www.ditl.org

McAvoy wrote:Where did you get the weapon power numbers from?

I just took the numbers that were put up there earlier in the thread and translated it into something that actually COULD be put in the style of DITL.

Meste17 wrote: It's not that I want you to do all the work. I will be doing the work myself. Hell, I'm in the process of making characters for the ship. Yes, but this is for a fanfic I'm working on.

If you want more detail, you can use numbers from GURPS Vehicles to design the ship. The best part is that the ship will be semi-realistic with food, fuel, oxygen, gravity, and other supplies being consumed.

So 2 things:

1. Were the specs I put up there correct?
2. Did we ever decide on a class name for it?

You can name it what ever you want. If your making ship stats for a Fanfic or RP your doing its up to you to name it what ever you want.

Deepcrush wrote:Current standings for the ship itself. Seafort is in charge of designing the ground forces.

Length 1923
Beam 1410
Height 435
Decks 126

Quad nacelle warp drive, quad impulse drive.

Crew of 5,000 with a 10,000 Marine Armored Division.

120 Fighters + troop transports + shuttles. (Fighters to be armed with QTs for use in fleet actions)

Retracting flight pods

Medical assets fit for up to 5,000 persons (this could include large numbers of stasis pods).

Weapons - 24 Mk18 dual turrets (8 dorsal, 8 ventral, 4 bow, 4 stern). 48 phaser/PTL turrets (two for each Mk18 turret at 50 rounds each), 2 pair of RFQTLs forward (250 rounds each). 80 Type III PTL (40 per flight pod at 500 rounds each) 16 Phaser/PTL turrets aft (4 per nacelle with 50 rounds each).

Munitions, 1000 QTs, 43,300 PTs

Armor - Outer hull 5m ablative, inner hull 5m high density.
Shields - Two overlapping bubble layers plus one skin layer (twenty five terajoules million each).

I added 16 DS9 turrets to the engines for aft protection. It was simple enough so I didn't feel the need to bring it in for debate. However, the flight pods currently lack any form of defensive ability outside of their PTLs. We also have no PDWs in place. Both of these will need to be addressed before this class can enter production.

So how many phasers and photon torpedo launchers/tubes would the 16 DS9 turrets have each?

Might want to go to YouTube for that. Look up Call to Arms and Way of the Warrior. Count how many you can see.

McAvoy wrote:Might want to go to YouTube for that. Look up Call to Arms and Way of the Warrior. Count how many you can see.

Well, from what I see, at least 4 torpedo points on the rotary mount as well as 4 phaser rings. The stationary mount seems to have at least 4 torpedo tubes (5 if you count the tip). The same goes for the phasers. (1 or 2 points)

Well, while we're discussing ideas about a Federation battlestar, might I make a suggestion as to a design.....?

Why not use the USS Vengeance from Star Trek Into Darkness for inspiration? She DOES seem quite large enough.....IF a little....bland. XP haha

How is it a Battlestar, rather than just a large ship then?

Exactly. The whole idea of this topic was a Federation Battlestar.

Teaos wrote:How is it a Battlestar, rather than just a large ship then?

Uh, the whole thing would be so massive with it's body. PLUS it could house some starfighters in the saucer section and some in the body.

What would be the primary difference between the two? Fighters, command centre and lots of cargo for long duration missions? Heavier weapons? Kinda Dreadnought-ish?

The thing is, Star Fleet ship designs while pretty are pretty shitty for combat, the engines are sticking right out there and the bridge is exposed.

No Federation ship is a good base for a Battlestar, you would have to totally re do the design from the ground up.

Teaos wrote:What would be the primary difference between the two? Fighters, command centre and lots of cargo for long duration missions? Heavier weapons? Kinda Dreadnought-ish?

The thing is, Star Fleet ship designs while pretty are pretty shitty for combat, the engines are sticking right out there and the bridge is exposed.

No Federation ship is a good base for a Battlestar, you would have to totally re do the design from the ground up.

Okay 3 things on that comment:

1. Probably why they designed the USS Vengeance in the first place. Look at the ship itself. You will notice that the bridge isn't exactly EXPOSED. The nacelles still are yes, but maybe that was just a fluke that they intended to fix. Hey, for all we know, the nacelles were SUPPOSED to be like that because they might have heavier armor, thereby STILL offsetting that weakness....if ONLY slightly.

2. It's STILL better than how the Star Destroyers from Star Wars were. Look at the Executor!!!! At least Federation ships have shield generators WELL hidden....NOT STANDING OUT IN GIANT DOMES LIKE THAT!!!! XP haha That's practically INVITING enemy targets to hit you! Saying to them, "Come get me you A--holes!" XP JUST saying.

3. That is kind of false, just look at the TOS Galactica! The whole bridge is practically EXPOSED on the alligator head, INVITING Cylon Kamikaze attacks! Look at the episode Fire in Space and watch it and you'll see what I mean.
What do you have in mind for the Federation Battlestar Teaos? Be honest.

Be honest? As opposed to him lying.

The Vengeance and any other Starlet ship is crap. The saucer is crap for fighters and support ships. Those engines are highly vulnerable.

McAvoy wrote:Be honest? As opposed to him lying.

The Vengeance and any other Starlet ship is crap. The saucer is crap for fighters and support ships. Those engines are highly vulnerable.

Crap? Well a saucer I don't really understand how. Given sufficent size AS WELL as PRECISE organization, I can honestly see the saucer doing just that. Besides you and Teaos look at the Akira class page on DITL. It says and I quote:

"Another unusual feature of the Akira class is the hangar bay arrangements. There are two large shuttle bays in the saucer section, one at the forward edge of the saucer section and one at the rear (MEANING that it is a fly through saucer like hangar bay). These are linked together through the centre of the ship, allowing large numbers of launch and landing operations to be handled simultaneously. During peacetime this allows the Akira to evacuate large numbers of small survey craft, or ferry evacuees on board at a high rate. During the Dominion war the ships often serve as fighter carriers; in this role they can carry up to one hundred (COUNT THAT! 100) attack fighters, although a load of thirty six (36) fighters and a dozen (12) utility craft is more usual."

Now, if that's crap, then I do NOT wish to see how a NON CRAP saucer section would be configured to carry fighters. If this new Federation battlestar were to be the length that it is (being 4.140559395387895 times, or just 4 times the size of the Akira class) and it were to be the EXACT shape that I described (that being the USS Vengeance), then she would carry 414 fighters maximum, but would just carry a standard of 149 or 150 fighters (about the number of fighters that the TOS Battlestar Galactica carried, with her own 25 fighters, 42 from the other battlestars and 83 more from the Pegasus). Granted I am NOT a genius and I WILL ADMITTINGLY accept that AND admit that to all of you guys. However I WOULD like to think that the math is correct, seeing as how it WAS my favorite subject in school.

The engines on the other hand.......well you got me there, I'll give you that one. But AGAIN I PUT that at least it like the shields on the ISD from Star Wars. THOSE are crap if they are going to be exposed like that right now. -_-