a role currently fulfilled by the Excelsiors.

In 2274, the USS Enterprise-B finished construction with the conventional Excelsior Block Ib warp core. Since then, nearly two dozen more have been completed, despite the expense. Each Excelsior-A requires 800 highly trained crew members, four years of build time, 230 units of Bulk Strategic Resources, and 160 units of Special Strategic Resources. Although further refits with new and updated technology will increase capabilities, new design capabilities will also increase, making further construction to this standard uneconomical.

[+] Excelsior-B

[-] Project Excalibur


The original intended role for the Excelsior was to serve exclusively as Explorer Corps exploration ships. As a result, the Excelsior is equipped with an extensive scientific, medical, and diplomatic suite. The Excelsior 2315 refit improved all three of those, as well as updating the phaser emitters, torpedo launchers, and shield emitters. However, with increasing tensions with the Cardassian Union, and with a potential conflict with the Horizon brewing, it is logical and prudent to prepare a new superheavy cruiser to counter both the Kaldar-bis and any Horizon cruiser designs.

Project Excalibur is a proposed Excelsior subclass utilizing modern technology and elimination of the now-unnecessary Five Year Mission capability to reduce the Excelsior's cost, in terms of crew and resources, and to provide an answer to modern cruisers. This standard will not be applied to existing ships; instead, it will exist in parallel with the proposed Excelsior-B refit.

Under the SDB-ONE capability rating system, it has a score of C8 S6 H5 L7 P5 D6, with a build time of three years, a reduced crew complement of 200 officers, 200 enlisted, and 200 technicians, and a reduced Strategic Resource cost of 230 Bulk and 130 Special. This cost reduction is in line with the Constitution-B's reduced cost relative to the Constitution-A.

[Detailed Specifications are located in Ship Specifications Document SDB-2317-024400]

Although it retains much of the expense of the Excelsior frame, it also retains its high upgradability. Using current technological advancement projections, Project Excalibur will be an economical build option for at least another generation, and remain a viable deployment option until the 2370s.
 
Last edited:
If I am following correctly, you are proposing two refit paths for the Excelsior - one that retains Explorer capability (Excelsior-B) and one that turns them into a heavy cruiser (Excalibur).

Which refit gets applied to any particular Excelsior would depend on the needs at the time, I assume.
 
Last edited:
I may have to steal that formatting...
I went to the trouble of developing a consistently good-looking system for my wargames omake... which is stuck in writing hell.

Formatting is in markdown, because BBCode sucks.

I use Atom. As it turns out, you can copy the preview into the text box, which SV will happily accept.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
**{Document Type} {Year}-{ID}{Suffixes (S), <D>, etc.}**
**{Name}**
{Description}
{Tag List}, [{Number} Additional Tags]

{Rank} {Name}, Group {Group ID} "{Group Name}"
[{Number} Additional Contributors]

{TOP SECRET | SECRET | Other} // {Compartment} // {Qualifiers}
––––––––––––––––

Distribution abbreviations:
ALLCON: All concerned
ALLCOM: All commands
SFCOM: Starfleet Command; Admiralty
FC: Federation Council
FCSC: Federation Council Security Committee

Security Compartments:
Prefixes:
CANARY: Early Warning
BANNER: Deep Space SIGINT Intercepts (T'Mir)
SOLARWIND: Listening Posts
ATHENA: Strategic Information
HAMMER: Codebreaking
NULL: Temporal Affairs
NEIGHBOR: Diplomatic information
NEPTUNE: Fleet Design

Suffixes:
PURPLE: Romulan
GREEN: Klingon
YELLOW: Cardassian
RAINBOW: Universal
BLUE: Federation

Qualifiers:
REL: Relevant
SYK: Seyek
QLT: Qloathi
FOUO: For Official Use Only
ORCON: Originator Controlled

If I am following correctly, you are proposing two refit paths for the Excelsior - one that retains Explorer capability (Excelsior-B) and one that turns them into a heavy cruiser (Excalibur).

Which refit gets applied to any particular Excelsior would depend on the needs at the time, I assume.
Well, Project Excalibur (there was a prolonged ... discussion ... over the name) is supposed to be a cheaper version, like the Constitution-B.

It's possible to do the refit, but the real question is why you would do said refit. Applying the Constitution-B's cost differential, we get something that's competitive with the Renaissance and Enlightenment on efficiency, though at high material cost. Its edge is in Combat Stat per crew and per month.

Another side benefit is the ability to refit these into something like the Lakota, whereas the cruisers will probably have a much more limited refit capacity - the downside of a superoptimized design.
 
Last edited:
@Nix When are you thinking we would start working on 2310 Warp Propusion again? We're halfway through it and just stopped at some point, and that's the gate on T2 Nacelles right now.
It really depends on what the plans for the next frigate design are. If we are going for a 2323 design I expect us to use finishing that project as a one year filler for 40EA (with boost, either before or after one of the T3 frigate design projects, depending on how many projects need a boost in that first year), if we are going for a 2319 and that becomes apparent before the next research turn we might use Yoyodyne next year (but next year is looking pretty bad for boosts), otherwise it might end up waiting for a new warp team, which could be next year or some time within the next five years, depending on what and how many teams are available from new members (a new warp team would be one of the higher priorities).
 
Just so everyone but especially @Nix knows, using presumed parts for T3 Sickbay and T3 Onboard Industry on my personal copy, I'm on board with a 2319 design right now. The only thing I need from a research plan is T2 Frigate Tactical Subframe completed in the 2318 research turn.
 
To expand on what Nix is saying:



Number of teams is how many teams have a specialty in that field, teams working is how many teams were researching a slide in that field this past Ex-Astria. Team 4+ and 6+ is how many teams in the field have a skill level of 4 or more or 6 or more, and active 4+ and 6+ is how many teams currently working a slide in that field are 4+ or 6+.

We have 20 teams at 4+ and 2 teams at 6+ currently.

Shields, Warp Tech, Propulsion and Personal all need a second dedicated team. Another cruiser team would be a good idea as well, that would give us 4 teams that we can dedicate to escort, cruiser and explorer research.
 
It's not built; it's just a refit proposal. For now, refits are outside of our hands. I could try to put together a modified Excelsior later, though.

With optimization, I am confident that it can pick up a couple more stat points over the Enlightenment.

Seems odd to propose a refit with statlines without sheet work to back it and at least show those stats can be accomplished with current tech, but oooook. I'll see if I can work up a similar statline myself.
 
Since everyone seems to agree that the current light hull situation (military ships using civilian grade hull because it's by far the lightest) is undesirable but nothing happened so far I tried out a possible fix. It's on the C8 parts / main sheet. The only design I tried out so far is the Amarki Scout Frigate, where I replaced civilian grade with T2 light hull:



The changes in particular:
  • Special cased civilian grade to only allow 1 SIF part per hull part used.
  • Reduced T2 light hull weight to be identical to civilian grade.
  • Used that as starting point to set new weights for all other light hull parts, making weight decrease with tech tier.
  • Halved all light hull effects, then added back 0.1 to all, to reduce effect scaling with tech (so that the overall usefulness does not increase too sharply), and to bring it more in line with the effect of civilian grade (but still a bit higher to compensate for higher crew and SR cost).
  • Reduced scale weight of medium hulls a bit to make the gap smaller and avoid the new light hull crowing out medium hulls from designs that would previously have used it.
It might be worth discussing if the crew costs should also be adjusted. And perhaps the change to medium hull was too small? It would be good if people tried out some designs to see if the balance is right. Previously the only change in C8 was to transition from using * in the name to mark availability to using a year column, so you can directly compare the effect of the light hull change by looking at the same design on C7 (or for that matter compare the stats on the parts sheets).

This seems okay. I charted it and the progression seems reasonable.

Reduce the light hull crew factor slightly (to say, 0.15?) might be a good idea but at the same time we'd expect light hulls to be used on ships where the size of the ship makes the crew smaller anyway. I would probably recommend the change anyway.
 
Seems odd to propose a refit with statlines without sheet work to back it and at least show those stats can be accomplished with current tech, but oooook. I'll see if I can work up a similar statline myself.

It's based off of the Constitution-B, and what that changed.

It's the Enlightenment, but on a Excelsior sized frame, so it's definitely possible.
 
Just so everyone but especially @Nix knows, using presumed parts for T3 Sickbay and T3 Onboard Industry on my personal copy, I'm on board with a 2319 design right now. The only thing I need from a research plan is T2 Frigate Tactical Subframe completed in the 2318 research turn.
Looks like with another boost it will finish with like 2 spare points from carryover next year. Mind posting your provisional design? You were talking about D6 possibilities and I can't get anything better than D5 on the C4 S4 H3 L5 P4 stat-line, and that's with using New Orleans nacelles.

It really depends on what the plans for the next frigate design are. If we are going for a 2323 design I expect us to use finishing that project as a one year filler for 40EA (with boost, either before or after one of the T3 frigate design projects, depending on how many projects need a boost in that first year), if we are going for a 2319 and that becomes apparent before the next research turn we might use Yoyodyne next year (but next year is looking pretty bad for boosts), otherwise it might end up waiting for a new warp team, which could be next year or some time within the next five years, depending on what and how many teams are available from new members (a new warp team would be one of the higher priorities).
I converted my Vanguard & Garrison escort designs I posted earlier to your new sheet (whatever changes you made didn't propagate to my copy, if they were intended to), and the SR cost of going to Light hulls instead of Civilian means keeping things at 60sr would be impossible. So I searched for things to so with the extra SR, re-jiggered things for even more part commonality, and wound up with enough spare power to add New Orleans nacelles on both instead of Miranda ones which gets to D5 (and the Vanguard gets P2 because reasons). So that's why I want them, and it can be done in a single year with a boost. Depending on how much improvement we see from T3 industry though, it could be handled by that and Centaur-A nacelles though.
 
It depends on the tech required. SWB's pocket Excelsior had -1C +2S +1P over that design, but it used an 1800kt frame and T3 subframes. If you can manage 4/4/4 crewing with your proposed statline and current tech I will be very surprised (not sarcastic, just don't know how you'd pull it off).
 
D6 Escort
Looks like with another boost it will finish with like 2 spare points from carryover next year. Mind posting your provisional design? You were talking about D6 possibilities and I can't get anything better than D5 on the C4 S4 H3 L5 P4 stat-line, and that's with using New Orleans nacelles.

We unlocked T3 Onboard Industry recently. That means:

(Provisional progression for T3 Onboard Industry and T3 Sickbays as neither is on the official sheet, but there's some leeway... Also before Nix's hull changes, but if anything those would be a net positive.)
 
Just trying to picture the vessel.

Large Engineering section, so has the traditional Starfleet form with the Engineering hull behind and under the Saucer.
One phaser bank, probably upper forward saucer - it's the traditional location.
Two burst torpedo launchers, for all the torpedoes. ALL OF THEM. Either both forward facing, or one forward and one rear.
One short range sensor and one Navigation Array - it tends to be somewhat myopic and potentially vulnerable to sensor damaging effects. May have issues in target rich environments.
14 shield generators - should be able to take incoming fire that would destroy a Miranda-A before taking more than scratch hull damage.
The crew are well fed and have extensive (possibly even excessive) medical support, but the lack of recreational facilities can cause problems on long trips away from stations.
Reasonable engines and plenty of fuel - has quite the cruising range - not sure if it is a sprinter though.
 
With parts and the hull change, I'm pretty sure I can pull off -1O for P3 and +5SR, if we want to cut down on crew costs while being mildly less concerned about SR (which is what Briefvoice seems to think). +/-.
 
Back
Top