Federation-class Dreadnought History
Jack Bohn
let's take a look at Dreadnought design and development.
Facts given in order of appearance:
**Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual
According to the Enterprise's computer files in 2261 [1] the vessel
is still under construction, but twenty ships have been authorized and
given consecutive NCCs from 2100-Federation to 2121-Entente (skipping
NCC-2105)
[1 There is a slight discrepancy between the fan-compiled timelines
and the Okuda-created Chronology. Since most of the dates here come
from fan sources, I'm not going to risk math errors in converting them
over.]
**ST:TMP
Dreadnought Entente, NCC-2120 places a call the Epsilon 9 in 2267.
**ST:TSFS
"The Great Experiment," the Excelsior NX-2000 launched in 2287.
By 2291 (ST:TUC) her code will be NCC-2000.
**Novel _Dreadnought!_ by Diane Carey
Set seemingly during Kirk's 5YM, but after some episodes. The
prototype dreadnought Star Empire, with the "call letters" MKC 2331
painted on her hull, is stolen. (Actually, the letters appear on a
holographic decoy of the Star Empire. It's possible the ship itself
has the FJ NCC of 2116.)
As enjoyable as the novel is, it may have to be discounted on
technical grounds. The too-advance sensor-fooling decoy system
mentioned above, a special alloy used in the hull but (of course) not
mentioned by any other writer, and a brief mention of an experimental
transwarp drive installed (the cover artist Boris Val....um Boris drew
its nacelles as vaguely Excelsior influenced.)
**Todd Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet
Gives the number of dreadnoughts in the fleet in the year:
2268 - 14
2270 - 12
2275 - 11
2280 - 23
2285 - 28
2290 - 30
Not all of these are Federation-class.
**Starship Design March 2280 issue
Reveals that the Federation-class program was canceled after NCC-2112,
Star Union. Lists six Ascension-class dreadnoughts NCC-2520 thru 2525
with four more under construction. Says Komsomolsk-class has yet to
be authorized.
-Jack
SPAMblock *sigh*
can be reached through jackbohn at bright dof net
Jason Bogguess
Skylar Thompson
>**Starship Design March 2280 issue
>Reveals that the Federation-class program was canceled after NCC-2112,
>Star Union. Lists six Ascension-class dreadnoughts NCC-2520 thru 2525
>with four more under construction. Says Komsomolsk-class has yet to
>be authorized.
Were there any commissioned/in operation during the TNG/DS9 years,
particularily during the Dominion War?
--Skylar Thompson (sky...@attglobal.net)
"All that is gold does not glitter, / not all those that wander are lost;
All that is old does not wither, / and bright may be fire in the frost.
The fire that was low may be woken; / and sharp in the sheath is the sting;
Forged may be blade that was broken; / the crownless again may be king."
--Verification of Aragorn, son of Arathorn, heir to the throne of Isildur, J.R.R. Tolkien
Timo S Saloniemi
>In <44rkisspt6paj4n7l...@4ax.com>, m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) writes:
>>**Starship Design March 2280 issue
>>Reveals that the Federation-class program was canceled after NCC-2112,
>>Star Union. Lists six Ascension-class dreadnoughts NCC-2520 thru 2525
>>with four more under construction. Says Komsomolsk-class has yet to
>>be authorized.
>Were there any commissioned/in operation during the TNG/DS9 years,
>particularily during the Dominion War?
Unfortunately this source doesn't extend that far along the timeline.
One would assume that the "dreadnought" designation would
have been abandoned at some point since it is not used in any of the
modern Trek shows. After all, *today's* navies don't have dreadnoughts
any more, either... Ship designations do grow old and outdated.
Timo Saloniemi
Steve Pugh
>Facts given in order of appearance:
>
>**Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual
> According to the Enterprise's computer files in 2261 [1] the vessel
>is still under construction, but twenty ships have been authorized and
>given consecutive NCCs from 2100-Federation to 2121-Entente (skipping
>NCC-2105)
Correction: 2120-Entente Presumably just a typo.
>**Todd Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet
> Gives the number of dreadnoughts in the fleet in the year:
>2268 - 14
If only 12 Federation class dreadnoughts were built what were the
other two in service in 2268? Too early to be Ascensions.
>2270 - 12
>2275 - 11
>2280 - 23
>2285 - 28
>2290 - 30
>Not all of these are Federation-class.
>
>**Starship Design March 2280 issue
>Reveals that the Federation-class program was canceled after NCC-2112,
>Star Union.
Which, of course, contradicts TMP. Unless Entente was built as anothe
dreadnought class, one not mentioned in the Starship Design.
>Lists six Ascension-class dreadnoughts NCC-2520 thru 2525
>with four more under construction. Says Komsomolsk-class has yet to
>be authorized.
Info gleamed from these last two sources claims that 9 of the 12
Federation class were refitted to Federation II specs and the
remaining three placed in the reserve fleet.
And in addition to the above (contradicts some of it):
**Jackill's Star Fleet Reference Manuals: Ships of the Fleet Volume I
Star League (NCC-2101) class enters service in 2268 with fifty ships
authorised (NCC-2100 to 2149). Number actually built is uncertain?
Steve
--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/>
Dwayne Allen Day
:> After all, *today's* navies don't have dreadnoughts
:> any more, either... Ship designations do grow old and outdated.
: Today's navies have no dreadnoughts because battleships are obsolete.
Actually, that's immaterial. The term "dreadnought" fell into disuse long
before the battleship became obsolete.
: A
: Nimitz-class carrier could singlehandedly trounce all four Iowa-class
: battleships, considered the best ever launched. "The Final Countdown" would
: have been a pretty one-sided fight.
There have been some interesting "what if" discussions of this on
sci.military.naval over the years. Various people tried to fight out the
battle. They came to the conclusion that, without using nukes, the Nimitz
would be hard-pressed to take on the entire Japanese navy. It could repel
the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that's about it--she simply lacked the
firepower to do more damage unless she picked up more bombs. And she
would be out of jet fuel pretty quick too.
D
Jack Bohn
>m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) wrote:
>
>>Facts given in order of appearance:
>>
>>**Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual
>> According to the Enterprise's computer files in 2261 [1] the vessel
>>is still under construction, but twenty ships have been authorized and
>>given consecutive NCCs from 2100-Federation to 2121-Entente (skipping
>>NCC-2105)
>
>Correction: 2120-Entente Presumably just a typo.
My typo, sorry. (I don't know *how* this got sent out, I was still
working on it. I looked in my outbox and it and three other posts
that had been gathering dust were gone. I don't even remember which
groups I've just afflicted with the other three posts.)
>>**Todd Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet
>> Gives the number of dreadnoughts in the fleet in the year:
>>2268 - 14
>
>If only 12 Federation class dreadnoughts were built what were the
>other two in service in 2268? Too early to be Ascensions.
That's part of the mystery.
>>**Starship Design March 2280 issue
>>Reveals that the Federation-class program was canceled after NCC-2112,
>>Star Union.
>
>Which, of course, contradicts TMP. Unless Entente was built as anothe
>dreadnought class, one not mentioned in the Starship Design.
Perhaps Entente was a Black Ops project like the Star Empire?
I, for one would favor an even smaller number of dreadnoughts, to
answer Skylar Thompson's question about their existence in the
Dominion War with not just a- "We didn't see any," but a- "They had
probably all been decommissioned years before." Of course, there are
other explanations (besides luck of the draw) why we didn't see any in
DS9.
They might not have aged as gracefully as the Mirandas and Excelsiors.
One source suggests they were pretty much "hangar queens" -spending
most of their time docked to a starbase as they were a bit too
resource intensive to fly as a "Heavy Constitution." Larger starships
(more on this below) with a more general purpose design may have
obsoleted them.
Whether scrapped technology or by treaty, it's likely they are not
around in the 24th century. Just before the debut of the Defiant
Major Kira could believe that Starfleet didn't build warships (what
does that say about the Akiras and Sabers, then?).
One question I was working to address was NCC-2120 followed years
later by NX (later NCC)-2000. FJ started a treknological tradition of
assigning NCC's in blocks rather than individually by chronology, but
that still leaves the 2100 block assigned before 2000 was given to a
larger, more capable vessel. Was, perhaps, Excelsior more than a
gleam in an engineer's eye when the Dreadnought was authorized? I
think it possible. Consider this block as set up for the "Large
Starship" project; an attempt to enlarge the warp field to encompass a
bigger ship. Encountering larger problems than expected, this project
delayed and delayed. Starfleet turned back to the old technology to
increase the size of their ships, using a third warp nacelle and
moving a slightly wider and longer vessel. The Large Starship Project
continued on, picking up a new _raison d'etre_ whenever funding was
threatened, culminating in the transwarp "Great Experiment." By which
time, presumably, NCC assignment was changed to chronological and on
setting a commission for the vessel rather than just authorization
--
Timo S Saloniemi
>In article <8se9kp$16a$1...@nntp.hut.fi>, tsal...@marx.hut.fi (Timo S
>Saloniemi) wrote:
>> After all, *today's* navies don't have dreadnoughts
>> any more, either... Ship designations do grow old and outdated.
>Today's navies have no dreadnoughts because battleships are obsolete.
Okay, so let's amend that to WWII navies. Battleships were battleships
there, no difference being made between "dreadnought" and
"non-dreadnought" designs. Indeed, the whole word was something of
a fad following the introduction of HMS Dreadnought, but I doubt
the Germans or the French in WWI really used that word. Did
the Royal Navy still use it in WWI?
Perhaps we could extend this practice to Trek more precisely?
Say, all the ships with the classic Enterprise configuration of
saucer primary and tubular secondary hulls and two nacelles on
pylons could be constitutions, for the first known example of that
arrangement. Nebula class in turn could be referred to as
a Starfleet heavy miranda, as opposed to the K't'inga which would
be a Klingon medium miranda.
Alternatively, we could resurrect other historical designations,
making Sovereign an "armored carrack" (or a "fast junk"?)...
>A Nimitz-class carrier could singlehandedly trounce all four
>Iowa-class battleships, considered the best ever launched.
>"The Final Countdown" would have been a pretty one-sided fight.
Then again, a properly supplied modern fast attack craft could
sink the whole WWI dreadnought fleet with impunity. :)
Timo Saloniemi
Skylar Thompson
>In article <8se9kp$16a$1...@nntp.hut.fi>, tsal...@marx.hut.fi (Timo S
>Saloniemi) wrote:
>
>> After all, *today's* navies don't have dreadnoughts
>> any more, either... Ship designations do grow old and outdated.
>
>battleships, considered the best ever launched. "The Final Countdown" would
>have been a pretty one-sided fight.
The outcome of that battle would depend on a number of factors. One is whether
the carrier is with her escorts or not (carriers are almost never found without escorts).
The second is whether the carrier is carrying her aeroplanes. Without these, her firepower
is greatly reduced. And, last of all, is whether you are referring to the original
Iowa-class battleships, or the refitted ones of the 1980's. The latter ones maybe
able to do a Nimitz-class supercarrier quite a bit of damage.
Daniel J. Ellis
phased out afterwards due to obscelesence (or possibly connected with the
Treaty of Versailles?)
As for your extension of the practice to StarFleet ships IMHO Klingon,
Romulan, etc. classes are too different) this does get done, although not as
literally as you suggest (my recognition chart is organised along these
lines, for example).
What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
--
----
Dan Ellis
"By golly Jim, I'm begining to think I can cure a rainy day"
DeForest Kelley: "Devil in the Dark, TOS"
"There's no time to lose, I heard her say"
Rolling Stones: Ruby Tuesday
"'Cos Something's gonna happen to make your whole life better"
Mark Knopfler: One More MatineeK
Dwayne Allen Day
: And, last of all, is whether you are referring to the original
: Iowa-class battleships, or the refitted ones of the 1980's. The latter
: ones maybe able to do a Nimitz-class supercarrier quite a bit of damage.
The latter ones carried up to 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles, about a fourth
of which were nuclear-tipped. So six nuclear cruise missiles shot at a
Nimitz might do some harm.
D
Dwayne Allen Day
: I believe that the Royal Navy did have Dreadnoughts during WWI but were
: phased out afterwards due to obscelesence (or possibly connected with the
: Treaty of Versailles?)
They had battleships during World War II.
: What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
That's a good question. I imagine that the term had something to do with
the proliferation of warship types--there were battlecruisers and
battleships and I bet that the term "battleship" was invented because of
an arms control treaty. Perhaps the Washington Naval Treaty?
D
Timo S Saloniemi
>I believe that the Royal Navy did have Dreadnoughts during WWI but were
>phased out afterwards due to obscelesence (or possibly connected with the
>Treaty of Versailles?)
Thanks for the info!
>As for your extension of the practice to StarFleet ships IMHO Klingon,
>Romulan, etc. classes are too different) this does get done, although not as
>literally as you suggest (my recognition chart is organised along these
>lines, for example).
That was more in jest. Of course, it's good to have "names for shapes"
for recognition purposes, but oftentimes the shape doesn't seem to be
associated with the capabilities or mission of the ship. The Miranda
may once have been to Constitution what Nebula is to Galaxy, but
currently the drawing of parallels between a Miranda and a Nebula
is dangerously misleading. And similarities in design between a
Daedalus and an Olympic would seem purely coincidental.
>What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
In Trek, it's simple. Anything with three nacelles is a dreadnought. :)
This seems more akin to the naming of sailing ships according to their
rigging than to the more modern practice of naming ships according to
their mission equipment.
Timo Saloniemi
Steve Pugh
> were phased out afterwards due to obscelesence
No, quite the opposite in fact, WWI proved what was already known: that all
non-dreadnought battleships were obsolete.
>(or possibly connected with the Treaty of Versailles?)
The Washington Treaty placed limits on ship building in the inter-war years
(limits on maximum tonnage, etc.). This led to such oddities as Pocket
Battleships.
> What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
Nothing. A dreadnought is a type of battleship. HMS Dreadnought was the first
battleship with all the big guns arranged in a series of turrets fore and
aft, rather than having some guns in broadsides, etc. So technically all WWII
battleships were dreadnoughts, but by that time there was no other design in
use for battleships and the term Dreadnought had fallen out of use.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie" - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Skylar Thompson
>In article <c1.2c.2Xv2dd$1tO@rhino_house.attglobal.net>,
>
>> The outcome of that battle would depend on a number of factors. One is
>> whether
>> the carrier is with her escorts or not (carriers are almost never found
>> without escorts).
>> The second is whether the carrier is carrying her aeroplanes. Without
>> these, her firepower
>> Iowa-class battleships, or the refitted ones of the 1980's. The latter ones
>> maybe
>> able to do a Nimitz-class supercarrier quite a bit of damage.
>
>BBs. And of course it's supposed to have its aircraft. A carrier without
>aircraft is an absurd proposition for combat.
In many situations in which a carrier must operate far from base, it is entirely
possible that a large percentage of its aircraft would be down for either maintenance,
repairs, or would be destroyed.
>Refitted or not, the BBs are toast. You can point to Tomahawk antiship
>missiles, but they're not nuclear-tipped. The land attack variant can be
>and have big enough conventional warheads anyway, but how would you aim it?
>Tomahawks don't have active seekers. You have to know where the carrier is
>before you can shoot it, and long before you get into radar range, the
>Hawkeyes will have spotted you and two or three squadrons of Hornets are on
>their way. A smart bomb down your stack and you've got serious problems.
The original TLADM was designed to be a nuclear cruise missile, and the versions
extant could probably be refitted with nuclear warheads fairly easily. The TLADM
also has a range of several hundred kilometres, which would put it at the edge
of a Hornet's combat radius.
Skylar Thompson
>I believe that the Royal Navy did have Dreadnoughts during WWI but were
>Treaty of Versailles?)
No, IIRC the biggest RN ship at the time was the King George V, a battleship.
>What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
A dreadnought is a large, heavily armed and armoured battleship with a single
type of armament (although most had some small guns for aircraft and torpedo
boats).
Dwayne Allen Day
: In many situations in which a carrier must operate far from base, it is
: for either maintenance, repairs, or would be destroyed.
Not really. They carry their own maintenance crew. If we are talking
theoretically about the movie The Final Conflict, then over time the ship
will run out of spare parts for the planes, but that would take awhile.
: The original TLADM was designed to be a nuclear cruise missile, and the
: versions extant could probably be refitted with nuclear warheads fairly
: easily. The TLADM also has a range of several hundred kilometres, which
: would put it at the edge of a Hornet's combat radius.
Actually, as someone else pointed out (I forgot), the TLAM-N nuclear
version is designed for attacking land targets and was not capable of
attacking ships. It did not have the right guidance system (a terminal
radar). So you couldn't use it against the carrier. (Also, the two
versions were not easily interchangeable--the Navy has been converting all
the nuclear versions to conventional and this requires reworking in the
factory, not simply a changing of warheads.) Further, the real worry for
the Tomahawks would be the F-14, which can reach out very far with its
missiles.
Of course, the best strategy is to kill the archer, not his arrows, and
the carrier is much better equipped for this.
D
Mike Dicenso
On 18 Oct 2000, Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> In article <Qm3H5.13831$QO4.23765@news2-hme0> "Daniel J. Ellis" <dane...@ic24.net> writes:
> >I believe that the Royal Navy did have Dreadnoughts during WWI but were
> >phased out afterwards due to obscelesence (or possibly connected with the
> >Treaty of Versailles?)
>
> Thanks for the info!
Doesn't anybody do a little bit of research anymore? Of course the
British Royal Navy had Dreadnoughts in WWI. After all they had the first
one. The H.M.S. Dreadnought, the prototype for all such battleships, was
commissioned in 1906! First Sea Lord Jacky Fisher wanted to build a
fearsome new form of battleship (yes battleships existed well before
WWI) that would render every other battleship built up to that point
obsolete.
While the H.M.S. Dreadnought had many innovations, her primary claim to
fame was in being the first ship to mount 10 heavy 12-inch guns on a
single vessel.
The German navy quickly followed in order to keep up with the British with
their own dreadnought, the Nassau, hastily completed in 1909. Thus began a
prototypical arms race of sorts to produce the fastest, and most heavily
armed ships the world had ever seen up to that point. The Treaty of
Versailles only really affected the German dreadnoughts. The Naval
Disarmament Treaty of 1922 is what affected the dreadnoughts. Many were
scrapped, and battleships simply fell to the wayside by WWII in favor the
aircraft carrier, and only really were seen as useful for escort duty and
shore bombardment. Dreadnoughts never fought fought the kind of large
scale cataclysmic battles for which they'd been designed, except for the
Battle of Jutland. They simply turned out to be too damned expensive to
risk in any kind of major conflict.
> >What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
>
> In Trek, it's simple. Anything with three nacelles is a dreadnought. :)
> This seems more akin to the naming of sailing ships according to their
> rigging than to the more modern practice of naming ships according to
> their mission equipment.
In the real world dreadnoughts, there really wasn't a difference per se.
The Dreadnought of 1906 was really a kind of 'super-battleship'. Indeed
"dreadnought" was a nickname simply passed out of vouge for the
battleship, even though by the end of WWII there had been battleships
built that surpassed anything dreamed of in 1906 when the
H.M.S. Dreadnought had been launched.
Applying the definitions to Trek, the Constitution class heavy cruisers
and the Federation class should both be considered dreadnoughts, since
both vessels meet the definition of carrying heavy armament, and
apparently hard-hitting speed. I believe Franz Joseph missnamed the
Federation class "dreadnoughts", rather he should've refered to them by
what they are, battleships.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Steve Pugh wrote:
> >(or possibly connected with the Treaty of Versailles?)
>
> The Washington Treaty placed limits on ship building in the inter-war years
> (limits on maximum tonnage, etc.). This led to such oddities as Pocket
> Battleships.
Don't forget about the conversion of cruisers into carriers, or their
scrapping in favor of building carriers such as what happened to the
Lexington, and Saratoga.
> > What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship, then?
>
> Nothing. A dreadnought is a type of battleship. HMS Dreadnought was the first
> battleship with all the big guns arranged in a series of turrets fore and
> aft, rather than having some guns in broadsides, etc. So technically all WWII
> battleships were dreadnoughts, but by that time there was no other design in
> use for battleships and the term Dreadnought had fallen out of use.
Exactly. The name was a trendy nickname derived from the first prototype
battleship of her kind, the HMS Dreadnought. I imagine that something
similar is what would've happened in Trek with the Federation class
"dreadnoughts". A name that soon would pass out of use with the ever
growing designs like the Excelsior class, and Ambassador class starships
entering service.
-Mike
Jason Bogguess
and labeled a "fan kook" Franz Joseph's ground-breaking work has once again
been mentioned and analyzed by the fine members of this newsgroup.
Had things gone a bit differently way back in the seventies, Franz Joseph
would have been the technical advisor for Star Trek up to the time of his
death I suspect. For those of you interested in reading what really happend
between Mr. Joseph and Mr. Roddenberry, the I would invite you to please
check out the link given below.
In comment on what ahs been discussed here thus far, fantastic! Its good to
see that back-handed subspace radio transmission in STTMP mentioning scout
Columbia NCC-621, scout Revere NCC-595, and dreadnought Entente NCC-2120 has
caused such a "stink" in current technical fandom. For those of us who grew
up in first generation technical fandom, these vessels and ship types were a
given and were not questioned. Following Mr. Franz's outstanding attempt to
document the technicalities of Trek, he was succeeded by other fine works of
technical art, all in keeping, and with direct consideration for Mr.
Joseph's work. These works include:
Ships of the Star Fleet Vol 1 and 2 (Guenther)
Geoffrey Mandel's various works (Trek Art Department for Voyager)
jackill's Star (two words here people) Fleet Reference Manuals
If you have not checked out these references, do so! If you have already,
learn to appreciate and respect what has now become "non-canonical" and not
"officially liscensed products", both disturbing new words that were never
mentioned only a few years ago (prior to Next Gen). The fact now that we are
once again discussing what exactly a Dreadnought type starship is, should
point out the fact that Trek is not limited to what is being shown on screen
and that Trek is very much dependent on what fans (you and I people) create
and expand upon what is shown. Our friend Mr. Sternbach was an active
participant in early technical fandom, was he not? Mr. Okuda? and certainly
Mr. Mandel.
Trek is coming down to the wire. Voyager will soon complete its run, and
there is talk of a succesor series. But, the question remains; will Trek
survive well into the 21st century? With all the web sites being closed down
left and right due to "copyright infringement" and "misuse of fair use
aggreements", the fact that you can no longer purchase hardly any of the
original Treknical works that once were the centerpiece of many convention
dealer tables. It would seem to me, that our friends at Viacom are
attempting nothing less than a complete re-writing of Star Trek (a drunk
Zefram Cochrane? total global warfare when World War II was confined to the
Eugenics Wars as mentioned word for word by Spock and McGivers in Space
Seed, the post-atomic horror?? whats this?, theres more to bitch and moan
about) Should not what came first be the last to takes its bow
continuity-wise?
Thanks to such modern works as The Trek Encyclopedia and Gene's
blood-spitting order to ignore the animated series from the "officially
liscensed" record, among others, Star Trek has been forced into a collective
paddock, with little or no chance of escaping its franchised fate. I agree
that we needed a master chronology to help keep the events of Star Trek in
place and understandable (a chronology, but with a fandom committee to
decide what is and what is not Trek), a encyclopedia (again as mentioned
before, same rules applying), and a series of technical and literary works
intended to expand upon and embellish the Star Trek Trek universe (novels
and technical works which can be considered official and canon). Any
disagreements? I would like to invite comment and other views on this
matter.
Jason
Dwayne Allen Day
Okay, I'll open the discussion up a bit:
In Trekdom, what would a "dreadnought type" Federation starship be?
The way that Mandel interpreted FJ's ship types was that the heavy cruiser
had a lot of firepower, but also an exploratory mission. The dreadnought,
on the other hand, had even more firepower, but limited exploration
capability. You simply would not find them ranging very far from
Federation space.
In fact, some of the fandom speculation on this poked around at this
issue, proposing that the dreadnoughts were conceived and built when
Starfleet anticipated being at war. When the war did not materialize, the
ships sat around at dock a lot and just ate up resources. So they
proposed converting them to a more exploratory role. That seemed like a
neat idea to me.
Comments?
D
--
Dwayne Allen Day
: You're missing the point. You can't aim the darn thing if you don't know
: where the carrier is. Tomahawks have to have preprogrammed flight routes and
: targets. The CVN will know where the BB is (thanks to the Hawkeyes) long
: before it comes anywhere near the BB's radar range, unless you think a BB
: can spot targets hundreds of miles away. So the missile's range is
: immaterial. The ocean's a pretty big place to shoot blind.
Well, there are two specific issues here. The small one first: the
nuclear version of the TLAM did its navigating by inertial system and then
terrain contour mapping. That means that it could only hit targets on
land. It did not have any way to locate a ship in the ocean. The
conventional ship-attack version had a terminal radar. Both versions are
long gone, for different reasons. (The ship-attack had the problem that
the target would have moved too much by the time the missile arrived.)
The second issue is more to your point. The BB still had to find the ship
it was going to attack. Normally it would do this through a datalink from
other naval ships and--ta da--carriers. It did have a helo capability to
do local search, but that was never very good or consistent (they only
embarked them in fair weather).
So, put a BB alone against a carrier alone and the carrier wins every
single time.
D
Jack Bohn
>
>Okay, I'll open the discussion up a bit:
>
>In Trekdom, what would a "dreadnought type" Federation starship be?
My thoughts:
If the first Federation dreadnought was THE _Federation_ Dreadnought,
the thought of its designers might be to have it dread nought. Say it
was designed to defeat any single ship of the known adversaries
(beginning another round of escalation). I am also wondering if it is
the largest ship that Starfleet could throw a warp field around at
that time (although a Tug with two pods would be longer and heavier).
I mean, *some*thing had to keep Galaxies from being produced in 2260!
>The way that Mandel interpreted FJ's ship types was that the heavy cruiser
>had a lot of firepower, but also an exploratory mission. The dreadnought,
>on the other hand, had even more firepower, but limited exploration
>capability. You simply would not find them ranging very far from
>Federation space.
My interpretation, too. The dreadnought *could* go out exploring -it
retains enough of the general purpose design- it is just not as good
at it as the Constitutions and also a lot of ship to send out.
>In fact, some of the fandom speculation on this poked around at this
>issue
About the "escalation" I mentioned above: the game StarFleet Battles
posits that the Federation dreadnought was first. Klingon, Romulan,
later Gorn, and others responding to it and to each other brought out
heavier designs. This was because the SFB designers had built better
dreadnoughts for the other races, having been given the Federation DN.
They later brought out some improvements on the Fed design.
Timo S Saloniemi
>In the real world dreadnoughts, there really wasn't a difference per se.
>The Dreadnought of 1906 was really a kind of 'super-battleship'. Indeed
>"dreadnought" was a nickname simply passed out of vouge for the
>battleship, even though by the end of WWII there had been battleships
>built that surpassed anything dreamed of in 1906 when the
>H.M.S. Dreadnought had been launched.
>Applying the definitions to Trek, the Constitution class heavy cruisers
>and the Federation class should both be considered dreadnoughts, since
>both vessels meet the definition of carrying heavy armament, and
>apparently hard-hitting speed. I believe Franz Joseph missnamed the
>Federation class "dreadnoughts", rather he should've refered to them by
>what they are, battleships.
Then again, a rather important distinction exists between cruiser and
battleship, apart from displacement or gun caliber - the latter is armored.
Would there have been a difference in armoring between a Constitution
and a Federation? The Federation primary hull at least was radically
different in shape, as drawn by FJ; it almost looked as if armor-plated,
although later generations have interpreted all those surface lines as
the "deflector grid".
Since so many different sizes of ships get called "cruisers" in modern
Trek (and that's canonical for such ships as Constellation and Ambassador!),
a "battleship" ought to be *radically* larger than the existing cruisers.
A mere Galaxy won't cut it, and a Romulan Warbird is a borderline case.
The only serious contestants for the title would be the Dominion battleships,
really.
Timo Saloniemi
Shik
heaviest ships weren't called "battleships" but rather "destroyers."
Shik
"What inspiration will today's challenger bring, & how will the Iron Chef fight
back? The heat will be ON!!"
Sanctum Sanitarium--conveniently located at http://shiksworld.iwarp.com
Skylar Thompson
>In article <c1.2c.2Xvgf0$1tV@rhino_house.attglobal.net>,
>> also has a range of several hundred kilometres, which would put it at the
>> of a Hornet's combat radius.
>
>where the carrier is. Tomahawks have to have preprogrammed flight routes and
>targets. The CVN will know where the BB is (thanks to the Hawkeyes) long
>before it comes anywhere near the BB's radar range, unless you think a BB
>can spot targets hundreds of miles away. So the missile's range is
>immaterial. The ocean's a pretty big place to shoot blind.
There's always satellite imagery and spy planes.
Jack Bohn
>Then again, a rather important distinction exists between cruiser and
>battleship, apart from displacement or gun caliber - the latter is armored.
>Would there have been a difference in armoring between a Constitution
>and a Federation? The Federation primary hull at least was radically
>different in shape, as drawn by FJ; it almost looked as if armor-plated,
>although later generations have interpreted all those surface lines as
>the "deflector grid".
There is a distinct lack of windows on the Federation (as drawn by FJ,
TG showed quite a few windows on his rendition of the Federation,
Federation II, and Ascension.)
>Since so many different sizes of ships get called "cruisers" in modern
>Trek (and that's canonical for such ships as Constellation and Ambassador!),
>a "battleship" ought to be *radically* larger than the existing cruisers.
>A mere Galaxy won't cut it, and a Romulan Warbird is a borderline case.
>The only serious contestants for the title would be the Dominion battleships,
>really.
Modern Trek had the logistics problem that its ship hulls have lasted
for nearly a hundred years. ("This is a *problem*?" you ask) With
the trend towards increased size, it's no wonder that cruisers and
frigates would surpass earlier dreadnoughts and even "battleships."
Shawn Wilson
...
> I believe that the Royal Navy did have Dreadnoughts during WWI but were
> Treaty of Versailles?)
>
> As for your extension of the practice to StarFleet ships IMHO Klingon,
> Romulan, etc. classes are too different) this does get done, although not
as
> literally as you suggest (my recognition chart is organised along these
> lines, for example).
>
There really isn't one. The term 'battleship' is older, and refers to
whatever type of ship is typically found in a line of battle, the heavy
hitters ('line of battle ship' is the origin of the term). 'Dreadnought'
was the name given to the first of a new class of battleship, so other ships
like it were called 'dreadnoughts' to differentiate them from other
battleships. Once all battleships were of the Dreadnought type, there was
no need to differentiate them from the others and the term battleship again
became standard, with the term dreadnought reduced to picturesque status.
BTW, while the HMS Dreadnought is credited with being the first modern
battleship, it's actually more of a transitional design between the older
warships and the 'modern' battleship. The USS Michigan was the first truly
modern battleship.
Timo S Saloniemi
>Unless we start heading down the Babylon 5 route, wherein the biggest baddest
>heaviest ships weren't called "battleships" but rather "destroyers."
...Which is what Diane Duane did in "My Enemy, My Ally" (now in another
round of reprints).
Her "destroyers" were dreadnoughts with four nacelles, essentially. OTOH,
they were stated to be of "Defender class", so I prefer to interpret
them as being defenders by designation. More specifically, since they
were built by Denebians, I like to think of them as the Deneb class
defenders Deneb (NCC-2002) and Inaieu (NCC-2003, the one mentioned
in the book). Denebians wouldn't know what "dreadnought" meant, and
wouldn't be bothered to follow this obscure Earth tradition even if
they did know.
Anybody read her newer books? She has some stuff on early Constellations
in the latest two.
Timo Saloniemi
Dwayne Allen Day
: battleships. Once all battleships were of the Dreadnought type, there was
: no need to differentiate them from the others and the term battleship again
: became standard, with the term dreadnought reduced to picturesque status.
But I imagine that this term was codified in one of the treaties. It was
probably the Washington Naval Treaty that said things like "The definition
of a battleship is a..."
D
Jason Bogguess
cruiser
> >had a lot of firepower, but also an exploratory mission. The
dreadnought,
> >on the other hand, had even more firepower, but limited exploration
> >capability. You simply would not find them ranging very far from
> >Federation space.
>
> My interpretation, too. The dreadnought *could* go out exploring -it
> retains enough of the general purpose design- it is just not as good
> at it as the Constitutions and also a lot of ship to send out.
>
> >In fact, some of the fandom speculation on this poked around at this
> >issue
According to the Booklet of General Plans for the Federation class
Dreadnought, drawn by Allie C. Reed, Decks 1 and 2 aboard the Federation and
her sisters were devoted exclusively to science lab spaces. Laboratories
included Ion Study, Physics, High Energy, Chemistry, Geology, Biology,
Cosmology, and Communications.
Steve Pugh
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>>m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) wrote:
>>>
>>>**Todd Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet
>>> Gives the number of dreadnoughts in the fleet in the year:
>>>2268 - 14
>>
>>If only 12 Federation class dreadnoughts were built what were the
>>other two in service in 2268? Too early to be Ascensions.
>
>That's part of the mystery.
Any older (pre-Federation class) dreadnoughts would have been in
service during the Four Years War. Interesting.
>I, for one would favor an even smaller number of dreadnoughts, to
>answer Skylar Thompson's question about their existence in the
>Dominion War with not just a- "We didn't see any," but a- "They had
>probably all been decommissioned years before." Of course, there are
>other explanations (besides luck of the draw) why we didn't see any in
>DS9.
>They might not have aged as gracefully as the Mirandas and Excelsiors.
>One source suggests they were pretty much "hangar queens" -spending
>most of their time docked to a starbase as they were a bit too
>resource intensive to fly as a "Heavy Constitution." Larger starships
>(more on this below) with a more general purpose design may have
>obsoleted them.
Look at the nacelles. Fandom says that TOS era tech had power
generation taking place in the nacelles, moving to a intermix chamber
in the movie era. Three TOS nacelles means more power. Three movie
nacelles does not. So into the movie era the advantages enjoyed by the
dreadnought design would be diminished.
>Whether scrapped technology or by treaty, it's likely they are not
>around in the 24th century. Just before the debut of the Defiant
>Major Kira could believe that Starfleet didn't build warships (what
>does that say about the Akiras and Sabers, then?).
Akira is a silly deisgn (that looks very cool). Through deck hanger
bays, way too many torp tubes (including never seen elsewhere port and
starboard tubes) and hardly any phaser strips. Plus where the heck is
the warp core?
Sabre is more reasonable. A small ship with a few phaser strips and
(presumably) some torp launchers. Call it an escort (the designation
must have existed before the Defiant or it wouldn't have been much of
a 'cover') or a scout or a corvette.
>One question I was working to address was NCC-2120 followed years
>later by NX (later NCC)-2000. FJ started a treknological tradition of
>assigning NCC's in blocks rather than individually by chronology, but
>that still leaves the 2100 block assigned before 2000 was given to a
>larger, more capable vessel. Was, perhaps, Excelsior more than a
>gleam in an engineer's eye when the Dreadnought was authorized?
Going by fandom dates the Federation (and the Coronado class through
deck cruisers) entered service at the end of, or just after, the Four
Years War. Did something in the war make Starfleet decide that big
ships with strong military capability were the thing to have?
> I
>think it possible. Consider this block as set up for the "Large
>Starship" project; an attempt to enlarge the warp field to encompass a
>bigger ship. Encountering larger problems than expected, this project
>delayed and delayed. Starfleet turned back to the old technology to
>increase the size of their ships, using a third warp nacelle and
>moving a slightly wider and longer vessel. The Large Starship Project
>continued on, picking up a new _raison d'etre_ whenever funding was
>threatened, culminating in the transwarp "Great Experiment." By which
>time, presumably, NCC assignment was changed to chronological and on
>setting a commission for the vessel rather than just authorization
A lot depends on whether one is trying to explain "why not pick 2000
for this big class of cool ships?" or "why are blocks assigned all
over the place anyway?"
If the first, then yes the Excelsior could have been first proposed
back in the period of the Four Years War when Starfleet decided that
bigger was better. On the other hand maybe they had some strange
system whereby certain number blocks were associated with certain
ships types and 2000 was a number associated with a cruiser.
The second question is largely unanswerable. Jonah Rapp's drastic
redisgntaion of NCCs adds 1000 to the Saladin and Hermes to put them
in the 1500 range whilst subtracting 2000 from the Ptolemies to put
them in the 1800 range. I can't recall what he does to the
Federations.
Personally, I just put it down to one of those things (maybe the
admiral in charge of assigning NCCs was Tellarite and they count is
base 9 or 11 or somthing silly like that.)
Steve
--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/>
Timo S Saloniemi
So what COULD make such a big vessel unsuited for exploration,
as long as one could afford to operate it in the first place?
If it's not the lack of laboratory space (which would be absurd
in a ship that large), perhaps it's got something to do with
the sensor suite. Perhaps sensors and scanners optimized for
weapons control, surveillance and targeting are mutually
exclusive with exploration sensors because they hog up the
same bandwidth and interfere with each other?
Still, I guess the best way to argue against exploration use of
dreadnoughts would be to claim that they could not be operated
economically across long ranges, due to high fuel consumption
or excessive crew requirements or somesuch.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) wrote:
>>Steve Pugh wrote:
>>>m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) wrote:
>>>If only 12 Federation class dreadnoughts were built what were the
>>>other two in service in 2268? Too early to be Ascensions.
>>That's part of the mystery.
>Any older (pre-Federation class) dreadnoughts would have been in
>service during the Four Years War. Interesting.
One wonders if this is a simple timeline screw-up. What would 2268
be in Okudaic years? The person responsible for creating the
Ascensions could have disagreed with Guenther about the timeline,
and in all that confusion, the fleet strength table might have
been erroneously compiled. Guenther did collate earlier work in
his book, didn't he?
>Look at the nacelles. Fandom says that TOS era tech had power
>generation taking place in the nacelles, moving to a intermix chamber
>in the movie era. Three TOS nacelles means more power. Three movie
>nacelles does not. So into the movie era the advantages enjoyed by the
>dreadnought design would be diminished.
Then again, TMP-era warp cores didn't take up that much room inside
the ship, even if they extended almost everywhere within the hulls.
A dreadnought could simply have had more "plumbing" installed for
the same power-multiplying effect.
>Akira is a silly deisgn (that looks very cool). Through deck hanger
>bays, way too many torp tubes (including never seen elsewhere port and
>starboard tubes) and hardly any phaser strips. Plus where the heck is
>the warp core?
I won't believe in those torp tubes until I see them in action - and
I haven't seen a picture yet that would convince me of the existence
of the bow hangar doors, either... But I guess twin warp cores in those
boom hulls would be a safe bet. The weird hatches in mid-boom, designed
to imitate P-38 turbocharger caps, would be core ejection systems...
>Sabre is more reasonable. A small ship with a few phaser strips and
>(presumably) some torp launchers. Call it an escort (the designation
>must have existed before the Defiant or it wouldn't have been much of
>a 'cover') or a scout or a corvette.
Or a light frigate. I think this would be a nice stablemate for
something like Loknar.
>>One question I was working to address was NCC-2120 followed years
>>later by NX (later NCC)-2000. FJ started a treknological tradition of
>>assigning NCC's in blocks rather than individually by chronology, but
>>that still leaves the 2100 block assigned before 2000 was given to a
>>larger, more capable vessel. Was, perhaps, Excelsior more than a
>>gleam in an engineer's eye when the Dreadnought was authorized?
Well, people who believe in dreadnoughts generally also believe in
a spectrum of TOS fanfic ships that defy all chrono-logic in their
registry system. I don't see it as a big problem if NCC-2120
precedes NCC-2000 somewhat.
Then again, I've hatched a couple of contingency plans. Say, perhaps
Starfleet put a great many big warship plans on hold when the Organians
forced a peace between the Feds and the Klingons? When Organian
interference lifted, the plans would be put back into operation
in a revised order. I think the Organians stopped interfering
as soon as the warring sides proved they would not bother the
Organian population any more. Enough time to get the Entente built...
Especially if TMP takes place later than 2271, which would make
lots of timeline sense.
>Going by fandom dates the Federation (and the Coronado class through
>deck cruisers) entered service at the end of, or just after, the Four
>Years War. Did something in the war make Starfleet decide that big
>ships with strong military capability were the thing to have?
I'm somewhat less than satisfied with this whole 4YW thing. "Errand
of Mercy" made it sound awfully like the Feds and the Klingons
had never fought before.
>A lot depends on whether one is trying to explain "why not pick 2000
>for this big class of cool ships?" or "why are blocks assigned all
>over the place anyway?"
>
>If the first, then yes the Excelsior could have been first proposed
>back in the period of the Four Years War when Starfleet decided that
>bigger was better. On the other hand maybe they had some strange
>system whereby certain number blocks were associated with certain
>ships types and 2000 was a number associated with a cruiser.
Or with a bigger-than-cruiser category, since NCC-1700 and 18XX
seem to have gone to cruiser-sized vessels...
>The second question is largely unanswerable. Jonah Rapp's drastic
>redisgntaion of NCCs adds 1000 to the Saladin and Hermes to put them
>in the 1500 range whilst subtracting 2000 from the Ptolemies to put
>them in the 1800 range. I can't recall what he does to the
>Federations.
I'm holding my breath for the fifth spinoff show, which might
visit a timeframe that would shed more light on this. I doubt
the existence of the FJ ships would be acknowledged by modern
Paramount in any form.
>Personally, I just put it down to one of those things (maybe the
>admiral in charge of assigning NCCs was Tellarite and they count is
>base 9 or 11 or somthing silly like that.)
Yes, that *must* be it! ;)
Timo Saloniemi
Jason Bogguess
> dreadnoughts would be to claim that they could not be operated
> economically across long ranges, due to high fuel consumption
> or excessive crew requirements or somesuch.
>
> Timo Saloniemi
I would suggest that it would the sheer number of hands needed to man the
ship. Our own Battleships are a good example, requiring I believe near 1000
hands, and the fuel consumption IS enormous. According to the Star Fleet
Technical Manual, the standard complement for a Dreadnought of this class is
55 officers and 455 crew for a total of 500.
Graham Kennedy
But that's not much bigger than the 430 of the Constitutions.
I'd plump for fuel consumption. All that extra power for
shields, weapons, etc could cut easily cut their range in
half for a given fuel supply.
"Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the
starship Federation... it's two and a half year mission..." :-)
--
Graham Kennedy
Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Jack Bohn
>According to the Booklet of General Plans for the Federation class
>Dreadnought, drawn by Allie C. Reed, Decks 1 and 2 aboard the Federation and
>her sisters were devoted exclusively to science lab spaces.
Decks 1 and 2? You mean the bridge is not on deck 1? Is it sensibly
buried deep within the hull? Oh, Joy!!!
Keith Morrison
> >Since so many different sizes of ships get called "cruisers" in modern
> >Trek (and that's canonical for such ships as Constellation and Ambassador!),
> >a "battleship" ought to be *radically* larger than the existing cruisers.
> >A mere Galaxy won't cut it, and a Romulan Warbird is a borderline case.
> >The only serious contestants for the title would be the Dominion battleships,
> >really.
>
> Modern Trek had the logistics problem that its ship hulls have lasted
> for nearly a hundred years. ("This is a *problem*?" you ask) With
> the trend towards increased size, it's no wonder that cruisers and
> frigates would surpass earlier dreadnoughts and even "battleships."
Indeedy. All you need to do is compare real-world warships. The
1880-era USN Newark Class cruiser was 327 feet, 4,600 tons. The
Indiana Class battleships from 1890 were 352 feet, 11,700 tons.
Fifty years later, the Iowa Class battleship was 887 feet long and,
loaded, nearly 58,000 tons. The Alaska Class heavy cruisers were
808 feet long, 34,000 tons. In effect, the Alaskas were bigger than
the majority of battleships that were ever built.
Meanwhile, a modern warship like the RCN Halifax Class frigate (444
feet, 5,200 tons) is as big as the majority of pre-WW2 cruisers and
bigger than many pre-WW1 battleships.
The only way to know what is meant by terms like "frigate", "cruiser",
"battleship" and whatever is to know how and when the term was applied
to the particular class. In the case of Star Trek, the Excelsior Class
may have been labelled a battleship while the Miranda was a cruiser
and the Constitution a heavy cruiser. The Excelsior eventually gets
bumped down to cruiser and the Miranda to frigate because they're still
in use, but the retired Constitution Class (assuming it is) is still
called a heavy cruiser because it was retired before it was officially
demoted.
--
Keith
Jason Bogguess
> buried deep within the hull? Oh, Joy!!!
Yes sir! the Bridge is located on deck 7 :)
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Jason Bogguess wrote:
> > Still, I guess the best way to argue against exploration use of
> > dreadnoughts would be to claim that they could not be operated
> > economically across long ranges, due to high fuel consumption
> > or excessive crew requirements or somesuch.
> >
> > Timo Saloniemi
>
> I would suggest that it would the sheer number of hands needed to man the
> ship. Our own Battleships are a good example, requiring I believe near 1000
> hands, and the fuel consumption IS enormous. According to the Star Fleet
> Technical Manual, the standard complement for a Dreadnought of this class is
> 55 officers and 455 crew for a total of 500.
Which is'nt all that much higher than the 400-430 complement of a
Constitution class heavy cruiser... So that can't be it. Especially when
you consider that just a few years later, the upgraded Constitutions had
crews in the 490-500 range by 2271. Has to be fuel limitations or
something else that made the dreadnoughts impractical.
-Mike
Skylar Thompson
>In article <c1.2c.2XwFsR$1tk@rhino_house.attglobal.net>,
>
>> > The ocean's a pretty big place to shoot blind.
>>
>> There's always satellite imagery and spy planes.
>
>the BBs all sorts of support. They can't be all that good if they need all
>this help, ya think?
The carriers of the USN rely upon satellite downlinks for
communication, OTH targetting, navigation, &c.
Dwayne Allen Day
: to the particular class. In the case of Star Trek, the Excelsior Class
: may have been labelled a battleship while the Miranda was a cruiser
: and the Constitution a heavy cruiser. The Excelsior eventually gets
In fan-fiction, the Avenger class USS Reliant was a "heavy frigate," which
denoted a ship without the exploration capabilities of a cruiser, but with
equivalent or greater weaponry. By the time of the Miranda class (only a
few years later), these ships had been demoted to "cruiser" status because
of a change in definitions.
D
Timo S Saloniemi
One should remember a thing or two about the designation "heavy frigate"
itself. As I understand it, this ship type played a central role in
the early US Navy, and USN in fact may have been the actual developer
and almost sole operator of these ships - faster, nimbler and less
heavily armed than ships of the line, but (unlike regular frigates)
built very sturdily and actually capable of taking on a ship of the
line or rather easily defeating another frigate.
The 19th century "frigate", let alone "heavy frigate", thus bears no
relationship with 20th century frigates, which have traditionally
been among the smallest bluewater combatants (unless the particular
navy likes to use the designation "corvette"), except when they
have been huge nuclear-powered AA ships, or large destroyerlike
primary combatants for a non-superpower navy.
The TOS-movie fanfic designation for the Avengers seems akin to
either the 19th century interpretation or then the nuclear-powered
AA ship interpretation. In either scheme, one is faced with the fact
that there exists no such thing as a "cruiser" in the scheme, so
one cannot have a meaningful naval-terminology argument about the
relationship between Constitution heavy cruisers and Avenger heavy
frigates.
I think it is safe to say that the Starfleet system could be just
as convoluted and rapidly changing as the historical designation
systems of the past couple of centuries have been. Thus, a ship
could be a frigate, a cruiser, a dreadnought and a medium penetration
strategic barge at various points of its life without undergoing
any changes in equipment or mission profile.
Timo Saloniemi
Dwayne Allen Day
: The 19th century "frigate", let alone "heavy frigate", thus bears no
: been among the smallest bluewater combatants (unless the particular
Right, except for the brief period of time when the US Navy had no
"cruiser" designation and designated ships larger than destroyers as
"frigates." These ships had previously been designated "destroyer
leaders." It was a nonsensical designation system during the 1970s and
was quickly abandoned because no other navy in the world used it.
: The TOS-movie fanfic designation for the Avengers seems akin to
: either the 19th century interpretation or then the nuclear-powered
: I think it is safe to say that the Starfleet system could be just
: as convoluted and rapidly changing as the historical designation
: systems of the past couple of centuries have been. Thus, a ship
Yes and yes. I did not initially like the Mandel designation of the
Reliant as a "heavy frigate," but it grew on me. If you read between the
lines on the original blueprints for the Reliant, you see that the
pre-refit ship was less powerful than a Constitution cruiser. But after
they stuck all the heavy weaponry on it, they ended up with a ship that
was *more powerful* than a heavy cruiser. I think this is an interesting
way of writing "Trek history." It recognizes that the system may not
always be logical.
D
Steve Pugh
> Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> wrote:
> >m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) wrote:
> >>Steve Pugh wrote:
> >>>m...@ncc1701.mil (Jack Bohn) wrote:
>
> >>>If only 12 Federation class dreadnoughts were built what were the
> >>>other two in service in 2268? Too early to be Ascensions.
>
> be in Okudaic years?
2272 I think. But unless the dated event directly relates to the Enterprise
missions it could be placed anywhere in the late 60s or early 70s.
> The person responsible for creating the
> Ascensions could have disagreed with Guenther about the timeline,
> and in all that confusion, the fleet strength table might have
> been erroneously compiled. Guenther did collate earlier work in
> his book, didn't he?
Only his own work really. He created the Federation II and Ascension classes
and decided that not all of FJ's Federations had actually been built. So
unless he's schizoid...
> >Look at the nacelles. Fandom says that TOS era tech had power
> >generation taking place in the nacelles, moving to a intermix chamber
> >in the movie era. Three TOS nacelles means more power. Three movie
> >nacelles does not. So into the movie era the advantages enjoyed by
> >the dreadnought design would be diminished.
>
> Then again, TMP-era warp cores didn't take up that much room inside
> the ship, even if they extended almost everywhere within the hulls.
> A dreadnought could simply have had more "plumbing" installed for
> the same power-multiplying effect.
Yes... Not really supported by any fandom source. Starship Design shows the
intermix plumbing in the Federation and Ascension classes. Any increase due
to the larger secondary hull is offset by the fact that the warp nacelle
pylons are mounted closer to the main intermix chamber.
> >Akira is a silly deisgn (that looks very cool). Through deck hanger
> >bays, way too many torp tubes (including never seen elsewhere port
> >and starboard tubes) and hardly any phaser strips. Plus where the
> >heck is the warp core?
>
> I won't believe in those torp tubes until I see them in action - and
> I haven't seen a picture yet that would convince me of the existence
> of the bow hangar doors, either...
Did you see the pics in an early issue of the magazine? And the large colour
CGI pic from #117 of the fact files issue? That plus the clear intentions of
the designer makes it hard to dismiss them without being bloody minded. ;-)
>But I guess twin warp cores in those boom hulls would be a safe bet.
>The weird hatches in mid-boom, designed to imitate P-38 turbocharger
>caps, would be core ejection systems...
Yeah, that one of the options I thought of when writing my critique of the
Akira class (to be found at http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/akira.html)
> >Sabre is more reasonable. A small ship with a few phaser strips and
> >(presumably) some torp launchers. Call it an escort (the designation
> >must have existed before the Defiant or it wouldn't have been much of
> >a 'cover') or a scout or a corvette.
>
> Or a light frigate. I think this would be a nice stablemate for
> something like Loknar.
That's taking a modern naval definition of frigate rather than a trek fandom
one, right? My head hurts....
> >>One question I was working to address was NCC-2120 followed years
> >>later by NX (later NCC)-2000.
>
> Well, people who believe in dreadnoughts generally also believe in
> a spectrum of TOS fanfic ships that defy all chrono-logic in their
> registry system. I don't see it as a big problem if NCC-2120
> precedes NCC-2000 somewhat.
Me neither.
> Then again, I've hatched a couple of contingency plans. Say, perhaps
> Starfleet put a great many big warship plans on hold when the
> Organians forced a peace between the Feds and the Klingons? When
> Organian interference lifted, the plans would be put back into
> operation in a revised order. I think the Organians stopped
> interfering as soon as the warring sides proved they would not bother > the Organian population any more. Enough time to get the Entente
> built...
So are you saying that Dreadnoughts are at the planned stage in TOS year 1
(thus following FJ's tech manual). Put on hold due to the Organians and a few
years later enter construction, reaching unit 2120 by the time of TMP? Or are
you saying the Guenther's 12 dreadnoughts were built prior to the Organians
and that more units, up to at least 2120 were built sometime later, but still
before TMP?
> Especially if TMP takes place later than 2271, which would make
> lots of timeline sense.
I agree on this. Make TOS 1 -3 years 1 -3 of the five year mission, not years
3-5. Add on TAS and some novels. Push TMP back to at least 2273.
> >Going by fandom dates the Federation (and the Coronado class through
> >deck cruisers) entered service at the end of, or just after, the Four
> >Years War. Did something in the war make Starfleet decide that big
> >ships with strong military capability were the thing to have?
>
> I'm somewhat less than satisfied with this whole 4YW thing. "Errand
> of Mercy" made it sound awfully like the Feds and the Klingons
> had never fought before.
Yes, that's a valid interpretation. But... maybe it all comes down to Kirk
and Kor having missed the war. A lot of their dialogue could be taken as
implying that they wished (Kor openly, Kirk secretly) that they had been able
to partake in the war, or even that they wished that the war had been fought
to a glorious conclusion instead of ending in stalemate and treaty.
If you don't like the 4YW, then there's always LUG's Axanar conflict. I
personally prefer the two of them to both take place: the Klingon's attack
whilst the Federation is in turmoil over Axanar.
> >Personally, I just put it down to one of those things (maybe the
> >admiral in charge of assigning NCCs was Tellarite and they count is
> >base 9 or 11 or somthing silly like that.)
>
> Yes, that *must* be it! ;)
I wonder why no one thought of it before? ;-)
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie" - The Doctor
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Keith Morrison
> BTW, while the HMS Dreadnought is credited with being the first modern
> battleship, it's actually more of a transitional design between the older
> warships and the 'modern' battleship. The USS Michigan was the first truly
> modern battleship.
While the South Carolina Class ships (of which Michigan was the first)
were the first "modern" battleships in being designed with all big
guns, their design essentially involved sticking those guns on a pre-
Dreadnought design. They were, therefore, actually inferior to the
first dreadnoughts being produced in England, France and Germany and
functioned in a secondary role during WW1.
--
Keith
Shawn Wilson
They had their deficiencies certainly, but innovations like superimposed
turrets, and all or nothing armor made them more advanced in some important
ways than the HMS Dreadnought. They were also designed earlier, so they
really do deserve credit for being first.
justi...@my-deja.com
> : What is the difference between a dreadnought and a battleship,
then?
>
> That's a good question.
All battleships were dreadnaughts by World War 2, and all the effective
ones in WW 1 were, also. The distinction came about in 1905 when the
Royal Navy battleship Dreadnaught was completed. It introduced quite a
few innovations, but the main thing that distinguished Dreadnaught from
previous battleships was its armament. Until then, battleships had the
main battery, to fight other battleships, and some smaller batteries
for closer range fighting. All these guns were controlled
individually. Dreadnaught introduced an armament of all one caliber
(eight 12-inch, IIRC), all centrally controlled to fire at once. The
idea was to deliver the most powerful salvo possible, all at once, at
as long a range as possible. Obviously, an enemy battleship that
couldn't return a comparable volume of fire was doomed.
Dreadnaught also introduced steam turbine propulsion to battleships,
which put the existing vertical triple expansion steam piston engines
to shame.
Obviously, every navy that could started building similar battleships
and, to distinguish them from the old ones, the name "dreadnaught"
caught on.
>I imagine that the term had something to do with
> the proliferation of warship types--there were battlecruisers and
> battleships and I bet that the term "battleship" was invented because
of
> an arms control treaty.
"Battleship" is quite a bit older than "dreadnaught," and came about as
a shortened form of "line-of-battle ship," the old sailing ship of the
line.
Battlecruisers were an idea conceived by the "father" of Dreadnaught,
Admiral of the Fleet "Jackie" Fisher. He wanted to replace existing
cruisers with "battlecruisers," which were like dreadnaughts built for
speed. To get speed, they sacrificed armor, but left the all 12-inch
armament. The idea was to use them as cruisers, to scout for the
battleships, to destroy enemy shipping, to counter enemy cruisers &c.
Any existing cruisers would be easy pickings, and battleships that
couldn't be outfought could be outrun. Unfortunately, since they had
the same guns as battleships, the temptation was to use them to augment
the battle fleet. This was what happened at the battle of Jutland in
1916, and their insufficient armor proved disastrous. This type of
vessel fell out of fashion after that, only the British building a few
up to WW2.
Keith Morrison
I wasn't relying on any specific source, just giving a possible
example.
And if a Avenger/Miranda was a frigate *demoted* to cruiser, that
indicates that the system being used is different from current
naval practices anyway, so whatever name is being applied is
meaningless unless you know the specifics of the system.
--
Keith
Eric Knops
wrote:
>So what COULD make such a big vessel unsuited for exploration,
>as long as one could afford to operate it in the first place?
I would propose that even though they were actually more capable
explorers than the Constitutions, once they were built Starfleet found
they could not justify risking such an expensive (and therefore
prestigious and high profile) vessel on exploration/scientific
missions, where history had shown ships could be lost to unknown
threats.
You don't bet what you can't afford to lose, so the primary function
of a dreadnaught was simply to EXIST as a deterrent to other powers.
For that reason, it was restricted to starbases and showing the flag
in friendly territory. It fell victim to factors outside of ship
design or capability. It's like a Ferrari that's so good you can't
put any miles on it.
Eric Knops
>My thoughts:
>If the first Federation dreadnought was THE _Federation_ Dreadnought,
>the thought of its designers might be to have it dread nought. Say it
>was designed to defeat any single ship of the known adversaries
>(beginning another round of escalation). I am also wondering if it is
>the largest ship that Starfleet could throw a warp field around at
>that time (although a Tug with two pods would be longer and heavier).
>I mean, *some*thing had to keep Galaxies from being produced in 2260!
Is there any real explanation for limitations on size in Star Trek?
It would be nice if there were some basic rules of thumb for what
limits the performance of ships. Then, the technological limitations
of the day would drive ship design in predictable fashion.
David Hansen
news:PBLH5.155997$Qx4.5...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > Decks 1 and 2? You mean the bridge is not on deck 1? Is it sensibly
> > buried deep within the hull? Oh, Joy!!!
>
> Yes sir! the Bridge is located on deck 7 :)
>
But, but, but...
But then a single photon torpedo couldn't open the bridge to vacuum! And if
the viewscreen failed, you can't look out the roof *grins*
I wonder if a dreadnought would have the non-exploding consoles? You know,
the type with fuses?
--
-Dave /;^{D>
(Warning: Reply-to address has been changed - Death To Spam!)
Dwayne Allen Day
: I wonder if a dreadnought would have the non-exploding consoles? You know,
: the type with fuses?
I've always thought about this on Trek. It should rank right up there
with the lack of seatbelts on the chairs.
However...
I've been told that surge protectors will not save your computer if a
lightning bolt hits the powerline to your house. I imagine that even
fuses won't work--enough power either gets across the gap before it burns
or jumps the burned gap to destroy your electronics.
So I wonder if the Trek consoles could be explained in this way--a power
bolt somehow makes it to the main circuitry and no amount of shielding
will prevent at least a chunk of energy from getting to the console.
D
Live Wire
non-alert flight mode, bringing on 1 or two other shifts in alert status?
--
> > I would suggest that it would the sheer number of hands needed to man
the
> > ship. Our own Battleships are a good example, requiring I believe near
1000
> > hands, and the fuel consumption IS enormous. According to the Star Fleet
> > Technical Manual, the standard complement for a Dreadnought of this
class is
> > 55 officers and 455 crew for a total of 500.
>
Daniel J. Ellis
this group. My personal position is that I have a very limited personal
knowledge of fandom (principally FJ) but that was the first attempt at a
starfleet beyond 12 Constitutions! I will tend to put first priority to
canon and semi-canon.
The first canon definition I ever read had canon as we know it, semi-canon
as we know it, then quasi-canon, which was the best fandom, plus some other
material (principally interviews, IIRC) and the non-canon, which was
everything else. Is it me or has the quasi-canon stage been lost?
Also remember that everybody seems to know the FJ designs, and everybody
immediately recognised the E-D uprate from "All Good Things, TNG" as a
dreadnought!
You mentioned a link about the relationship between FJ and Rodennbury, but I
could spot it in your post?
--
----
Dan Ellis
"By golly Jim, I'm begining to think I can cure a rainy day"
DeForest Kelley: "Devil in the Dark, TOS"
"There's no time to lose, I heard her say"
Rolling Stones: Ruby Tuesday
"'Cos Something's gonna happen to make your whole life better"
Mark Knopfler: One More Matinee
Jason Bogguess <Marin...@home.com> wrote in message
news:BsjH5.152926$Qx4.5...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> It is interesting to see that after all these years of being black balled
> and labeled a "fan kook" Franz Joseph's ground-breaking work has once
again
> been mentioned and analyzed by the fine members of this newsgroup.
>
> Had things gone a bit differently way back in the seventies, Franz Joseph
> would have been the technical advisor for Star Trek up to the time of his
> death I suspect. For those of you interested in reading what really
happend
> between Mr. Joseph and Mr. Roddenberry, the I would invite you to please
> check out the link given below.
>
> In comment on what ahs been discussed here thus far, fantastic! Its good
to
> see that back-handed subspace radio transmission in STTMP mentioning scout
> Columbia NCC-621, scout Revere NCC-595, and dreadnought Entente NCC-2120
has
> caused such a "stink" in current technical fandom. For those of us who
grew
> up in first generation technical fandom, these vessels and ship types were
a
> given and were not questioned. Following Mr. Franz's outstanding attempt
to
> document the technicalities of Trek, he was succeeded by other fine works
of
> technical art, all in keeping, and with direct consideration for Mr.
> Joseph's work. These works include:
>
> Ships of the Star Fleet Vol 1 and 2 (Guenther)
> Geoffrey Mandel's various works (Trek Art Department for Voyager)
> jackill's Star (two words here people) Fleet Reference Manuals
>
> If you have not checked out these references, do so! If you have already,
> learn to appreciate and respect what has now become "non-canonical" and
not
> "officially liscensed products", both disturbing new words that were never
> mentioned only a few years ago (prior to Next Gen). The fact now that we
are
> once again discussing what exactly a Dreadnought type starship is, should
> point out the fact that Trek is not limited to what is being shown on
screen
> and that Trek is very much dependent on what fans (you and I people)
create
> and expand upon what is shown. Our friend Mr. Sternbach was an active
> participant in early technical fandom, was he not? Mr. Okuda? and
certainly
> Mr. Mandel.
>
> Trek is coming down to the wire. Voyager will soon complete its run, and
> there is talk of a succesor series. But, the question remains; will Trek
> survive well into the 21st century? With all the web sites being closed
down
> left and right due to "copyright infringement" and "misuse of fair use
> aggreements", the fact that you can no longer purchase hardly any of the
> original Treknical works that once were the centerpiece of many convention
> dealer tables. It would seem to me, that our friends at Viacom are
> attempting nothing less than a complete re-writing of Star Trek (a drunk
> Zefram Cochrane? total global warfare when World War II was confined to
the
> Eugenics Wars as mentioned word for word by Spock and McGivers in Space
> Seed, the post-atomic horror?? whats this?, theres more to bitch and moan
> about) Should not what came first be the last to takes its bow
> continuity-wise?
>
> Thanks to such modern works as The Trek Encyclopedia and Gene's
> blood-spitting order to ignore the animated series from the "officially
> liscensed" record, among others, Star Trek has been forced into a
collective
> paddock, with little or no chance of escaping its franchised fate. I agree
> that we needed a master chronology to help keep the events of Star Trek in
> place and understandable (a chronology, but with a fandom committee to
> decide what is and what is not Trek), a encyclopedia (again as mentioned
> before, same rules applying), and a series of technical and literary works
> intended to expand upon and embellish the Star Trek Trek universe (novels
> and technical works which can be considered official and canon). Any
> disagreements? I would like to invite comment and other views on this
> matter.
>
> Jason
>
>
Eric Knops
<DKHa...@NoSpamjps.net> wrote:
>"Jason Bogguess" <Marin...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:PBLH5.155997$Qx4.5...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
>> > Decks 1 and 2? You mean the bridge is not on deck 1? Is it sensibly
>> > buried deep within the hull? Oh, Joy!!!
>>
>> Yes sir! the Bridge is located on deck 7 :)
>>
>
>But, but, but...
>But then a single photon torpedo couldn't open the bridge to vacuum! And if
>the viewscreen failed, you can't look out the roof *grins*
>
>I wonder if a dreadnought would have the non-exploding consoles? You know,
>the type with fuses?
Maybe even seatbelts!
justi...@my-deja.com
> > The USS Michigan was the first
> truly
> > > modern battleship.
> >
> > While the South Carolina Class ships (of which Michigan was the
first)
> > were the first "modern" battleships in being designed with all big
> > guns, their design essentially involved sticking those guns on a
pre-
> > Dreadnought design. They were, therefore, actually inferior to the
> > first dreadnoughts being produced in England, France and Germany and
> > functioned in a secondary role during WW1.
>
> They had their deficiencies certainly, but innovations like
superimposed
> turrets, and all or nothing armor made them more advanced in some
important
> ways than the HMS Dreadnought. They were also designed earlier, so
they
> really do deserve credit for being first.
>
In terms of armament, maybe. But that's only one part of it. What
made Dreadnought so scary to existing battleships was not only her long-
range battery, but her Parsons steam turbines which could giver her 21
knots. This was two or three knots faster than the fastest
reciprocating steam engined battleships, including Michigan and South
Carolina, and as fast or faster than most cruisers. So pre-
Dreadnoughts could not only not fight her, they couldn't escape
either.
The turbines had some side benefits, too, including longer endurance
with lower maintenance, and their compactness (compare to the vertical
triple-expansion engines) allowed for a more economical arrangement of
armor to protect them.
--Justin Broderick
Shawn Wilson
> > > While the South Carolina Class ships (of which Michigan was the
> first)
> > > were the first "modern" battleships in being designed with all big
> > > guns, their design essentially involved sticking those guns on a
> pre-
> > > Dreadnought design. They were, therefore, actually inferior to the
> > > first dreadnoughts being produced in England, France and Germany and
> > > functioned in a secondary role during WW1.
> >
> > They had their deficiencies certainly, but innovations like
> superimposed
> > turrets, and all or nothing armor made them more advanced in some
> important
> > ways than the HMS Dreadnought. They were also designed earlier, so
> they
> > really do deserve credit for being first.
> >
>
> In terms of armament, maybe. But that's only one part of it.
The Michigan had four important *design* differences over previous ships
that eventually marked all 'modern' battleships: all big guns, all or
nothing armor, superimposed turrets, and all centerline turrets. The
Dreadnought had one design difference and some improved engine technology.
The Dreadnought's engines could just as well have been put on an older
design without making them modern, but it's the design differences between
the Michigan and what came before that marks the difference between a
'dreadnought' and the older generation.
Timo S Saloniemi
>tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
>> The person responsible for creating the
>> Ascensions could have disagreed with Guenther about the timeline,
>> and in all that confusion, the fleet strength table might have
>> been erroneously compiled. Guenther did collate earlier work in
>> his book, didn't he?
>
>Only his own work really. He created the Federation II and Ascension classes
>and decided that not all of FJ's Federations had actually been built. So
>unless he's schizoid...
Okay, so this has to be a reference to a pre-Federation DN class then.
Or a little goof-up. Or then Todd really is schizoid. :-P
>> I won't believe in those torp tubes until I see them in action - and
>> I haven't seen a picture yet that would convince me of the existence
>> of the bow hangar doors, either...
>
>Did you see the pics in an early issue of the magazine? And the large colour
>CGI pic from #117 of the fact files issue? That plus the clear intentions of
>the designer makes it hard to dismiss them without being bloody minded. ;-)
I've seen the CGI from the FF, but I can't believe it is an accurate
rendition of the actual CGI - all the seams and protrusions look so
exaggerated. I don't have access to the Magazine, but I guess you refer to
the five-way color pictures that are widely distributed in the net. Those
leave the bow completely in shadows, so I can't tell if there are doors
there. OTOH, they do *not* show those "aft corner" torp tubes in the weapons
pod the same way the FF CGI does, and the infamous "side tubes" aren't
really recognizable, either...
>> >Sabre is more reasonable. A small ship with a few phaser strips and
>> >(presumably) some torp launchers. Call it an escort (the designation
>> >must have existed before the Defiant or it wouldn't have been much of
>> >a 'cover') or a scout or a corvette.
>> Or a light frigate. I think this would be a nice stablemate for
>> something like Loknar.
>That's taking a modern naval definition of frigate rather than a trek fandom
>one, right? My head hurts....
Yeah, I sort of assume that Starfleet used a "classic"(=modern) designation
system pre-TOS, and chose the euphenism "heavy frigate" for the Suryas
and later Avengers because of obscure political reasons. Something like
"Okay, okay, Senator, we won't build any more cruisers if you insist
it costs too much. We'll build some frigates instead." :-)
Post-TOS, the system could again have reverted to something akin to
"classic", and now the Avengers would have the full right to the
"frigate" designation. And TNG could even have abandoned "classic"
and gone for "cruiser-only" at some point AFTER "Conspiracy", so
that New Orleanses are also known as cruisers as of 2376...
>> Then again, I've hatched a couple of contingency plans. Say, perhaps
>> Starfleet put a great many big warship plans on hold when the
>> Organians forced a peace between the Feds and the Klingons? When
>> Organian interference lifted, the plans would be put back into
>> operation in a revised order. I think the Organians stopped
>> interfering as soon as the warring sides proved they would not bother
>> the Organian population any more. Enough time to get the Entente
>> built...
>So are you saying that Dreadnoughts are at the planned stage in TOS year 1
>(thus following FJ's tech manual). Put on hold due to the Organians and a few
>years later enter construction, reaching unit 2120 by the time of TMP? Or are
>you saying the Guenther's 12 dreadnoughts were built prior to the Organians
>and that more units, up to at least 2120 were built sometime later, but still
>before TMP?
Well, more like the former. 12 DNs built, but Organia slows down the
building of Excelsiors which was planned to be concurrent with the
DN program. Organia does not slow down the DN program all that much.
This would wreak havoc on any possibly existing chronological registration
system. Then again, while such a system would be nice, I don't insist
on one since it would be mildly idiotic to do that and simultaneously
believe in NCC-500 Saladins and NCC-3800 Ptolemies.
As an aside, I'm not generally fond of arbitrarily changing fan NCCs,
but I do think the first batch of Ptolemies could have been in the NCC-800
range instead of NCC-3800. It would make for a fun little footnote if
it turned out that the early Ptolemies were "re-registered" due to some
sort of uneradicable computer glitch in the late 23rd century...
To explain the "12 vs. Entente" dilemma, I *would* like to do a little
retooling. If a ship class is so controversial that more than a third
of it is cancelled, there could very well be reshuffling with the names
and registries. Perhaps every single DN procurement was haggled over
individually in the Council, so that it wasn't the *first* 12 that were
built, it was *those* 12 that were built in dockyards orbiting the
Honorable Council Members' homeworlds? And NCC-2113 would have been
certain to go (presumably replaced by the strangely missing NCC-2105),
for obvious reasons!
>> I'm somewhat less than satisfied with this whole 4YW thing. "Errand
>> of Mercy" made it sound awfully like the Feds and the Klingons
>> had never fought before.
>Yes, that's a valid interpretation. But... maybe it all comes down to Kirk
>and Kor having missed the war. A lot of their dialogue could be taken as
>implying that they wished (Kor openly, Kirk secretly) that they had been able
>to partake in the war, or even that they wished that the war had been fought
>to a glorious conclusion instead of ending in stalemate and treaty.
>If you don't like the 4YW, then there's always LUG's Axanar conflict. I
>personally prefer the two of them to both take place: the Klingon's attack
>whilst the Federation is in turmoil over Axanar.
What I would *really* prefer would be something like this: the Klingons
spot (or create) a big crisis in Axanar, and intend to use it as a
starting point for a glorious war. Garth of Izar comes in and does
the equivalent of preventing the raid on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the
entire Klingon plan collapses because of what was actually a very small
battle. The Klingons press on anyway, but the best they can do in
the circumstances is border raids that lead to nowhere.
The Feds recover from the Axanar crisis (whatever that was) whilst
easily keeping the Klingons at bay. Little do they realize that they
are actually fighting a fierce and glorious Four-Year War where the
brave forces of the Empire are victorious but stop short of
destroying the entire UFP because of some sort of treasonous
cowardice by some swiftly executed generals. Had the Feds read the
right Klingon books, they would have known this indisputable
historical fact... Alas, they remain ignorant of it to this very day.
As we are on the subject of wish lists, I'd also like to do a neat
little parcel out of some fanfic things related to pre-TOS Klingons.
Say, perhaps the secessionist feelings of "Final Reflection" finally
led to something at Axanar, so that the planet wanted to sign a
"separate peace" with the Klingons, much but not exactly along LUG
lines. Other planets possibly followed, and the Feds had their hands
full with the runaways and were too busy to notice that they were
actually fighting a 4YW. The last one to be hauled back to the
Federation was Altair VI, ending the secessionist craze and explaining
why Kirk thought that the ending of the Altair crisis would be
elementary in enabling him and Spock to work together. Had the
secessionism gone unchecked, or had it been squashed too violently,
Vulcan would probably have been the next to go (as alluded to in other
novels).
Plus I'd want a pony, a working runabout and Jane's Starships 2376. :-)
Timo Saloniemi
Joshua Bell
news:2%4I5.7250$J7.1...@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
> I've been told that surge protectors will not save your computer if a
> lightning bolt hits the powerline to your house. I imagine that even
> fuses won't work--enough power either gets across the gap before it burns
> or jumps the burned gap to destroy your electronics.
>
> So I wonder if the Trek consoles could be explained in this way--a power
> bolt somehow makes it to the main circuitry and no amount of shielding
> will prevent at least a chunk of energy from getting to the console.
There's really no excuse for the blowouts of bridge consoles. With a (TV
studio's) 1960's view of technology this might have made sense - it's pretty
clear they envisioned automation in limited scenarios, but they likely would
have assumed there was a single wire connecting the navigation dial helm to
the power distributors in main engineering. So we can possibly forgive them
when a hit to the nacelle blows out the helm on the bridge.
By the 1980's/TNG-era, though, the Enterprise is clearly depicted as
fly-by-wire - the bridge consoles talk to the main computer (or backups),
which talks to engineering. Even assuming there were electrical connections
(which, given dialog referring to the ODN - Optical Data Network, there
aren't) then random hits to the nacelles would have to blow out the main
computer on the way to Ensign Expendable on the bridge.
The design of the TNG Enterprise, as depicted in the TNG TM and on screen,
suggests optical connections between everything - at least, all of the wires
they show have glowing tips. So any piece of hardware (shield generator,
warp core, etc) has an optical link to a computer or network, and there's
another optical path to any controls. Nothing to blow out, nothing to
conduct.
One therefore has to assume either the network technology has taken a giant
leap backwards from what we have today (possible, given the tech
cluelessness of the writers), or something else is going on. One avenue to
explore is the apparent use of plasma conduits to transport energy
throughout the ship - perhaps they use plasma as a superconductor for
various unknown reasons (immense capacity, dual function as a battery,
simplicity and efficiency given the warp core mechanism, etc). If the ship
was designed with a single ship-wide plasma conduit network with terminals
on the bridge to power consoles, then weapon hits to pretty much any part of
the ship would pump energy into the network and blow out random terminals.
That would be an incredibly foolish design, but it matches what we see on
screen fairly well.
Joshua
w_...@my-deja.com
your emotions - not your logic. Same with surge protectors. Some are
so grossly undersized as to fry on the first surge. Emotion then says
a surge protector died to save a computer. False. The surge protector
quit prematurely leaving the computer exposed.
An undersized surge protector fails prematurely. A grossly
undersized surge protector explodes in smoke and flame. An exploding
Enterprise control panel is a grossly negligent design. However many
have so little understanding even of surge protection.
For logical thought: a telco switching computer connects to overhead
wires exposed everywhere. Do lightning storms cause Central Office
(CO) exploding panels? Of course not. No CO can be damaged by any
lightning storm - its just not acceptable. They don't use grossly
undersized power strip surge protectors - at a wasteful $20 or $70 per
unit. Instead they use sub $1 protection and locate it properly. IOW
lightning need not ever damage any electronics. Lightning damage is
directly traceable to human failure - as are silly exploding Federation
control panels.
Lightning is not a high energy transient that so many urban legends
portray. Using logic, then exploding Federation control panels and
lightning damaged computers are simply silly human mistakes. The only
reason one has lightning damage - they did not understand fundamentals
of surge protection - and may have wasted good money on ineffective,
overpriced, power strip surge protectors.
In article <2%4I5.7250$J7.1...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,
Dwayne Allen Day <wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
> ...
> However...
>
> I've been told that surge protectors will not save your computer
>if a lightning bolt hits the powerline to your house. I imagine
>that even fuses won't work--enough power either gets across the
>gap before it burns or jumps the burned gap to destroy your
>electronics.
Graham
>
> Maybe this is a misprint. Could 455 crew be the ON DUTY personnel in
> non-alert flight mode, bringing on 1 or two other shifts in alert status?
Well anything's possible, but there's no real reason to suppose
that this is the case.
--
Graham Kennedy
Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Steve Pugh
tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
> In article <8sppe0$9mp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Steve Pugh <idcr...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
> >> I won't believe in those torp tubes until I see them in action -
> >> and I haven't seen a picture yet that would convince me of the
> >> existence of the bow hangar doors, either...
> >
> >Did you see the pics in an early issue of the magazine? And the large > >colour CGI pic from #117 of the fact files issue? That plus the clear > >intentions of the designer makes it hard to dismiss them without > >being bloody minded. ;-)
>
> I've seen the CGI from the FF, but I can't believe it is an accurate
> rendition of the actual CGI - all the seams and protrusions look so
> exaggerated.
Fair enough. I don't think it's perfect either. But I don't think it invented
those details.
> I don't have access to the Magazine, but I guess you refer to
> the five-way color pictures that are widely distributed in the net.
> Those leave the bow completely in shadows, so I can't tell if there
> are doors there.
There are also wireframe diagrams and designer's sketches. The bow doors are
clearly visible in First Contact but do look more like windows than hanger
bay doors.
> OTOH, they do *not* show those "aft corner" torp tubes in the weapons
> pod the same way the FF CGI does, and the infamous "side tubes" aren't
> really recognizable, either...
The side tubes are very recognizable in the wireframe drawings. No aft view
given but the top view suggests the aft tubes as clearly as anything else.
I take it that you are disregarding the designer's intentions on these
matters?
If I was to 'impove' the Akira I would remove the lower three tubes from the
pod, leaving the four upper tubes. Remove the side tubes. Make the tube under
the deflector dish a sensor. Reduce the number of tubes above the deflector
dish from three to one or two. Make the aft tubes (just two probably) on the
pod clearer. Add some phaser strips to the nacelle pylons and add some phaser
strips somewhere, amywhere, to give aft coverage. If it was to have
through-deck capacity then I'd make the bow doors larger.
(Also make it clear that other, non-weapon pods exist.)
Lots of changes but they wouldn't really alter the look of the ship at all,
we've seen much bigger changes to the Ambasador and Nebula models.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie" - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Timo S Saloniemi
>In article <8t0nb2$35m$1...@nntp.hut.fi>,
> tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
>> I don't have access to the Magazine, but I guess you refer to
>> the five-way color pictures that are widely distributed in the net.
>> Those leave the bow completely in shadows, so I can't tell if there
>> are doors there.
>There are also wireframe diagrams and designer's sketches. The bow doors are
>clearly visible in First Contact but do look more like windows than hanger
>bay doors.
Okay, I think I have seen the wireframes somewhere (although I don't
actually own the relevant FF issue). I guess the three squares in front
could be doors, although they are awfully small. Then again, the Voyager
main shuttlebay door isn't all that big, either.
>I take it that you are disregarding the designer's intentions on these
>matters?
Definitely - what we have seen of photorp operations so far seems to
indicate that more than two tubes is unnecessary luxury; and a
"through-deck" shuttlebay, while nifty, is in practice rather
awkward if the bow doors are *that* small. I have nothing in theory
against the Akira being a fightercarrier, though - the aft doors might
suffice for that.
Now, if it had been Rick Sternback drawing the blueprints that show
all these "command towers" and stuff, then I'd have more faith in the
terminology...
>If I was to 'impove' the Akira I would remove the lower three tubes from the
>pod, leaving the four upper tubes.
Or just designate the lower "tubes" as exhaust vents or loading orifices or
something.
>Remove the side tubes. Make the tube under the deflector dish a sensor.
Uh, there's a tube under the deflector?
>Reduce the number of tubes above the deflector dish from three to one or two.
Double-uh, there are *multiple* tubes up there? Okay, now I can
see where people get the 15-tube count from!
Yup, one tube would be enough to account for the "First Contact" visuals.
>Make the aft tubes (just two probably) on the pod clearer. Add some phaser
>strips to the nacelle pylons and add some phaser strips somewhere, amywhere,
>to give aft coverage. If it was to have through-deck capacity then I'd make
>the bow doors larger.
I'm not sure if aft beam weaponry is really needed. For some reason, most
Starfleet ships seem to omit aft phasers - including the classes of
Enterprises B, C (in the Yamaguchi modification) and E (although the
Drexlerogram of the -B seems to show where the phaser emitters *should*
go). Perhaps an enemy cannot maneuver into your six o'clock because of
your impulse jet? Or perhaps an enemy in that position is no threat
because you can simply accelerate away from him?
>(Also make it clear that other, non-weapon pods exist.)
It would have been nice to see other pods on the Mirandas, too. And
it's still not too late to give the Nebulas some variety as well.
>Lots of changes but they wouldn't really alter the look of the ship at all,
>we've seen much bigger changes to the Ambassador and Nebula models.
Agreed on that.
Timo Saloniemi
Michael Hafer
>in some launch tubes like photon torpedoes. You only need larger doors for
>landing operations.
Agreed. Clearance for such a launch need not be much.
Michael Hafer
Kevin
need a huge cargo elavator positioned just right.
Michael Hafer wrote:
--
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten."
--- George Carlin
Keith Morrison
>
> But how do the fighters get from where they land to the launc tubes? They would
> need a huge cargo elavator positioned just right.
In Star Trek? Tractor beams, antigrav devices, the fighter's own
systems... No big moving platforms required at all.
--
Keith
Kevin
blueprints for the E-D and the DS9 tech manual both show the use of large platform
style elevators. This is a design problem I have been working on for my own ships and
stations for a couple of years now. However that idea would work to bring them in
from the outside.
Kevin
Keith Morrison wrote:
--
Jack Bohn
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> wrote:
[on "why are blocks assigned all over the place anyway?"]
>is largely unanswerable. Jonah Rapp's drastic
>redisgntaion of NCCs adds 1000 to the Saladin and Hermes to put them
>in the 1500 range whilst subtracting 2000 from the Ptolemies to put
>them in the 1800 range. I can't recall what he does to the
>Federations.
The Federation's 2120 is mentioned in ST:TMP, which limits my
willingness to reassign it.
About the Ptolemies, how about we borrow from Geoffrey Mandel, who
gave the Aurora NCC-C1200 and the Sherman freighter NCC-G1400 and say
the Ptolemy's number in FJ's TechMan is a misprint of NCC-B801 (or
possibly R801)?
--
-Jack
SPAMblock *sigh*
can be reached through jackbohn at bright dof net
Timo S Saloniemi
>A late thought just struck me...
>About the Ptolemies, how about we borrow from Geoffrey Mandel, who
>gave the Aurora NCC-C1200 and the Sherman freighter NCC-G1400 and say
>the Ptolemy's number in FJ's TechMan is a misprint of NCC-B801 (or
>possibly R801)?
Hey, that sounds great! I forget if the fan letter scheme includes
explanations for B or R, but separate letters would indeed make
sense in case of these ships which clearly aren't your standard
multimission starships. And fittingly enough, R is the code
letter for Ro-Ro ships in the USN system of designating its
auxiliaries - the container system of the Ptolemy comes close
to an AR conceptually. Tug would be AT, btw, while Flo-Flo
ships (barge carriers, the closest analogy to the Ptolemies
in current navies) would be AKF.
What's the story of the letter codes anyway? The Huron's NCC-F1313
is canonical at least, and didn't we see the G rego of the
grain drones in "More Tribbles", too? And then there's the S
rego of the Bonadventure. Did Mandel come up with an extended
letter code after TAS, or was his code adopted for TAS? Where
did he publish?
Timo Saloniemi
Ruediger LANDMANN
:>later by NX (later NCC)-2000. FJ started a treknological tradition of
:>assigning NCC's in blocks rather than individually by chronology, but
:>that still leaves the 2100 block assigned before 2000 was given to a
:>larger, more capable vessel. Was, perhaps, Excelsior more than a
:>gleam in an engineer's eye when the Dreadnought was authorized?
IIRC, FJ gives NCC-2000 as a cargo container... perhaps this was part of a
disinformation campaign? The transwarp testbed attached to that number
might have undergone many revisions and evolved quite considerably between
the time the number was set aside and the final design and construction of
the Excelsior that we know and love.
Jack Bohn
>IIRC, FJ gives NCC-2000 as a cargo container... perhaps this was part of a
>disinformation campaign?
Oh, he does.
The cargo containers have NCCs in the 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000
blocks. They also use up MKs I-V -- MK-VI is the Tug, VII/VIII the
Scout/Destroyer, IX the Heavy Cruiser, and X the Dreadnought -- so
something is screwy there. I would preface the number of the NCC with
a letter as seen on the two TAS freighters. (I imagine these
letter-prefixed NCCs run in a separate sequence from the normal NCCs,
as the NSPs and NARs likely do (and the YTLs almost definitely would),
hence, we could have NSP-1701, NDL-1701, and NCC-C1701.)
Might as well let one post do the work of two:
Timo S Saloniemi writes:
>What's the story of the letter codes anyway? The Huron's NCC-F1313
>is canonical at least, and didn't we see the G rego of the
>grain drones in "More Tribbles", too? And then there's the S
>rego of the Bonadventure. Did Mandel come up with an extended
>letter code after TAS, or was his code adopted for TAS? Where
>did he publish?
He did a medical reference manual and the _USS Enterprise Officer's
Manual_, both of which drew from TAS. Since it had been so long since
I saw TAS when I got the book I've been mistakenly crediting the
scheme to him. The "Tribble" ships do have the G and I'll take your
word for the Huron, but I'm not so sure about the Bonaventure.
Looking at Curt Danhauser's TAS site, the screen capture seems a bit
ambiguous, it might merely be parallel lines on the nacelle where his
schematic (following Mandel) puts the NCC.
Ruediger LANDMANN wrote:
>The transwarp testbed attached to that number
>might have undergone many revisions and evolved quite considerably between
>the time the number was set aside and the final design and construction of
>the Excelsior that we know and love.
My thoughts exactly. I go even further in that the ship might have
not even begun as a transwarp testbed.