www.ditl.org

So, with SF tech, an operating crew of say.....1000-1500 isn't unreasonable.

Man, there must be a crapload of empty space/machinery in Galactica if 3500 crew is anywhere near the normal amount.

Praeothmin wrote:

Mark wrote:Aside from the fact that you could put 15 torp launchers down the port side of a battlestar alone?

Perhaps, but with all the space required by the Vipers, where'd you put the torpedoes?

"Fire all Torpedoes. Let's see how these new launchers work!"
"Captain, all launchers fired their 2 torpedoes, we're now all out of Torps..."
"Damn, now I now how Picard felt in Nemesis"

This tells me you've never seen a Battlestar. THEY ARE MASSIVE! These things housed over 2000 crew, over 100 fighters (Vipers), a dozen or two shuttle (Raptors), ammunition that has lasted four years through combat and the supplies to go with it.

Mark wrote:So, with SF tech, an operating crew of say.....1000-1500 isn't unreasonable.

The biggest part of the crew will be the weapons crews. Each one, like I said before, is going to be a mobile DS9.

Deepcrush wrote:
This tells me you've never seen a Battlestar. THEY ARE MASSIVE! These things housed over 2000 crew, over 100 fighters (Vipers), a dozen or two shuttle (Raptors), ammunition that has lasted four years through combat and the supplies to go with it.

Well they where at least manufacturing their own fighter ammo. But the main guns on the Bucket are huge in themselves, easily the size of the infrastructure behind the torpedo port on a GCS. So I doubt ammo would be a major concern for them, especially as an average engagement might have a half-dozen torpedoes before the baddie explodes.

I picture each weapon bank on a SF-BS being like the weapons on the upgraded DS9. How many of those could you dot across the surface of a nBSG?

Deepcrush wrote:I picture each weapon bank on a SF-BS being like the weapons on the upgraded DS9. How many of those could you dot across the surface of a nBSG?

*Shrug* Dunno, depends how large they are in themselves and what machinery exists below the surface for them to work.

Since they fit on the DS9 pylons that weren't very wide themselves. It doesn't seem to require much in the way of support outside of ammo and power.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:I picture each weapon bank on a SF-BS being like the weapons on the upgraded DS9. How many of those could you dot across the surface of a nBSG?

*Shrug* Dunno, depends how large they are in themselves and what machinery exists below the surface for them to work.

I'm thinking space wouldn't be the restriction. Seems to me, phasers arrays take up more room than those rotating banks. So maybe a dozen or so phaser arrays, with smaller pop up turrets, and a shit load of QT and PT launchers.

Being shot at by a Star Trek vessel would be like in WW2 being shot at by a battleship armed with 16"/50 caliber anti-aircraft weaponry with a high rate of fighter. Star Trek capital ships would use their energy weapons to destroy or scare away enemy fighters. Those energy weapons would be capital ship caliber weapons. Granted they may not hit a fighter all the time, but they seem to have a far greater accuracy than most AA weapons.

Installing DS9 weapons seem to be the way to go for a nBsG ship. Or pulse phasers in turrets.

There would be a ton of tractor beam emplacements as well to ease landings too.

Well yeah, most WWII AA weapons weren't radar guided.

Honestly though, despite my love for the Battlestar and it's purpose, I don't think it fits well into ST. If you wanted to make it a gun-platform, sure thats cool but fighters don't seem to be widely used.

I think it would be better off as an "assault ship/battleship" carrying heavy guns and a large contingent of shuttles and ground forces. Mind you that doesn't fit in ST either, so.....*shrug*

Just a thought, but if you were to remove the launch tubes and have fighters launch normally, and then replace the launch tubes with torpedo launchers, it'd have enough firepower in just one salvo to reduce even the largest ships to ruin.

Depends on the how much maintenance space there is in that deck though. A good portion of the flight pod is taken up by the hanger and the workspaces to keep them running. Mind you if you just want to slap a forcefield (or a door) on the pod then you can probably use the actual flight deck for both, seeing as ST small craft don't seem to need a runway.

Mark wrote:You all are forgetting the high speed probe in TNG. If a probe can maintain warp 9+ for that amount of time, it CERTAINLY stands to reason that a small, one or two man ship could.

Addressing the problem of fighter fatiuge, that as simple a matter of installing a short term stasis unit in the cockpit.

Now, the fighter will NEVER be a long range recon ship how they are used in oBSG or even Star Wars. In the Trek universe it just makes no sense since as was stated, an Intrepid was DESIGNED to fill that role. In its role as a carrier, its mission is to deliver massive firepower at the enemy in multiple ways.

So now we need to build a fighter, with stasis equipment and an automated program to wake up the pilot in time to do something before he dies? This is getting pretty complicated to get a piece of equipment I am not even sure we know what we want to use for to fit.

I like the concept of a big, heavily armed Fed ship, but it seems to me if you want stand off capability and maximum hitting power you would be far better off developing a standoff missile rather than a fighter. It would be much more space efficient and pretty much does the same thing for you. It will pack a bigger punch as well. Hell, it would be simple enough to have a space version of over the horizon targeting with the mother ship launching the missle and a handful of smallish scout craft (Delta Flyer types) providing targeting information.

Deepcrush wrote:

Praeothmin wrote:

Mark wrote:Aside from the fact that you could put 15 torp launchers down the port side of a battlestar alone?

Perhaps, but with all the space required by the Vipers, where'd you put the torpedoes?

"Fire all Torpedoes. Let's see how these new launchers work!"
"Captain, all launchers fired their 2 torpedoes, we're now all out of Torps..."
"Damn, now I now how Picard felt in Nemesis"

This tells me you've never seen a Battlestar. THEY ARE MASSIVE! These things housed over 2000 crew, over 100 fighters (Vipers), a dozen or two shuttle (Raptors), ammunition that has lasted four years through combat and the supplies to go with it.

Add to that all the spare fighter parts, the ones needed to maintain these fighters after their missions, the parts they won't be building from scratch like a ST replicator could do, plus food for the crew, etc, etc...
I have to agree that I didn't factor in the replicators for weapons' manufacture though, so it probably wouldn't be an issue as you simply need enough space for raw materials.
But it still won't have infinite space.
Even a GCS, at 645 meters long, with incredible storage space, only has a load of 250 torpedoes, and they're only keeping a crew of 1000 people.
The engines on the Battlestar are big, require a lot of fuel, they needed to refill periodically in material (mining asteroids).
But again, I agree that with ST replicators and technology, food and spare parts suddenly require less storage, with all the automation involved, you need less crew, but you still need space for all the weapons, the fighters are still there, you nnow have Shield Generators you didn't have before, etc...