Page 20 of 44
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:49 pm
by Deepcrush
Nickswitz wrote:Ok, so I'll use about the peregrine specs with an increased tail design,
Agreed.
Nickswitz wrote: should I have the QT's loaded in the back hatch for easy accessibility as well as ease of firing,
I'd think so, the Peregrine already has the 6 tubes according to Memory Alpha. My guess is they are single fire tubes. Loading from the rear to allow rapid reloading seems wise.
Nickswitz wrote:obviously we're going to have them drop out.
We don't have to drop them, though they will most likely be dumb-fire rounds. The fighter already has PTLs on board. We're just replacing them with QTLs.
Nickswitz wrote:Oh, also, IDR if anyone said anything about pre-arming the warheads... good idea? bad idea?
I think its a good idea, arm them just before loading. That way its one less thing for the pilots to worry about.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:00 pm
by Nickswitz
Deepcrush wrote:I'd think so, the Peregrine already has the 6 tubes according to Memory Alpha. My guess is they are single fire tubes. Loading from the rear to allow rapid reloading seems wise.
Are those full size or are they micro?
Deepcrush wrote:We don't have to drop them, though they will most likely be dumb-fire rounds. The fighter already has PTLs on board. We're just replacing them with QTLs.
I think dropping them may be better as it means that you can devote more space to the secondary weapons for defending the ship, remember, the goal of these are to get in
and get out. If we have too much taken up by the QT's we'll have to drop down the payload of the rest of the weapons which would be downing their survival rate. The drop payload means that they don't need an aiming mechanism, which takes up a lot of space, and would reduce the payload. If the torpedo tubes they have are already suited for full sized torpedoes then I'll go for it, but otherwise I wouldn't want to have to reduce the payload of QT to micros so they can be aimed super accurately since we're basically going to be spamming the area with them.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm
by Deepcrush
Nickswitz wrote:Are those full size or are they micro?
The ones under the wings were full size PTLs. Single use like a RPG.
I think dropping them may be better as it means that you can devote more space to the secondary weapons for defending the ship, remember, the goal of these are to get in and get out. If we have too much taken up by the QT's we'll have to drop down the payload of the rest of the weapons which would be downing their survival rate. The drop payload means that they don't need an aiming mechanism, which takes up a lot of space, and would reduce the payload. If the torpedo tubes they have are already suited for full sized torpedoes then I'll go for it, but otherwise I wouldn't want to have to reduce the payload of QT to micros so they can be aimed super accurately since we're basically going to be spamming the area with them.
The tubes on board are fully operational. All you're doing is switching the ammo. Plus the PTLs are external so you're not using up any space for the fighters secondary weapons or defenses.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:10 pm
by Nickswitz
Ok, that works then, I haden't seen it so I wasn't sure how it was. Now I'll get the schematics found and get to work... Doe anyone know where I can find the schematics?
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:26 pm
by shran
Will we also end up designing this ship as an actual model, or will we keep it as a concept?
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:29 pm
by Deepcrush
I think the time will come when we may design a full model.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:43 pm
by Mark
kostmayer wrote:Well, considering what DS9 managed to do to a Klingon Fleet, and that was a retro fitted mining station.
Any chance of a rough size comparison chart, to show how this compares to Federation Starships / Bases. Doesn't need to be detailed, just something to give a rough idea of size.
She's exactly three times the size of a GCS.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:48 pm
by Captain Seafort
Three times the length. Probably thirty or forty times the mass, minimum - the design is a lot more solid than any Fed ship, and battlestars are heavily armoured.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:55 pm
by Mark
Deepcrush wrote:Sounds good.
So we have the weapons, crew, size and engines down. We have people working on the fighters and the ground forces.
Next up is defenses... Armor, Shields, SIF, PDWs (if we feel the need for them).
For armor, we've already talked about setting the hull in dual layers. This is to protect the internals of the ship should any of our own weapons go up in flames. For my part, I agree with the dual layer blast panels and vote for 5m of armor per layer.
Shields, I'm not sure about but they'll be massive I'm sure.
SIFs, I recommend heavy ratings (according to the DITL scales) and maybe having twin systems so that we can shut one off for repairs while keeping another set online.
PDWs, interceptors for enemy warheads, energy mines for warding off enemy ships, high yield warheads for finding cloaked ships. That's all I can think of for the moment.
I had a concept about shields. At present, Starships have 6 general shield coverage areas. Fore, Aft, Port, Starboard, Ventral, and Dorsal (sort of like a cube). What if we refracted the shields into a shape similar to a 12 sided die. You'd need twice as many shield generators and more power....but on this monster we have a power surplus, and plenty of room. That would minimize the area that needed to be shielded by each emitter and generator, thus increasing individual area power.
And would an anti matter spread work for a flak field?
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:01 pm
by Captain Seafort
Mark wrote:And would an anti matter spread work for a flak field?
I doubt it, given that the shuttle flew right through it. I think window or chaff would be a better analogy.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:12 pm
by kostmayer
Is this thing gonna have ablative armour?
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:16 pm
by Mark
kostmayer wrote:Is this thing gonna have ablative armour?
Most likely
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:25 am
by Deepcrush
Shield sections don't really mean shield generators. There's nothing to say one section can't have five generators. Though that could be just because it's needed to cover the space involved.
A better idea would be multi-layer and over lapping shield sections. So that one grid can be shut down for repair while another keeps the area protected. Plus its still drawing cover from the connecting sections.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:07 am
by Mark
Your getting at two seperate shield systems? One "bubble" and one "skin"? We'll have the power with twin cores.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:44 am
by Deepcrush
Mark wrote:Your getting at two seperate shield systems? One "bubble" and one "skin"? We'll have the power with twin cores.
The bubble shield would be over lapping with a second layer on the skin. And I'm not thinking two cores... but eight.