Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
There are recent designs accessible in the SDB thread, but generally, a light explorer will have considerably greater build time and SR cost, slightly less in crew costs, but have extended capabilities under doctrine (including the 1 per event restriction and 50% greater firing weight). A light explorer would also have somewhat more space, as the smallest hull we have is the 1800kt, while a cruiser can be built on the 1500kt. This extra hull is also the main cost of the considerable SR bump.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think we should consider a light explorer rather than a heavy cruiser. Crew is still our worst constraint. We discover new SR sources all the time, and as you point out we have a lot of doctrine benefits to a light explorer.

MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
So are we talking about doing a Medium/Heavy Cruiser next instead of the (Ugh) 'Flower'? or are we waiting still?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think a better combat frigate (even if it technically meets the general frigate classification) should still be our next priority. I mean, did you see those Romulan and Klingon stats we just got? Sick!
 
nocarename said:
"They're willing to start by leasing some of the Shipyard One berths at Alukk and Indi Adamo & Daughters Yards at Duaba until they can get their own production sorted out," countered Lieutenant Commander Igatan Benit, her Indorian counterpart from the Starfleet Corps of Engineers, "If you want to see ambitious, you should see the proposals for Gaen VI that are being floated. A series of orbital rings with surface elevator tethers to run power and raw materials between the surface and the rings back and forth en mass. Incredible potential, but I'm less than enthused about how everything falls down or flies apart if there's an interruption in the power that lasts too long. Let alone what happens if a warhead detonates anywhere on it."

"Kell-Nac's people are the very best kind of crazy, as long as you check their work. Any other good pitches?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey, is that my Kell-Nac Seven? :D

"Instead of your boss or a minion? 'A demonstrated technical aptitude coupled with discipline issues best worked out in real world situations.' "

"What's that in plain Standard?"

"Bright enough that we'd like to keep you, bad enough at tests we aren't putting you in the Explorer Corps without a sponsor and caught enough times reassembling the Commandant's runabout in his office that we aren't starting you anywhere prominent," said Omaida.

"So what, you're Rear Admiral Leslie with all your issues at the very beginning of your career?"

"I could do worse for role models."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Awwww. :)

Though Leslie's only real 'disciplinary issue' is that some time around 2270, rumors came to the attention of the TOS-era Starfleet brass that he was at least tangentially and partially responsible for Banned from Argo. That was the only issue he needed to have. :p

I'm surprised but not disbelieving that the knowledge of that would have lasted this long- but then, given that he didn't get promoted for about fifteen or twenty years in the middle of his career there, most people can read between the lines, I guess.

TyrialFrost said:
I don't think it will be a Rennie successor, there is room in our doctrine for a heavy cruiser. Basically it will be the successor to the Excelsior-A role, but more efficient. Along those lines we should work out a plan for existing Excelsior-As, do they retire in 15ish years, or do we plan a Excelsior-B refit.

If that refit means they are more economical do we just build more Excelsior-As now and forget about a new Heavy Cruiser.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we are almost certainly better off refitting existing Excelsiors than retiring at that point in their service lives. However, this doesn't really impact the 'do we need a new heavy cruiser design' question, which revolves around "do we need much more than 15-20 of this class of ship, ever?" If so, the cost savings of building cheaper 1.5-megaton cruisers instead of 2.5-megaton explorers will kick in soon enough.

And we'll still have those 15-20 Excelsiors in service, and we'll still want them to be useful in the '30s and '40s... which means a 'B' refit.
 
Nervos Belli said:
My main issue with a medium-heavy cruiser is that we don't have many berths in the 1.5-2.5 mt range. We could use 3 mt but then we're competing with Ambassadors and any new Excelsiors. If we can commit to a few more berth expansions over the next couple years then I'd be more okay with if.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have 2 2.5mt berths and started 1 2mt berth this snakepit. UP can keep adding them for relatively cheap and I expect we will add a few more still. In addition we will at some point setup a second UP type yard so that will provide some more 2mt berths and the shipyard we can build at Gaen is 2 2mt berths. So 3 right now, expect another 2mt to be added at UP next snakepit so up to 4 in the near future. And as it is those cruisers are a decade or so until we start the prototype which gives us ample time to build up the 2mt berths needed for them.
 
chriswriter90 said:
Not after the Ambassadors Enlightenments are ready for mass production at any rate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not that this is necessary, to make the refit desirable in and of itself.

Void Stalker said:
To me a Light Explorer are old Explorers no longer used for the EC, basically what the Excelsior will be after we get the Ambassadors rolling out. They are not something I feel like we should be building, instead just holding onto the existing ships and putting them through refits as they are very good ships still and we have already constructed them. Plus the ones covering sectors have a good chance of being blooded or better.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The key words in this post are "to me." The rest of your view is predicated on what "light explorer" means 'to you.'

To certain other people, a light explorer is, simply, an explorer that is not built on the maximum-sized available hull tonnage. A 1.8-megaton ship would fall into this category; it's nearly twice the size of anything in the fleet besides Excelsiors and Ambassadors, so it's an explorer, but it's not a maximum possible size explorer.

But there's nothing in the rules that says that such a ship is automatically obsolescent when we construct one, the way you imply. The word "light" and the word "old" are just plain not synonyms.

MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
We're not fighting the Klingons or Romulans, and won't for a while. We are fighting the Cardassians now, and will likely do so for a LONG TIME.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't mean we don't need to keep building ship designs capable of matching[ the Klingons or Romulans. Remember that the ships we start design work on right now aren't going to enter service at all for 5-10 years, and won't be available in large numbers for years after that. We don't design ships for what we need today, we design ships for what we foresee needing in fifteen years.

Ships we design now should be chosen on the basis of how badly we'll want them around in our fleet in the late 2320s, or in the 2330s.

It is reasonable for you to predict that we will end up in conflict with the Cardassians during that timeframe. You're probably right. But can you predict with great confidence that we won't find ourselves in a conflict with the Klingons or the Romulans, as well, some time in the 2330s?
 
Briefvoice said:
:cry: I thought you would appreciate the acknowledgement you saw it coming well in advance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It might be different where you're from but, "Going on about" to me (and probably Simon) is basically a short form of "Going on and on and on and on...", implying significant exasperation at someone that won't shut up about something that you got the first time. It sounds like that wasn't what you intended, though; hopefully it clears things up?
 
MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
We're not fighting the Klingons or Romulans, and won't for a while. We are fighting the Cardassians now, and will likely do so for a LONG TIME.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The issue is we do only have T1 cruiser sub-frames unlocked so they would not be the best we can do. In addition in another 4 to 5 years we should be able to start looking into a Renaissance refit to keep it up to date. In the meantime we are going to have Ambassadors start coming up and for me replacing the Excelsiors in the EC, those will go to regular garrison rolls and we have a bunch of them to hold us until we get our research to where it needs to be.

@Nix I know you wanted to take advantage of the explorer research bonus we are getting from the admiral but I think we need to move UP onto cruiser research as the biggest sticking point between the current designs in SDB and producing them is that they use T3 sub frames. Also we should stick Generic Team 3 on cruiser research once they finish the T2 Escort Combat next year. Also we need to put one of the defense doctrine teams on mobility focus. That will let Utopia finish T2 cruiser science in 1 year with a boost, without that tech UP would need 2 years. Combat and engineering take 2 years either way so we can put UP on engineering in 2319-2320, then science for 2321 and then work on T3 engineering and science while generic 3 works on T2 combat. Then 3 years for each of the T3. Generic 3 will take 4 years for T2 Combat and 5 for T3 combat so they will finish at the same time in 10 years.

So
UP:
2319-2320 T2 Engineering
2321 T2 Science (with boost)
2322-2324 T3 Engineering
2325-2327 T3 Science
Generic 3 (graduates next year):
2319-2322 T2 Combat
2323-2327 T3 Combat

Then UP will work on the research for the prototype. At that point it will have +4 tech bonus to cruiser research and will be skill 7 so 18 pt, that should put it in the range for finishing a slide in 1 year, so 2 years for research and then prototype (and we will have access to techs that reduce prototype cost and time)
 
Last edited:
OneirosTheWriter said:
Cardassian Logistics and Deployment requirements

Feeder Loop Monthly = ~170s ~180b
Trunk Loop Monthly = ~70s ~50b
Industry Loop Monthly = ~50s ~70b
Supply Loop Monthly = ~120s ~40b


Summary:
2 Super-Freighters, 23 Freighters, 41 Cargo Ships assigned to networks
0 Super-Freighters, 12 Freighters, 19 Cargo Ships free for other tasks
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going to be digging into the different loops and what we can learn from them and our other reports over time as both free time and brain capacity become available. Right now, because it is simplest, the Supply Loop.
Note, I will be assuming that the support costs are the same as ours because that keeps me from tearing gout my hair.
First, the Bulk shipments. Bulk only supports fixed installations: Starbases, Outposts and Repair Yards away from major worlds.
We know there's one Starbase in Gabriel. Starbases take 10.
40-10=30 Bulk
If there isn't another starbase anywhere in the Cardassian Union away from major worlds, they can manage ~15 outposts from that (Outposts cost 2). Every starbase though, is worth 5 outposts so even just one to keep an eye on approaches the Konen might take towards Cardassia can strip that count down a lot.
The same goes for any outposts outside of the Gabriel fight. Anything keeping eyes on the border or older mining colonies comes right out of this same total.
Next, fleet.
Since fixed installations, for us at least, take as much SR and BR, we'll take the BR reported off of the SR to get the available results for fleet support.
120-40=~80SR.
Next, known hull counts.
Frigates cost 0.5 SR each, and the Cardasians have 27 of them (6 Hiroshi, 3 Takaai (Science), 6 Isamu and 12 Takaai (Combat)) which costs 13.5 SR.
Explores cost 2 SR each, and the Cardassians have 2 of the (2 Lorgot) which costs 4 SR.
Auxiliary ships of all types, excluding civilian, cargo, freighter and super-freighters, cost 1 SR each and the Cardassians have 24 of them (2 Research cruisers, 1 hospital, 5 Colony, 6 Prospectors, 6 Engineering and 4 Passenger) which costs 24 SR
80-13.5-4-24=38.5 SR
Cruisers cost 1 SR each, so the Cardassians should have about 38 of them.
The Cardassians have 7 Kaldars, so there should be about 31 Jalduns, which is within our report range but pegging it at the high end.
Slightly different support costs, tiny bumps to the BR demand for fixed installations, or having the SR estimated high and the BR low changes all of this, of course, but we should probably expect the Jaldun count to be closer to 30 than 25.
 
Last edited:
nocarename said:
The Cardassians have 7 Jalduns, so there should be about 31 Kaldars, which is within our report range but pegging it at the high end.
Slightly different support costs, tiny bumps to the BR demand for fixed installations, or having the SR estimated high and the BR low changes all of this, of course, but we should probably expect the Kaldar count to be closer to 30 than 25.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Reverse those two names. 7 Kaldars, ~31 Jalduns.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Cardassian Projected Fleet Strength (2317.Q4 based on comparison of shipbuilding):
2 Lorgot-class battlecruisers
8 Kaldar-class cruisers (6 operational plus 2 in refit to Kaldar II)
27-32 Jaldun-class destroyers (25-30 operational plus 2 in refit to Jaldun II)
15 Takaaki combat-variant frigates (14 operational plus 1 in repair)
12 Hiroshi & Isaamu frigates
3 Takaaki science-variant frigates​
Cardassian Projected Fleet Strength (2318):
2 Lorgot-class battlecruisers
7 Kaldar-class cruisers (presumed 2 in refit)
2 Kaldar II-class cruisers
27-32 Jaldun-class destroyers (presumed 2 in refit)
2 Jaldun II-class destroyers
18 Takaaki combat-variant frigates
12 Hiroshi & Isaamu frigates
3 Takaaki science-variant frigates​
Cardassian Projected Fleet Strength (2319):
2 Lorgot-class battlecruisers
6 Kaldar-class cruisers (presumed 2 in refit)
4 Kaldar II-class cruisers
27-32 Jaldun-class destroyers (presumed 2 in refit)
4 Jaldun II-class destroyers
19 Takaaki combat-variant frigates
12 Hiroshi & Isaamu frigates
4 Takaaki science-variant frigates​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
​

I've completed a current plus 2-year projection of Cardassian fleet strength based on the 2316.Q4 report and their known builds and changes in builds.
 
IMO ship build plan should look something like this

Now
Build Ambassadors for EC (when necessary push Excelsior's out of EC for Ambassadors)
Build Keplers (10ish?)
Retire Oberth to members (as Keplers take over)
Build Renaissance
Build AUX with spare Frigate berths
Design Balanced Frigate
Build Cruiser berths (AUX production until needed)


5-10rys
Build Ambassadors
Build Renaissance
Build Balanced Frigates
Retire Miranda-A to members
Build Cruiser berths
Design Enlightenment cruiser


10-20 yrs
Build Ambassadors
Build Balanced Frigates
Retire Constellation-A to members (as Renaissance take over)
Retire Centaur-A to members
Create Excelsior-B refit
Create Renaissance-A refit
Build Heavy Cruisers
Retire Connie-B to members


20-30 yrs
Create Ambassador-A refit
Create Kepler refit
Create Balanced frigate refit
Design Capital replacement
 
Last edited:
Not really how I see it I'm afraid.

We should expect an early Ambassador refit. Maybe as early as when we bring the prototypes in from their first 5YM, which would be 2326. This is because production phaser arrays and the 3.3mt berth we now have will "unlock" a great deal of space on the Ambassador, and putting off a rather massive refit would be foolish at that point. The same for the Excelsior, which I will note we will be able to service in a 2mt berth with the +20% tech. An Excelsior-B no later than 2329 would be appropriate.

I would like to retire our Oberths not to members, but to Intelligence. This was, uh, canonical, and even though it caused troubles then they're exactly the kind of ship Intelligence needs. Upgraded civilian ships are fine but as we've seen, the Oberth is a fantastic role-player for non-combat ops.

Give me a crack at the Miranda-B refit and I can make a frigate we won't be embarrassed to send into battle. It won't be practical to build more, but I expect we could extend its service life twenty years. The same for a potential Centaur-B. I would only retire the frigates if we're combat-capped. The first ship that I would say would be up for retirement is the Constellation-A. Next, the Miranda, especially if it doesn't get a B-refit.

We want about as many as 30 to 40 Keplers to be produced. They're fantastic ships, cost little under a combat cap (as little as zero in border zones), and enable a great deal of fleet flexibility with them covering garrison duties.

The next frigate design still needs tech. It could be as late as 2325, but the earliest to expect it would be 2319.
 
Last edited:
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
We should expect an early Ambassador refit. Maybe as early as when we bring the prototypes in from their first 5YM, which would be 2326. This is because production phaser arrays and the 3.3mt berth we now have will "unlock" a great deal of space on the Ambassador, and putting off a rather massive refit would be foolish at that point. The same for the Excelsior, which I will note we will be able to service in a 2mt berth with the +20% tech. An Excelsior-B no later than 2329 would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Good points.

SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
I would like to retire our Oberths not to members, but to Intelligence. This was, uh, canonical, and even though it caused troubles then they're exactly the kind of ship Intelligence needs. Upgraded civilian ships are fine but as we've seen, the Oberth is a fantastic role-player for non-combat ops.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I guess if Intel puts their hand up they would take precedence over members.

SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Give me a crack at the Miranda-B refit and I can make a frigate we won't be embarrassed to send into battle. It won't be practical to build more, but I expect we could extend its service life twenty years. The same for a potential Centaur-B. I would only retire the frigates if we're combat-capped. The first ship that I would say would be up for retirement is the Constellation-A. Next, the Miranda, especially if it doesn't get a B-refit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would be interested to see if its possible to make the useful going forward, as it stands I think the Miranda gets punished in the new combat engine and in events, though even if we did replace them with Balanced Frigates a new refit would be good for members taking them on.

I don't know about a combat cap, it seems so far away with our doctrine bonuses and new members pushing it out. Far more likely to retire them to free up crew for useful ships.

SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
We want about as many as 30 to 40 Keplers to be produced. They're fantastic ships, cost little under a combat cap (as little as zero in border zones), and enable a great deal of fleet flexibility with them covering garrison duties.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The latest discussion I read was pushing for a small Kepler build in preference of a large balanced frigate build.
 
I wonder if the Oberth's 300kt microhull gives it bonuses on intelligence operations, since a Kepler is strictly superior in stat points.
 
Basically, SWB's thesis seems to be that nowadays a "balanced" frigate IS a 'combat frigate' because Oneiros keeps rewriting the combat engine to make all stats relevant (with the exception of Presence). You can't build an effective overall combat frigate and have Science/Defense be a dump stat, in other words.

So balanced frigates end up taking over the role we used to foresee for combat frigates (including spending most of their time hovering in war zones). And we still wind up needing one or two specialist "event frigates" for the fleet as a whole. Since we already have going on fifteen sectors and just building one Kepler per sector is likely to take us until the late 2320s at best by which time we'll probably have more... this adds up to a big production run.
 
chriswriter90 said:
No Constellation-B? We just fixed them with the A/P Refit so they don't suck.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They might not suck, but it could be better in that time period.

Their main advantage over the Renaissance (Avg stat: 4.33) is how cheap they are on cost per stat (-10%) but with that low Avg Stat (3.17) they should be compared against frigates, so looking at the Balanced frigate coming out in large numbers...

Balanced frigate has 31% more stats per crew, 21% more Avg Stats for about 2% more cost.
 
TyrialFrost said:
The latest discussion I read was pushing for a small Kepler build in preference of a large balanced frigate build.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Absolutely not? Our best "small" Kepler build is still a 850kt monster (note: the P3+ tactical requirement restrains Kepler designs to larger designs considerably), but it's clear that the 950kt and 1mt Keplers outclass a smaller ship considerably. If there's anyone who wants a "small" Kepler, they're going to have to design it themselves and then argue their way past the entire SDB.

Simon_Jester said:
Basically, SWB's thesis seems to be that nowadays a "balanced" frigate IS a 'combat frigate' because Oneiros keeps rewriting the combat engine to make all stats relevant (with the exception of Presence). You can't build an effective overall combat frigate and have Science/Defense be a dump stat, in other words.

So balanced frigates end up taking over the role we used to foresee for combat frigates (including spending most of their time hovering in war zones). And we still wind up needing one or two specialist "event frigates" for the fleet as a whole. Since we already have going on fifteen sectors and just building one Kepler per sector is likely to take us until the late 2320s at best by which time we'll probably have more... this adds up to a big production run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It was Nix's thesis, I'm just the person who completed the design study to see if it was possible to implement.
 
Last edited:
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Absolutely not? Our best "small" Kepler build is still a 850kt monster (note: the P3+ tactical requirement restrains Kepler designs to larger designs considerably), but it's clear that the 950kt and 1mt Keplers outclass a smaller ship considerably. If there's anyone who wants a "small" Kepler, they're going to have to design it themselves and then argue their way past the entire SDB.

It was Nix's thesis, I'm just the person who completed the design study to see if it was possible to implement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Small keplar build, as in built in small numbers. not tonnage.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top