Federation Battlestar

[Mark]

Many years ago, I was playing Star Trek:The Role Playing game. In one adventue I was running, our intrepid crew discovered the (oBSG) Battlestar Galactica leading it's ragtag fugitive fleet to a shining planet, known as Earth. Our heroes destroyed the cylon baseships that were chasing the Colonials, which laucnched a game arc. It ended up with the Colonials settling a new world called New Kobal, and joining the Federaton.

Since Starfleet didn't have anything remotely resembling a Battlestar, my friends and I decided to try and design a Federation version. We were much younger and had all sorts of ideas why this or that could or couldn't work.

What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?

[Deepcrush]

Of course you could build a UFP Battlestar. It would take time to produce a whole new design from the ground up. But you could do it.

[Captain Seafort]

What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?

I don't think so. Battlestars are heavily armed in their own right, but they also rely heavily on their fighters for offensive punch. In Trek, fighters are all but useless in fleet actions and are limited to patrols, small ship actions, and trying to provoke the Cardies.

[Sonic Glitch]

What do you guys think of the idea? Would it work? Should it work?

I don't think so. Battlestars are heavily armed in their own right, but they also rely heavily on their fighters for offensive punch. In Trek, fighters are all but useless in fleet actions and are limited to patrols, small ship actions, and trying to provoke the Cardies.

So the Feds would have to build a more effective fighter?

[Captain Seafort]

So the Feds would have to build a more effective fighter?

It's not a matter of building a more effective fighter, it's a matter of the fundamental style of combat. In BSG fighters are extremely effective against capital ships, for some unknown reason. In Trek bigger is better, and fighters simply aren't strong enough to hurt large warships. A more effective fighter wouldn't change this, as anything that increased the firepower you could cram onto a fighter could just as easily, and more effectively, be used to increase the firepower of a capital ship.

[Deepcrush]

So the Feds would have to build a more effective fighter?

Not really, seafort is right that fighters are limited. However, remember that a Battlestar built with UFP tech is going to have a ton of fire power. Every AA is going to be a micro-torp PTL, every gun turret is going to be a pair of Pulse Phasers, every missile launcher will be replaced with a PTL or QTL.

Where BSG uses fighters as half the battle and ST doesn't. We saw that the UFP fighters were able to inflict damage on Galor (and or smaller) type vessels. This means that the Battlestar in a fleet action could better focus its rather insane firepower on more important ships.

[Deepcrush]

After a second, I got the thought that a UFP Battlestar would be like a mobile DS9...

[Aaron]

Not really, seafort is right that fighters are limited. However, remember that a Battlestar built with UFP tech is going to have a ton of fire power. Every AA is going to be a micro-torp PTL, every gun turret is going to be a pair of Pulse Phasers, every missile launcher will be replaced with a PTL or QTL.

Where BSG uses fighters as half the battle and ST doesn't. We saw that the UFP fighters were able to inflict damage on Galor (and or smaller) type vessels. This means that the Battlestar in a fleet action could better focus its rather insane firepower on more important ships.

Are you going off the nBSG? Because BSG79 was a little light on details such as weapons loadouts.

[Deepcrush]

Are you going off the nBSG? Because BSG79 was a little light on details such as weapons loadouts.

More just speaking in general really.

[Captain Seafort]

Not really, seafort is right that fighters are limited. However, remember that a Battlestar built with UFP tech is going to have a ton of fire power. Every AA is going to be a micro-torp PTL, every gun turret is going to be a pair of Pulse Phasers, every missile launcher will be replaced with a PTL or QTL.

True, but then we get into the question of whether we're designing a Starfleet Battlestar, or whether we're asking how powerful a Battlestar would be if we replaced all its weapons with their Starfleet equivalent. The latter would require calculating how powerful a Battlestar's weapons are relative to (say) a GCS, why breaks the "no versus" rule. The former would inherently be less powerful than a proper Trek battleship such as a Sov, War-GCS, or the Paladin, because it would sacrifice weapons and power generation for hangers and the shitton of ammo, fuel and support gear aircraft need.

Where BSG uses fighters as half the battle and ST doesn't. We saw that the UFP fighters were able to inflict damage on Galor (and or smaller) type vessels. This means that the Battlestar in a fleet action could better focus its rather insane firepower on more important ships.

We only saw fighters hurting a capship in Preemptive Strike, and that was at least a dozen of them focusing on a single unsupported vessel. In SoA they were no more than an irritant, and Dukat only sent his ships after them to draw the Fed fleet into a trap, not because they were a threat.

[Captain Seafort]

Are you going off the nBSG? Because BSG79 was a little light on details such as weapons loadouts.

We didn't get numbers, but there was enough to get a good idea of what sort of defences she had - the AAA twin guns along the hangars, the shields (or PD guns, depending on how you interpret "Experiment in Terra"), and the big forward lasers and Saturn Vs anti-ship missiles.

[Deepcrush]

True, but then we get into the question of whether we're designing a Starfleet Battlestar, or whether we're asking how powerful a Battlestar would be if we replaced all its weapons with their Starfleet equivalent. The latter would require calculating how powerful a Battlestar's weapons are relative to (say) a GCS, why breaks the "no versus" rule. The former would inherently be less powerful than a proper Trek battleship such as a Sov, War-GCS, or the Paladin, because it would sacrifice weapons and power generation for hangers and the shitton of ammo, fuel and support gear aircraft need.

I'm not going with vs, I'm going with what Mark asked "if it is possible to build a SF Battlestar" and the answer is yes.

We only saw fighters hurting a capship in Preemptive Strike, and that was at least a dozen of them focusing on a single unsupported vessel. In SoA they were no more than an irritant, and Dukat only sent his ships after them to draw the Fed fleet into a trap, not because they were a threat.

In SOA we saw the Cardassian ships taking damage from the UFP fighters. A SF Battlestar and her fighters working together would make one hell of a wedge. The swarm of fodder added to the impressive fire power you could mount on a Battlestar would mean the enemy would have to give up some of its position or stay up close and take a continuous stream of fire at point blank range.

[Mark]

Just a thought.....couldn't specific torps be made for the "fighers"? If you take a photon or quantum torp, strip out the guidence system, warp sustainer, and a chunk of its fuel, you could get close to the same explosive punch in a short range warhead. Of course you'd have to get close enough so the torp wouldn't get dodged, but its smaller size would make that a bit more challanging, wouldn't you say?

That kind of weapon would suddenly make a squadren of "Vipers" a clear and present danger to a cap ship.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not going with vs, I'm going with what Mark asked "if it is possible to build a SF Battlestar" and the answer is yes.

And I'm saying you'd be much better off with a normal gun warship than a Battlestar. In Trek 100% guns > 50% guns, 50% fighters.

In SOA we saw the Cardassian ships taking damage from the UFP fighters.

When?

Just a thought.....couldn't specific torps be made for the "fighers"? If you take a photon or quantum torp, strip out the guidence system, warp sustainer, and a chunk of its fuel, you could get close to the same explosive punch in a short range warhead. Of course you'd have to get close enough so the torp wouldn't get dodged, but its smaller size would make that a bit more challanging, wouldn't you say?

Possibly, but you've still got the vulnerability of fighters to take into account. I can only imagine a fighter carrying a few warheads (two, maybe four), which a proper battleship could spam out in a second, and be far better protected. Shots that would kill a fighter would only deplete the shields of a battleship.

[Mark]

Unless some tech could be devised to scamble a weapons lock. But we see cap ships with locks missing each other on a regular basis anyway. Could a high speed fighter prove too much for a cap ships weapons to effectively target?