www.ditl.org

Thorin wrote:I'm pretty sure you can fit 6 in ala this arrangement (birds eye view)

...1...
2.3.4
...5...

With the 6th been ontop of the 3rd - it is high enough.

I'm pretty sure you could strip out the saucer section, though - the computer core too, why would that present a problem? There's another in Engineering Hull, and it wouldn't need all the scientific stuff in it.
The problem with this 'cruise missle' location is the warp dynamics - I heard that the ships are shaped the way they are based on their warp bubble shapes, so changing that on the outside may well change the warp dynamics itself.

Yes, I think you could, but again, the launch would be a nightmare. You'd have to pack them so tightly that they would have to maneuver very carefully (read:slowly) to get to the launch door one at a time. And god forbid something gets the drop on you and damages the ship closest to the door.

The slow speed is the main problem, though. The Intrasigeants are helpless until launched and strongest in groups. The ability to dump all of the embarked ships at once would be a major consideration. I mean, imagine one of these ferries dropping out of warp to make a starbase delivery and discovering, say, a hulk of a starbase and a few cloaked warbirds. How fast can the ship cycle the warp drive to run? On the other hand, if you can scramble-dump all the Intrasigeants at once, you could simply obliterate the pesky warbirds, particularly with a dozen at your disposal.

A slower launch speed might be acceptable, but it is far from ideal.

I'm pretty sure you could get 6 with - with a little bit of comfort room, too.
I was thinking of having huge hanger doors where ten forward is - just so the forward ship can fly directly out, then then the rest can follow.

However, in the case an extremely quick deployment is needed (which I don't see - as soon as you get there the front one would be out in no time, and theres the engineering section), then the saucer can be made to quite simply blow apart into two pieces, just a top and bottom half. The saucer section is relatively cheap, with the only power requiring bit being the hanger doors. Obviously, it's still a loss of a saucer - cheap or not - so it's best to avoid that. A simple way might just be to deploy the assault ships a little bit away from the target (maybe 0.1 lightyear), so that the they can warp in the final hurdle together.

There is no real reason why you couldnt have a massive front hanger door letting 1 2 and 4 launch at the same time. Then the other follow.

Teaos wrote:There is no real reason why you couldnt have a massive front hanger door letting 1 2 and 4 launch at the same time. Then the other follow.

Sure, but with every modification you add, the more I become convinced that it would be easier to purpose-build a new saucer-ferry rather than refit an old one to use.

I like the specialize design, small size, etc. I've been calling for this all along: A small ship that's basically a gunboat that has either a short range, or is carried by a larger ship for long flights. Plus the compact design is so simple, it seems like it could be produced en masse.

I think the logic in the design, following from the Defiant and making sacrifices/adjustments, is flawless. I'd certainly like to see a little more detail on teh range of motion of the nacelles.

Very well done.

I don't see why you guys are looking at blowing up the saucer.

If you are looking at a six ship point.

1
234 with 6 on top of 3.
5

Like said befor have the front of saucer open up enough to fit 3 at a time then the top of the saucer lift to allow the topside ship to leave. Then just close the doors. This could be done as soon as you come out of warp and would only be limited by how fast your doors could open. With the tech involved I'd say 20 seconds would be about right. That aviods wasting a saucer since now you can always just come back and pick it up later.

Is the need for a carrier why it's called "Intransigent?"

The reason we arent blowing it up is so we can use existing frames and shipyards.

Mikey wrote:Is the need for a carrier why it's called "Intransigent?"

No, the name (aside from being misspelled, gah), is ALSO a continuation of the Defiant program. Basically I trolled around dictionary.com looking for words in a similar vein to 'Defiant'. They're not straight thesaurus synonyms, but they have somewhat similar meanings. What comes up when you do a thesaurus search for 'Defiant' is a bunch of words that would suck as a ship name. Hail the USS Truculent!

Bridge status: Consoles, seats, and floor done. Working on walls right now, which may take some time as I play with different designs.

Honestly, I haven't gotten much more work done on the bridge. I think I've settled on a basic shape for the walls and ceiling, though. For the moment, I'll give this WIP shot.



Down in front is the helm. The dual console is the tactical station--the Intransigeant employs two tactical officers to properly manage offensive and defensive fire and countermeasures. Behind that is the Captain, with some repeater consoles that are actually of a size to be useful, and behind THAT is a configurable station, seating up to three. By default, however, the console is Communications, since the ship is designed to be part of fleet actions, and will need to coordinate. The large panel above Comms is where the MSD would go.

It's about the most stripped-down bridge crew I could envision. I removed the 'Ops' position because really, what the hell is 'Ops'? A dedicated Engineering or Science section is also unnecessary. No bridge committee chairs, and DEFINITELY no betazeds. The CTO doubles as the XO, and the CEO as the SO. Altogether I figure a crew of perhaps 30-40. On a normal watch, half the on-duty crew would be right here, and the other half would be engineers.

LOVE it! The dual tactical position is great, as is the reduction in bridge staff and utilitarian layout of the bridge - it all makes perfect sense for a ship with this purpose.