Remove ads

Starship Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
MysteryCPU said:
@Skippy I understand that you disagree with how multiple the ship should be. However, a reading of the beginning of this phase states that the prior era of starship building focused on multi role ships that are competent in multiple missions and could defend themselves. But "which has been wonderful, but clearly that era of largess is at an end".

In other words, Starfleet's design philosophy has changed to what I pointed out: defense with focused mission abilities.

Also, you're finding my statement that the ship brief did not call for maximum agility but "decent engine profile vs mass factor" odd is…well okay. I understand that big engine can mean agility (to a point), but the operative word is "decent" agility.

Which is born out by the most recent post. Which says that we could get good acceleration with the type 7s, but that type 10 will be fast and also agile. As it hits the sweet spot. (There is a difference between agility vs acceleration).

It appears that a type 10 engine would make a Federation Bird-of-Prey. Foreword arcs for the big hit and highly maneuverable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, the main thing for me is that the update specifically references the New Orleans class evading enemy fire. Evading effectively requires manoeuvrability, and the words "evasive" and "manoeuvrable" are effectively synonyms when they're talking about things like fighter aircraft or other military vehicles expected to evade enemy fire. You're absolutely correct to note that agility is more than just raw acceleration though; that's the issue with the Type 7 thrusters.

In terms of ships being multirole, I'll admit this is partly influenced by me looking at DS9 and Voyager, as well as STO which I suspect @Sayle is drawing on at least implicitly, and seeing that the core job description of a Federation starship does not actually change post Wolf 359. Starships are still out patrolling, still regularly tasked with a mix of anti-piracy, humanitarian, diplomatic, survey and scientific missions. The basic formula which defines Star Trek as a piece of media does not radically change midway through the runtime of TNG.

Starfleet is in a bit of a panic now, but it's worth remembering that the Borg invasion Starfleet was worrying about did not actually happen, and these ships will be called on to perform a range of duties in peacetime. The Dominion War is coming, so we certainly want to make this ship a formidable combatant, but I think completely neglecting every other factor on this class would be a mistake. We'll see how much space we have left on the internals I guess.

Anyway, time to vote:

[X] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)
 
[X] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)

We got a ship that has a 270° firing arc for its phaser strip, so let's make it agile to allow it to orient its forward facing against the enemy at all times.
 
it looks like the Ambassador got a third production run? When did that happen? It's our most produced ship so far, and the shipyards probably hate us even more now
 
[X] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)

Looks like we aren't going for a torpedo boat, shame, that's my favorite ship loadout in sto; explosions go boom.
 
[X] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)

Startrek rear torpedoes almost never get used in the show. Plus the proposed ship has nearly 270 degree phaser arcs and is highly manoeuvrable.
 
I think that two prototype systems on this design would probably be fine.

The whole reason this ship is being designed, and not the projects we had on the slate, is a perceived need to radically up-gear the next generation of starships if we want to have a hope of fighting the Borg. That implies we do actually want some cutting edge technologies in service to help close the technological gap a bit. It's not simply about building the most utilitarian possible patrol ship, or a mass-production attack ship.

That being said, we do want this ship to be able to be built in numbers, but we put a couple of prototypes into our first design (which was also a light cruiser), and it turned out fine in terms of ease of manufacture.
 
Remove ads
2367: Project Saber (Propulsion: Part Two)
  • Threadmarks
    • Order -> Spaceframe -> Propulsion -> Tactical -> Internals -> Prototyping -> Certification -> Retrospective​

    [X] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)

    After some debate you elect to install the Type-10s. The impulse reactor needed to drive the engines is massive, but the performance promises to be something else. The Saber will be able to rapidly turn its bow to port or starboard by varying thrust levels, and with its lighter mass the onboard thrusters should also be able to change orientation reasonably quickly. The disadvantage is that with no aft armament that it has a distinct blindspot, but you are hopeful the engine performance will make that an unusual scenario.

    Now with a good idea of where the warp core is going to go, you need to manage the main deflector and nacelles. With your goal of keeping the ship's profile as minimal as possible, that rules out anything mounted above, below, or behind the spaceframe, which also cuts out the majority of Starfleet's favourite configurations. As you see it you have two main options: either integrating the nacelles partly into the saucer section, which will shield them from battle damage; or outriders off the edge of the primary hull.

    For the protected variant you would have to clear the outer edges of the saucer, really pushing space to a premium in the interior. For a dedicated combat ship that seems entirely practical, and you know the Defiant Project is pursuing a similar strategy. The loss in efficiency will drive the practical range of the ship down, though. The outrider nacelles on the other hand would increase the ship's profile and present an obvious target. The Borg would probably blow through regardless, but you're thinking more of standard engagements.

    With arguments being made in favour of both you turn to the main deflector as the deciding factor. The standard deflector design would serve here, but in that case you really would have to use outrider nacelles to get decent performance out of the warp drive. On the other hand a new design is being proposed that would use an antiproton-charged dish to enhance the deflector field. If you could use that then you can offset the unacceptable performance losses from the internal nacelles.

    [ ] Standard Deflector
    [ ] Antiproton Deflector (Prototype)



    Two Hour Moratorium on Voting, Please.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • In this case I think and outrider design with the standard deflector is probably the best bet.

    We can't really afford the loss of internal space given we've already chosen one option that decreases it, and if we go for another prototype technology then I'd prefer it be on our weapons and other tactical systems rather than the deflector.
     
    Seems like with outriggers, we'd basically be designing the Intrepid-class? Not a bad design. Or more like an Intrepid saucer with Miranda style nacelles? Either way, I don't think it would increase our profile that much and would probably be worth holding off on another prototype.
     
    I'd rather keep some room in reserve for the later stages of design for more attractive options, but even if it only serves to give it longer endurance it'd be worth it on a mass deployment ship.

    [ ] Standard Deflector
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top