Preview of USS Yamato Space Control Cruiser

[Atrahasis]

Which brings up an intersting question: What kind of ship was the Yamato-B? C, D can be surmised to have been Excelsior and Ambassador classes, with the E being a Galaxy. If B wasn't an Enterprise-class, what was it?

[Johanobesus]

It looks really neat, though I still question the logic behind modifying a Constitution to make it more effective for combat by making it bigger. I do like the saucer.

But there you go again with the reversed lights.

[zerosnark]

I have to agree. Just making key parts "bigger" seems the wrong way to go. BUT. . . .I could see this saucer on a Galactic Survey Cruiser. More accomodation for more scientists. As a GSC, I would see the secondary hull as "fatter", not longer, with a wider (vs longer) hanger bay. I would put standard TOS 15 point engines on the GSC

The longer warp Nacelles (presumably for more power) totally don't work for me. Why would these engines not find their way onto the Saladin? Or the Achernar? Or the Fed DN?

But if we persist in this. . .what would the weapons be? What is being put in this enlarged hull volume? The only thing I can think of is more shuttles (for ground assault) and more troops. (for ground assault).

What are the weapons on the comparable Connie? I am thinking (today) the Connie has 6 P2 and 4 Photons. What does this ship have?

I am thinking a Fed CC weapon fit (8 P2, 4Photons), plus add double aft photon and an extra set of P2's on the top forward saucer. (that makes 8 on saucer, plus two 360's on bottom hull). Any more than this. . .and I think this ship is a bit too uber. It is already a more powerful as the later fed DN. (which is nuts)

I personally think the NCC-XXXX-A nomenclature simple *does not* belong in the TOS era. Period. Let the Enterprise "A" be the first.

[CaptainPierce]

And of course it bears mentioning that the 1305-E registry on the Yamato was only seen on a "fake" ship. When the "real" Yamato was seen, it had the "proper" NCC-71807 on it.

I don't pretend to understand SFB/SFC terminology, but to me the term "space control cruiser" would seem to suggest a ship that a Fleet Captain, Commodore, or Admiral would command from, suggesting that it would have more in the way of comm systems and possibly sensors than weaponry. Based on that, I personally would be more interested in a refit of an older starship (NCC-1305 "no bloody A" Yamato) that was for some reason judged more suitable to that role than a Constitution. But that's just me.

[Chrystoff]

I like it, and I like the backstory. I'd like to see a through-deck version of this ship.

[Atrahasis]

johanobesus said:

It looks really neat, though I still question the logic behind modifying a Constitution to make it more effective for combat by making it bigger. I do like the saucer.

But there you go again with the reversed lights.

LOL I want to get the lights right this time. So what side does the green go on?

[Atrahasis]

zerosnark said:

I have to agree. Just making key parts "bigger" seems the wrong way to go. BUT. . . .I could see this saucer on a Galactic Survey Cruiser. More accomodation for more scientists. As a GSC, I would see the secondary hull as "fatter", not longer, with a wider (vs longer) hanger bay. I would put standard TOS 15 point engines on the GSC

The longer warp Nacelles (presumably for more power) totally don't work for me. Why would these engines not find their way onto the Saladin? Or the Achernar? Or the Fed DN?

But if we persist in this. . .what would the weapons be? What is being put in this enlarged hull volume? The only thing I can think of is more shuttles (for ground assault) and more troops. (for ground assault).

What are the weapons on the comparable Connie? I am thinking (today) the Connie has 6 P2 and 4 Photons. What does this ship have?

I am thinking a Fed CC weapon fit (8 P2, 4Photons), plus add double aft photon and an extra set of P2's on the top forward saucer. (that makes 8 on saucer, plus two 360's on bottom hull). Any more than this. . .and I think this ship is a bit too uber. It is already a more powerful as the later fed DN. (which is nuts)

I personally think the NCC-XXXX-A nomenclature simple *does not* belong in the TOS era. Period. Let the Enterprise "A" be the first.

The rationale for the long engines is very simple: It needs 18 X 2 points, and the reason it is not found on other ships is that it will give any ship a suckier turn mode. A Fed cruiser typicaly has a D mode, if it has an E mode like a DN it will get its ass maneuvered off by Klingon cruisers which have a very happy B mode.

We can refer to L = rP which is the formula for orbital angular momentum and where P=mv which is the formula for linear momentum. Basically, a short ship will turn faster.

[Atrahasis]

chrystoff said:

I like it, and I like the backstory. I'd like to see a through-deck version of this ship.

Now wouldn't that be nice? But this is a one-of-a-kind design. The only other ship that has the TOS 18-point longies is maybe the Napoleon-class heavy carrier...in which case a simple through-deck cruiser is moot, isn't it? ;D

[redsharif]

Just from an aesthetic perspective, I would add a third nacelle as with DestyNova's SCS rather than lengthen Connie nacelles. I'd also widen the hull rather than lengthen it. I wouldn't think it would be too much of a rework of the interior to split the secondary hull and add 15-20 meters of deck plating. But then again, I'm no engineer. A through-deck hull also makes sense to me.

I really do like the primary hull. I can see it being utilized for more command/control spaces.

[Atrahasis]

redsharif said:

Just from an aesthetic perspective, I would add a third nacelle as with DestyNova's SCS rather than lengthen Connie nacelles. I'd also widen the hull rather than lengthen it. I wouldn't think it would be too much of a rework of the interior to split the secondary hull and add 15-20 meters of deck plating. But then again, I'm no engineer. A through-deck hull also makes sense to me.

I really do like the primary hull. I can see it being utilized for more command/control spaces.

Well you see, splitting a sec hull down the centerline and making it wider would require a longer overhaul time than a few weeks. This ship had engineer crews working overtime for two weeks to get it from a regular Bonhomme to this, and then she was out for trial runs. Keeping a Bonhomme in dock longer than it needs to be starves the war effort.

[Atrahasis]

captainpierce said:

And of course it bears mentioning that the 1305-E registry on the Yamato was only seen on a "fake" ship. When the "real" Yamato was seen, it had the "proper" NCC-71807 on it.

I don't pretend to understand SFB/SFC terminology, but to me the term "space control cruiser" would seem to suggest a ship that a Fleet Captain, Commodore, or Admiral would command from, suggesting that it would have more in the way of comm systems and possibly sensors than weaponry. Based on that, I personally would be more interested in a refit of an older starship (NCC-1305 "no bloody A" Yamato) that was for some reason judged more suitable to that role than a Constitution. But that's just me.

I imagine the "no bloody A" Yamato to have been a Baton Rouge-class ship because of the 1300's number, a model which I'll have to finish sometime.

As for space control anything, you generally need fighters for that, which is why this ship carries some.

[zerosnark]

Fighters? Aw.. . com'on.
We have too many fighters in the General War period. Don't pollute the FYW era with this sillyness! Next we will need gatlings and ADD's. No thank you. Don't go there

A rushed design, eh? There are an aaawwful lot of change on this hull for a two week design. Ok. Maybe an extra phaser bank or torp system. But a new type of Warp Engine? Isn't that pushing it a bit? If it was that easy to get 20% more power, you know the Saladin destroyers would have gotten that change. A "C" turn mode does you no good if you don't have power to move.

As for the "command cruiser" aspects -> Remember, in the SFB world comm gear and sensors have negative mass and negative space requirements. That allows command ships to have MORE weapons than you would otherwise expect.

But seriously. . as a command ship, this thing is BIGGER. So a BIGGER ship gets both comm and weapons. Note that the later DN is substantially bigger than a Connie. . .but does not have a substantially beefed weapons fit.

My view is that the Lexington and Constellation are command cruisers -> but both ships were very much "Connie types". The Constellation may not be a Connie. . but it sure is a close cousin. I would say those ships probably had crew and storage removed in favor of flag facilities (and the extra 360 P1s). Not capable of independent 5 year missions. . but capable of leading a fleet. (I know Atra disagrees with me on this point!)

[Atrahasis]

LOL It seems you don't believe me about early fighters!

Check the date for the Galactic Survey Cruiser, which carries fighters. The shiplist says 2240, well before the war.

The Saladin did not recieve this engine because they were already experimenting with a double-15-pt fit called the Pompeii class. Generally speaking you shouldn't be fitting anything too long on small ships anyways, for reasons mentioned above.

[Johanobesus]

admin said:

johanobesus said:

It looks really neat, though I still question the logic behind modifying a Constitution to make it more effective for combat by making it bigger. I do like the saucer.

But there you go again with the reversed lights.

LOL I want to get the lights right this time. So what side does the green go on?

Green is starboard, red is port. Or, if you're looking at it from the front, green is on your left.

[Atrahasis]

LOL I'm glad I have you around to straighten me out!

It'll get fixed before the release.