www.ditl.org

Our Ship:

So far we have:

Come to the decision to build a Federation Battleship based in the year 2390; it is of GCS and Sovereign size.

As a battleship it is going to be out fitted with 60cm ablative armour with a high density double hull. This reduced the final production run of the ship by six ships from the original twenty giving us a run of fourteen ships. It also drops its final speed by 12% and agility by 24%.

The shielding stands at 7 million Terra Joules shielding in a bubble shape running off an independent power supply. The bubble shields while weaker than form fitting shields have the added advantage of less maintenance and also have greater flexibility in battle, due to its simplicity it can shift power from one section to the other recharging damaged sections. The independent power supply offers greatly improved survivability as the shields are no longer attached to the core. It does however take up a larger percent of internal volume than other wise would have been used.

Our Beam weapons sit at 200,000 Terra Watts powered off the warp core, with a All Rounder configuration.

Torpedo configuration stands at: 2 x Rapid fire QT [both forward facing]
2 X pulse fire PT/QT [Both aft facing]
2 X Type 3 burst fire PT [one aft, one forward]
800 torpedoes stock


So far our internal volume space stands at:
24% warp core (Includes everything related to it such as work area ect) (Includes extra power for beam weapons)
7% Shield power unit.
10%< Cargo (At least, the more of this the longer it lasts)
Torpedo Tubes: 20% Final size
Proton Torpedo replicator: 2% Final size
15%< Crew (Thats the bare minimum, depending on the amount of crew and comfort it could go all the way up to 40%)
10%< Essential (Stuff like sickbays and one shuttle bay ect that we need, could go up with added facilities)
7% Phase Canon
Total: 95% minimum

I'll do a run down on the space used so far and how it effects the ship, I'll then give the size requirements for the torpedo tubes ect.

Warp core: Currently 24% internal volume. This could be as big as it gets but one of the future polls will be about speed. One of the factors will be that for every 1% volume we add to the core the faster the ship goes. So it could get bigger if we want to add some speed to our turtle.

Shield Power unit: 7%. Final size

Phase Lance: 7% Final size

Torpedo Tubes: 20% Final size

Proton Torpedo replicator: 2% Final size

Cargo (Includes replicator stock ect does not include weapons stock): 10% Minimum. For every percent this takes up the ship has one month of supplies. So it currently has ten month endurance under normal conditions.

Crew: 15% Minimum. That is the bare minimum needed to field our ship under current specs. It doesn't include any room for land forces. It also puts them on the lower end of comfort; bunking for crew men and shared room for everyone bellow Lt commander. The ship is also more automated this way. For every 1% more room given the automation of the ship goes down.

Essential: 10% Minimum. This covers the basic essential like a transporter a single sickbay and a basic shuttle bay. This will be the final poll we do, I've yet to make up suitable numbers for it but the more facilities we add the more it will cost in internal volume. Since this is the basics you are probably going to want to add at least another 3-4%.

Total 95% minimum.



This week we do the configuration of the ship; this will affect the ship in several ways ranging from speed to protection. It's taken awhile to get this up due to holidays, the complexity of this poll and me being lazy.

Firstly there is the number of nacelles our ship will have. We have the options for either two, three or four nacelles.

Our base line speed for this speed started at normal cruise of 8.6 and maximum cruise of 9.975. This is the same as the Sovereign but boosted by 10-20% due to technology improvements. But it got reduced by 12% due to our armour giving it a speed of about 8.3 and 9.93.

Number of Nacelles: Pros:

Two Nacelles: The standard build, due to being the standard build it require the lest amount of maintenance and offers the best protection.

Three Nacelles: Offers more survivability if one of the nacelles gets knocked out with taking out the whole ship and offers a 5% boost in over all speed while also increasing the fuel efficiency by 15% due to having finer control over the warp field.

Four Nacelles: Offers even greater redundancy in the warp systems allowing multiple nacelles to be taken out and still allow the ship to maintain a high warp speed. It also offers a 12% speed boots and 20% more fuel efficiency.

Cons:

Two: Offers no speed of efficiency boost.

Three: Due to the added nacelle they are more venerable to weapons fire and harder to cover them with the ship. Is also more maintenance heavy than the two nacelle design.

Four: Like the three nacelle design it increases the surface area of the ship and the chances of the nacelles being hit. It is also the most maintenance heavy option.

Nacelles position: Pro:

Close: A Defiant like positioning with the nacelles practically running along the length of the ship. Offers maximum coverage for the nacelles.

Medium: Similar to the Saber and the Miranda the nacelles as brought close in to the hull while remaining separate from them. Offers better coverage while still maintaining warp efficiency.

Far: The standard design seen on ships such as the GCS and Sov with the Nacelles sitting on the end of struts away from the main body of the ship. Offers good speed and fuel efficiency. If the nacelles do blow up the distance from the ship helps protect the crew.

Con:

Close: Reduces the efficiency of the warp field dropping the top speed 15% and increasing fuel consumption 20%. If the Naelles do blow they cause added damage to the ship in this position.

Medium: A trade off between the other two options drops warp speed by 8% and increases fuel consumption by 9%. The nacelles are more venerable here than the close option. The ship suffers from increased damage if the nacelles blow.

Far: Has the greatest vulnerability since the nacelles are sticking away from the ship.

You can also debate the general shape and feel that this ship will have. Since this is impossible to put into a poll we'll just debate it. You know what has to fit into it.

Personally I'm thinking something along the lines of the Norway class but with the nacelle struts merging into the hull and the nacelles pulling under the ship a little so you can only see them from the bottom and back. And I'd place the core on its side running down the length of the ship where the gap is on the Norway. This keeps it away from the rest of the ship and allows it to be thrown out the back in case of melt down.

I went for 2 nacelles, medium distance.

I think they should be slung under the hull, much like the Miranda. But i'd put it more into a configuration like the Curry class i think it was, with the deflector and Phaser lance, slung uinder at the bow. I'd have a thin saucer/engineering seperation with the Lance in between it.

Four nacelles close in; extra protection, and only a marginal drop in speed as a trade-off. Plus, having them Defiant-style means it should be easier to perform repairs, maintenance, etc.

General idea for the shape, i steal picture from Legacy files of a fan created Nimitz class.

http://legacy.filefront.com/screenshots/File/77861/2

4, close. Better redundancy and protection, which is what you need for a ship of this type.

Wow didnt expect you to go for 4 Rochey. Nacelles are the most vunerable part of the ship, the fewer the safer. Since this is a Battleship its not really supposed to be fast so speed isnt an issue and redundency while important isnt as important as survivability in my opinion. And with the nacelles in close you risk the whole ship going up if ne of the nacelles goes bang.

Keep in mind I'm assuming these to be of the Sovereign-type nacelles that don't blow up when they get scratched.
Can we have an option for reinforcing the nacelles?

I was going to have that option but I started looking at all the modern ships and pretty much all of them have pretty solid nacelles with even a fair bit of armour on them so I figure it just goes with out saying. But still they are more fragile than any other bit of the ship.

I went for 4-nacelles medium distance. I believe this is the optimal position to maximize protection without compromising speed.

4 nacelles - there's more maintainence to do, and they're more likely to get hit, but it provides a degree of redundancy not granted by the other options.

Medium distance - the close-in arrangement is fine for a short-range escort/attack ship like the Defiant, but this ship needs to be a lot more mobile and, more importantly, needs endurance. The longer the ship can keep going without external support the better.

The above config was my original choice. But tbh i'm not too bothered either way with them. both have advantages, both disadvantages.

I liked your suggestion Reliant. Espetially that Legacy pic. Gave me a good idea of the shape.

lol pic steal.

I think the large engineering section could be useful for the redundant power system. Plus the joining area provides a location for the phaser lance to be set.

I like the image of the Nimitz. I can imagine putting lotsa "gunholes" in the lower hull, ala pirate ships.

I went for two nacelles up close. This is supposed to be a battleship, not a "Run Away!!!" ship, so for me, speed isn't as important as nacelle protection. More nacelles means more maintainence, and fewer resources for the weapons.

Also, if a nacelle explodes, doesn't it usually take the ship with it? That's another reason for keeping them close, as the far-away design doesn't seem to be safer historically/canonically.

schizo-hal wrote:I went for two nacelles up close. This is supposed to be a battleship, not a "Run Away!!!" ship, so for me, speed isn't as important as nacelle protection. More nacelles means more maintainence, and fewer resources for the weapons.

Speed isn't critical, and I can see your point regarding maintainence, but the more nacelles you have the more you can afford to lose one or two and still be able to go FTL (albeit slower).

Also, if a nacelle explodes, doesn't it usually take the ship with it? That's another reason for keeping them close, as the far-away design doesn't seem to be safer historically/canonically.

Only if you're in a GCS. As the classic Trek example of a tough ship, look at the Reliant - her port nacelle was raked with phaser fire and then blown away by a torpedo, but she was in no danger of being destroyed by that damage.