I don't know if I posted this before. If I did just slap me on the hand. :-)
RS
Shelly-class starship
With the breakout of the Dominion war Starfleet was losing ships at an extraordinary rate. Admirals scrambled to begin rapid prototyping and refurbishment on at least 178 partial builds, salvaged hulls, and spaceworthy warp engine systems. The ships that could be structurally mated and outfitted were hastily launched and flight-tested, more often then not given no formal name or registry number. The Shelly class (the name was given to the nine ships that survived the war) is an Excelsior/Constitution variant that served as a medium cruiser, a fighter carrier and or fleet tug. Two versions of this ship were actually created; a medium cruiser and fleet tug/carrier. Seven ships were created of the cruiser design, and six of the tug/carrier. The cruiser version was not very maneuverable in a dogfight but her firepower, which consisted of eleven type-ten phaser banks and five torpedo launchers with a complement of the new quantum and photon torpedoes. As a result the Shelly-class cruiser outmatched every ship in her class. So she proved better as a cover for fighters and a point ship for attacking wings. As a result the cruiser version of the Shelly was often seen protecting her carrier sister. As a carrier, the Shelly class ship would often be found near the front lines. At the beginning of a fight, the carrier would rush to the front with all her guns blazing with additional fire from nearby cruisers and battlecruisers, to release her precious fighters to do soften up the enemy front ships. Weapon complement for the Carrier variant consisted of nine type-ten phaser banks (four on the saucer and five on the secondary hull), three proton torpedo launchers and three tractor beam emitters located near each of the fighter bays to help guide the ships in. With Retaliator and Peregrine class fighters in her grasp and protection, she proved to be a worthy opponent. The tug version too served an important use in the war against the Dominion. As the carrier would be used at the beginning of the fight, the tug would go in after the battle to retrieve escape pods, wreckage that still had life signs or had military value. Between battles the tugs would tractor ships to starbases for repair, transport medical supplies to nearby hospital ships or starbases. The tug did not have as many weapons as her sister variants, relying on other more on escort cruisers (such as the Centaur-class) for cover. In conclusion all the Shelly class variants helped carry the Federation to victory against the Dominion and their allies. Even though not very many of the ships survived the war, they will always have their part in the memories of the survivors and the victors.
[spelling in title fixed -TSN]
[ February 15, 2002, 09:18: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
You have. And it's "Shelley", as in Mary.
Mark
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Lets put an end to this 'starships without names and registries' nonsense. I think any ship launched would have a number at least, and probably be named, if not officially, then by its crew.
And also classifying the DS9TM ships officially as 'Constitution variants' and 'Excelsior variants'.. most of them have nothing to do with the original ships besides a couple of parts. The Shelley is no more a Constitution variant than a Constellation or Sydney is. They are just ships which have similar nacelles.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I have problems accepting the fact that the 'Shelley' and the 'Centaur' are so-called 'kitbashes'. Look at it this way: when we saw the Shelley, the war was going on for three months. I started, and at that point the fleet still had full strength and no need for prototypes and kitbashes and other stuff like that, when the Dominion attacked DS9. Starfleet and the klingons assembled a taskforce to start a counter-attack. From what we know, the rest of it was the small fleet we saw in 'A Time to Stand'. Enven if it wasn't, the earliest date for Starfleet to start kitbashing thier ships would have been 2 months or so after the war broke out. They also didn't start kitbashing the remains of Wolf 359 after the disastrous battle. The great losses -and the demoralisation of the fleet- begun with the defeat of the Tyra-fleet, maybe earlier. So if strfleet saw any need in kitbashes rather than the remaining operational forces, they would have started building them possibly a month or closer to the date of that episode. Do you really think Starfleet could construct and commission a new vessel within one month? Furthermore, the Curry was already damaged, which means the ship participated in at least one battle, not taking into concideration they had to bring the vessel from Mars or wherever they built it to the fleet. No matter how you look at it: doing a kitbash withing 3 month (from nothing to a fully operational craft sized like an Excelsior) is not possible.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I think that a lot of the classes that are explained away as 'new-build Dominion War' ships were actually around for a while, we just didnt see them. Especially the Constitution ones like the two nacelle constitution 'frying pan'
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Ya know, the USS Curry, of the so-called Shelley class, had a registry that started with a 4. Many say it was NCC-45617. Really not new when you consider that.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
.. and some people say thats because it is a standard Excelsior that was rearranged. Before we ever get to that point, i think that 'rearranging' a starship like that is impossible, and even if you did want to engineer something like that, really unnecessary.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Assuming of course that the internal arrangement is the same as on a standard Excelsior and its not just the basic spaceframe that is being rearranged.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Starfleet has used "kitbashing" for years. Many of the ships at Wolf 359 were ships that were being used as testbeds for the warp propulsion and hull geometry of the Galaxy Class. This includes all the wacky ships like the Niagara and Freedom, but excludes the reasonable ships like Cheyenne and New Orleans.
During the Dominion war Starfleet started kitbashing ever ship they had when it was inevitable that the Dominion would poor through the wormhole and attack. --- This was sometime after the Odessey Incident but probably before the Obsidian Order/Tal'Shiar Incident [Sisko said something to the effect that the Federation was not ready yet, which implied that they were getting ready, I'm fairly certain he would have said they weren't doing anything at all if they weren't doing anything].
Again, this was long before the shooting war started, and before the Dominion even entered the Alpha Quadrant. Starfleet would have started mobilizing everything for this, even the mothballed cannon folder... otherwise known as Miranda Class Starships.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I think we are tripping over our terminology here.
Kitbash is a modeling term meaning a model made from pieces of another models parts, 'bashing the kits' (OK I realize we all knew this, but i strive for completion. O, to attain the all..)
So technically speaking, Starfleet doesnt kitbash. They build spaceships, not models.
But they do use standardized pieces in different arrangements. The Constitution-class was a heavy cruiser, but a rearrangement of its pieces yielded a smaller frigate vessel in the Miranda-class (also elementary data, i apologize) Presumably this has the advantage of retooling standardized nacelles into a new ship design, so they can be modified to be reused or interchangeable (i realize that it isnt as easy as reattaching it, because the input connections are in different places so some fo it would have to be retooled to take a Miranda nacelle onto another ship.. But.. if the were designed for both uses you would just switch the intake valve from 'up' to 'down'
So this seems like a good idea.
And would have these results: The main ship, the 'original' design, would have the best use of the design. Postulate: Galaxy nacelles are used on a lot of ships. A lot of ships look really awkward with Galaxy nacelles, making people call them 'kitbashed' Its like putting a different engine in a car. Doesnt always fit the bill, but it works. A good explanation was the 'testing the galaxy's warp geometry' one.
And rearranging the ship parts for a different purpose is a logical development. If you need a carrier vessel, taking a cruiser and reengineering it as a carrier would be good horse sense. Take the basic hull structure, you need to redesign the systems within and make it work though.
That's why i think these rearranged ships being built in a hurry doesnt make sense. If you have a bunch of pre-fab excelsior pieces, it would take some doing to make them work as a carrier arrangement. It would be easier to build the ship as it was designed, and quicker too. The advantage of having a carrier configuration could only be realized by investing EXTRA time and EXTRA material into your conveniently prefabricated parts. So i think that Starfleet had these 'kitbashed' ships around for a long time, but their origin is just that. They were mainline ships reengineered for a different purpose/configuration. But not new or hastily built at all. They couldnt be and still work.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I think that if Starfleet was so desperate for ships that unmothballing perfectly good ones wasn't enough, they have to weld different classes together, the Dominion War would have been over a long time ago.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Tidbit: The so-called Yeager-class first appeared in the DS9 episode "Ties of Blood and Water" -- which was only a couple of episodes after Cardassia joined the Dominion. So these "kitbash" designs started appearing long before the war started.
Here's my take: Starfleet realized that it was going to be very short on numbers very early on in the conflict -- once Cardassia joined the Dominion, it was clear that they'd have enough industrial capacity to build and support a massive fleet, not to mention any reinforcements from the Gamma Quadrant. So Starfleet started building as many ships as possible, to get enough units available to adequately cover the border regions.
I've thought up a couple of circumstances. I admit that the logic is a bit strained, but I blame it on the modelmaker idiots who created such monstrosities in the first place.
Yeager-class -- This design came from an Intrepid-class ship that was in the Sector 001 battle and was partially destroyed. The saucer was left mostly intact by the blast that destroyed the aft section, and so to get the ship back in service, a shipyard created a quick-and-dirty substitute secondary hull, and the newly christened Yeager (named for the Saber-class ship destroyed in the battle) entered service as a patrol cruiser.
Shelley-class -- The Excelsior is a pretty old design. I'll bet that there were plenty of decommissioned hulks lying around, and Starfleet would try to reactivate a lot of these. The Excelsior-class USS Curry (NCC-45617) was one of these decommissioned or damaged ships. Old nacelles were fitted directly to the saucer, and the engineering hull was converted to a massive cargo space or troop transport or whatever. (But NOT a fighter carrier. The Galaxy-class ships with their massive main shuttlebays should have done that.) Rather than repaint and recommission the ship, they relaunched the hull with the same old Curry name/number.
Yeah yeah... this is stuff pulled out of my @$$. But how else can you explain these ugly monsters?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Not bad, MinuatieMan, but the Yeager first appeared in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?"
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I find your explanations less that believable though.
Yeager-Class Patrol Cruiser Development Project: Limited production run of starships created using Intrepid class primary hull design, but with a older warp carriage. Fleet strengths of combatant vessels were being increased in 2373, and a new type of patrol cruiser was needed. While the Intrepid-class fit the general requirements, it was deemed too difficult to produce because of its advanced modifications. Since variable geometry warp nacelles were generally only useful in long range flight situations, it was decided to give the Yeager design a less complicated warp system, which was quicker to build and less complicated to service and repair in combat situations. The prototype was named after the USS Yeager that was recently destroyed. By the end of the Dominion War, Fleet supply lines were at an acceptable level to produce Intrepid-class vessels to phase out these specialized variants.
Shelley-Class Through-Deck Cruiser: During the 2330s, Starfleet deemed its interdiction capability in the Ninth and Second Fleets to be inadequate, as several of the fleets Craft-Carrier reserve were retired from service, including the venerable Ariel-class and the newer but problem-ridden Philbin-class. While Starfleet was not involved in any major conflicts, the ability to launch fighter and patrol craft, as well as troops, remained at the front of the minds of many military planners. A design was created, designed to use existing components introduced in the fourth-run of the Excelsior-class, but to reuse nacelle components slated as replacement parts for the two other shuttlecarrier designs, which operated with LN-6(X) nacelles such as those used on the Miranda-class. Since the development of large multi-mission profile ships which can match the specialized carrier capability, not the least of which was the Galaxy-class, these vessels have fallen into disuse. Several of these vessels have remained in the Starfleet Reserve, ready for service, while some have been modified for use as cruisers or transports.
[ February 07, 2002, 19:53: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: (But NOT a fighter carrier. The Galaxy-class ships with their massive main shuttlebays should have done that.)
You'd think so but have you actually had a look at the blueprints to see if it would work? I just did and I'm afraid that you can only get one starfleet attack fighter (30 x 31m) onto a Galaxy class ship, two at a pinch. Oh sure they fit through the door well enough but the internal tower prevents a ship that big from going any further into the shuttlebay. Even without those obstructions you would only be able to store 5 of those things with the space avalible..6 or 7 if you have a couple permanently on the launch deck. Only a specially modified Galaxy with most, if not all of deck 4 hollowed out and most of decks 5 through 10 given over to fighter suppors & storage.
Then if you think about it, if a Galaxy couldn't do it, then neither could a Shelly ;-) The Akira is the only shp big enough and with enough interior shuttlebay space to realistically support even a single squadron of fighters.
Oh and incase anyone is interested, a Galaxy can just about manage to store 3 Runabouts, while still keeping the flight deck and cargo loading docks clear. However, I think if the E-D had a Runabout permanently assigned to it, it was the only one. Any more than that would take up too much space IMHO.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This depends on whether or not you think the attack fighter really is 30m long. ditl.org places it at 14m instead, and if you examine the cockpit at that size it's comparable with the TNG shuttlepod set - and from "The Maquis" we know that the cockpit is about that big.
I've placed a 23m runabout, and a 14m and 30m fighter in there. Make of it what you will.
Mark
[ February 07, 2002, 23:37: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Lemme, lemme - here's my take on this:
Yeager class:
A ship built to perform the same mission as the Intrepid class, with swinging wings supporting the same warp engines, and with planetary landing capability. However, a somewhat lighter variant, like a Miranda to the Constitutions - the big deflector and the voluminous secondary hull are missing, while the impulse engines and various weapons are more prominent. I'd call both the Yeagers and the Intrepids light cruisers and suggest a reconaissance and exploration role.
All those Galaxy variants from "BoBW":
Purpose-built ships with either short operational radius (the Freedom, at least) or then an independent extremely long range and high speed mission (Challenger, Niagara), meaning these ships won't be seen anywhere near the regular Starfleet. Except for the New Orleanses, Cheyennes and Springfields, which are absent from the DS9 war merely by sheer coincidence of the camera being turned the wrong way... No experimental ships or prototypes there.
All those Excelsior study models from "BoBW":
Either testbeds, or then any of the unseen ship classes with registries between 10000 and 50000. I suggest that the ugliest are testbeds while the prettiest are "real ships" like Hokule'a class cruisers or Apollo or Merced class starships of unknown type.
The Centaur:
An Excelsior-era light warship, a frigate perhaps. The saucer is smaller than the Excelsior hull. A series-production vessel, perhaps of Renaissance class, not a kitbash.
The Curry:
A) Another light ship, built on the same small saucer as the Centaur, and with regular Constitution-style engines (I think hulls are easier to build in varying scales than engines). The ship is a cargo pod carrier, and the thing that looked like an Excelsior secondary hull was just one possible cargo pod. Perhaps Mediterranean class, as suggested.
B) A relatively heavy ship, built on the Excelsior saucer and up-scaled Constitution-style engines. Still a cargo pod carrier, and the thing hanging between the nacelles is all that remains of an unlucky Excelsior - the Curry is simply hauling the wreckage home, and the "bow shuttlebay" is just combat repairs to seal the hole left by the missing neck.
The rest of the Frankenstein Fleet:
The three-naceller is IMHO quite tolerable when you turn her upside down (easy to do, for obvious reasons) and shorten the third pylon (which I think is incorrectly drawn in the image anyway). This could be any of the 10k-50k starship classes, possibly the Hokule'a class cruiser (doesn't it look just like the sort of ship that would find Data and then fail to find out ANYTHING relevant about the Crystalline Entity?). Perhaps the third nacelle is a Frankensteinian addition to an otherwise regular ship?
The Constitution saucer with two nacelles could be a kitbash, built out of wreckage to serve as a special weapons platform (plenty of those in D-Day, mind you). Or then a real TOS movie era design that was retired along with the Constitutions, with this one individual surviving for reason X. We know of very few classes from the TOS movie era, canonically. There's room for one more.
The Intrepid and Constitution kitbash is a monster, and if it exists, it ought to be either a testbed or perhaps another "flying bomb" that can barely move at warp.
The tug is of Klingon origin. Starfleet doesn't believe in tools that look like Darth Vader's torture droid or Edward Scissorhands. Their tugs may be utilitarian, but the manipulators and whatnot on those tugs will be aesthetically pleasing and devoid of sharp hooklike things.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
Umm...wow, I didn't mean to start a big fuss, I just wanted to show you my essay. Yes I agree with all of you that the part about "kitbashing" crap is BS. That first para is taken right out of the DS9TM. I do belive that the ship could have mutiple roles because of war time. I just tryed to think of ways that the ship that we know nothing about could be useful.
RS
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: This depends on whether or not you think the attack fighter really is 30m long. ditl.org places it at 14m instead, and if you examine the cockpit at that size it's comparable with the TNG shuttlepod set - and from "The Maquis" we know that the cockpit is about that big.
Enterprise-D shuttlebay with overlays
I've placed a 23m runabout, and a 14m and 30m fighter in there. Make of it what you will
Indeed, I was going by Bernd's assesment of the fighter and he's usually right about this sort of thing. Even so, you can see that it'd still be a squeeze to store and maintain a full squadron of 14m long fighters on a standard Galaxy-Class.
quote: The Intrepid and Constitution kitbash is a monster, and if it exists, it ought to be either a testbed or perhaps another "flying bomb" that can barely move at warp.
I think that this one is just a poor rendition of the Proto-Voyager study model. Perhaps this is a Bradbury-Class ship?
quote: The tug is of Klingon origin. Starfleet doesn't believe in tools that look like Darth Vader's torture droid or Edward Scissorhands. Their tugs may be utilitarian, but the manipulators and whatnot on those tugs will be aesthetically pleasing and devoid of sharp hooklike things.
I'm pretty sure this thing sported a starfleet delta. I don't have a problem with this since its a purely industrial ship and that asthetics would be a very low priority when weighed with practicalities.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I thought the "Intrepid/Constitution kitbash" was generally figured to be the Voyager prototype...
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
The USS Yeager was not distroyed in the First Contact battle - if it had then the Encyclopedia would have said as much! Any anyways, one of my email simming characters served aboard the Yeager all through the Dominion War so there!
It didn't die and is still alive!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Ugghh.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Why doesn't someone just email Drexler about the kitbash drawings? I think Spike has his address. That way, we can hear it from the horse's mouth whether he was drawing the Voyager prototype, or if all of those drawings represented actual models built, or any other questions we've had concerning these ships. Maybe he even has (gasp) reference photos of the models...
[ February 08, 2002, 13:19: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Mike Okuda doesn't always have the information handy or available. Because it's not stated in the Encyclopedia doesn't mean the Yeager wasn't destroyed. We saw a lot of Sabres and quite a few of them were destroyed. None of the Sabres were seen close enough or at the right angle to identify a particular ship being the Yeager. For all we know, one of the destroyed ships was the Yeager. Only the guys who did the SFX knows what happened in the battle sequence for sure. Besides we have a class of ship called the Yeager that appeared after the movie. Something must have happened to the Sabre class ship so the new class could receive the name.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Its quite possible that all of the Sabers ever seen were labled U.S.S. Yeager. The fact that a seamingly new class bearing the same name appears shotly afterwards is quite conclusive. The Yeager was destroyed in the Battle of Typhon - several times infact... Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
You guys seem hell bent to make some of these ships real classes... there is absolutely no thought put into them Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
If a Galaxy class vessel can't even barely hold a squad of attack fighters than an Akira sure as hell can't hold 40+ fighters.
An Akira is about the length of an nebula but with less than half of the internal volume.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Going by the schematic I did above, assuming a 14m fighter with wings that can fold up you could fit one fighter into the place of two of the shuttles parked along the rim of the bay. Thus, if you removed all the other shuttles you could easily fit 20 fighters in the main shuttlebay, probably more. Remember, modern aircraft carriers have 80-100 aircraft of varying sizes in a hull about 300m long, with only two decks to carry stuff on.
That being the case, I'm fairly confident that with a couple interior decks devoted to fighter space, an Akira can easily mount 40 fighters, plus a regular complement of shuttles.
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That would only be if the Akira truly was the kickass torpedo ship/carrier that that idiot Jaeger made it out to be. (I want to know what he was smoking when he started coming up with such an outrageous warship design.)
Anyway...
To go back to the "kitbash" designs... I did a little thinking on the subject of fleet size. Most estimates of the size of Starfleet range around 8,000 or so, with about 4,000 to 6,000 full-size combatant starships in service. Consider that these ships aren't just in the core region of the Federation, but also had to be spread out to protect all of Federation space (all 8,000 light-years of it). That means that Starfleet had only a few thousand ships available.
When you're playing with relatively small numbers like that, a Frankenstein's Fleet that numbered around 200 ships total would actually make a crucial difference, collectively. Spread along the relatively limited border regions (where a patrol fleet doesn't necessarily have to spread across a wide volume of space) the ships can be concentrated more effectively.
To address the "kitbash" nature of the ships themselves... I have a hard time believing that the starships were really designed that way deliberately as a seperate class. We know that Federation starships are highly modular, with only general characteristics attributable to each section. Therefore, mating two dissimilar components is possible given the interconnects. For some ships like the Yeager, I'd be willing to guess that the sections are actually fairly seperate, and the hulls are simply attached to create one more heavily armed starship.
In any event, remember that Starfleet was basically launching empty hulls with weapons strapped on to them at some points during the war. So the kitbash ships don't have to be fully realized starships. Instead, it's just a mating of semi-compatible components that each could house the necessary facilities. To use the Yeager as an example again, the saucer held the main weapons systems, while the raider-style hull held the warp core and engines. Aside from power and probably a few crew interconnects, not much is needed. Certainly not a fully integrated corridor structure with supply feeds in every deck and Jeffries tubes installed everywhere...
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
If the registry number of the USS Curry is to be believed as accurate (45617) then that would place its construction to be in the late-2340's to early-2350's.
Sooooooooo, it ain't a "kitbash" it's a real separate class all of its own (even though it looks pretty silly).
I hereby declare this discussion ended as the answer is here.
Kneel before my superior knowledge! HEHE! Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: You guys seem hell bent to make some of these ships real classes... there is absolutely no thought put into them
Well J, the reason we are trying to find a reason to fit these ugly looking ships in is because they are in the DS9TM. Hell, for all we know these ships could have been destroyed by the Dominion before they left the yards!!
I think some on should call the dick heads who made these drawings and ask them what they were on when they came up with these. :-)
Oh well.....
RS
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Didn't you look at my previous comment? I said that the Curry was originally a standard Excelsior-class starship with the number 45617, and the yard engineers just didn't take the time to repaint the hull when the re-engineered ship was put back in service.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I accept the argument that Starfleet purpousely build such quick-and-dirty monstrosities when they were taking 20+ years to meticulously design and build beautiful Galaxy-class starships...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Ugghh.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Why doesn't someone just email Drexler about the kitbash drawings? I think Spike has his address. That way, we can hear it from the horse's mouth whether he was drawing the Voyager prototype, or if all of those drawings represented actual models built, or any other questions we've had concerning these ships. Maybe he even has (gasp) reference photos of the models...
The email-thing works pretty good. I did this too, sometimes, and those guys are really nice persons and try to help where they can. But I have no idea where to find Drexler's address, or I had done it myself. Maybe Okuda knows, but then again, he doesn't know everything. Do you think it makes sense to ask him?
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rogue Starship: [QUOTE]I think some on should call the dick heads who made these drawings and ask them what they were on when they came up with these. :-)
Oh well.....
RS
That sounds like an excellent idea! I nominate Rogue Starship to call the "dick heads" to get the answer. (If we don't hear from him after the call, we know that the "dick heads" sent in the Jem'Hadar.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
1) You aren't reading the DS9 TM, you're only looking at the slightly pretty pictures. The DS9 TM says that these ships are custom builds made from salvaged or partial builds.
It is much more plausible that the Curry and Centaur were salvaged from older ships that were destroyed but [especially in the Curry's case] the original NCC remained intact on the hull and was never changed to save time. ___ Now you ask about the other kitbash ships, like Niagara? Nah, doesn't count. They have an offical class, there is no such thing as the Centuar or Curry or even Shelly Class.
See, problem solved. It's simple, pie is harder.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You aren't reading the DS9 TM, you're only looking at the slightly pretty pictures. The DS9 TM says that these ships are custom builds made from salvaged or partial builds."
Yes, but that entire section of the DS9TM is utter crap and should be burned.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Here here.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Agreed, that section is crap. But some of the facts nevertheless remain, and I'm sure that at least SOME of those designs appeared in the show in some form. So we can use bits and pieces from the DS9:TM and trash the rest.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, yes, of course some of them appeared. We know two of those diagrams are supposed to be the Centaur and the Curry. But even those are horribly horribly wrong.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
The theory of the USS Curry merely having a registry number unchanged from it's Excelsior form is flawed. If they have the time to rebuild a ship, they have PLENTY of time to send out a single guy in a work bee to repaint the bloody thing.
Remember people, it took Starfleet two years to turn the Enterprise quite literally into a brand new ship. Taking an existing starship and redoing it completely would take nearly a year, even if they were working extremely fast.
All the BoBW ships and "kitbashes" are most definatly their own distinct classes. They aren't just simple prototypes made from existing hulks to test theories.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Why "shipbashing" can't work in the real world: corridors, power and other feeds, and vertical deck access would not line up between the different sections.
Why "shipbashing" can't work in Star Trek: power and other feeds, vertical turboshafts, and vertical Jefferies Tubes would not line up between different sections. And in many cases, just trying to make the connections line up would necessitate the reworking much of the interiors. This is in addition to what The359 has already said. Really, it's probably better to rebulid the ship to it original configuration or build new ships of proper designs and classes.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Even if you believe the DS9:TM (which I don't) It only says that some ships were pieced together quickly and such, but nowhere does it explicitly say 'Here is a bunch of pictures of the ships we were talking about.' The statements are open ended enough that the images could depict real ships (because they showed Galaxys and Akiras) and only one, say maybe the Yeager-class, was a new bash design. Nowhere does it specifically say 'ships were pieced together and these are them'
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
In World War II, the US Gov't issued orders to have ships built for military use. These included the Liberty Class freighters and the Essex Class carriers. If we can get the construction information for these classes of ships, and other new classes of ships for this war, we might have a real world basis from which to work with.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hmm.
Sol's Curry Design-brief, if anyone cares, which you probably don't, ungrateful...
Oh, right, the colon:
I think the Curry and her ilk would make an excellent support ship for hurridly constructed outposts on farflung outlying worlds. Let's say Starfleet captures Planet P and wants to establish a small base there. Well, they don't have time to waste building the thing from scratch, and replicators are needed elsewhere. So you've got some nice little high-tech quonset hut things, or whatever. Now that we've got the ground covered, what about near-orbit? You need some sort of facility up there. You could tow one of those tiny Regula-type stations to the planet, but...
You've also got surplus depots full of decommissioned Excelsiors. Still spaceworthy, but out of date and, well, decommissioned. So along comes some young and snappily dressed engineer with an idea. Why not take those old Excelsiors, detach the secondary hulls, rework them just a bit, and viola! Instant space stations, suitable for warp transport anywhere. Meanwhile, take the primary hulls, tear out most of the superstucture and toss a warp core and other required bits in there, and you've got a readymade station carrier.
The routing of the Seventh Fleet meant the Curry herself was unable to deliver her charge.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by targetemployee: In World War II, the US Gov't issued orders to have ships built for military use. These included the Liberty Class freighters and the Essex Class carriers. If we can get the construction information for these classes of ships, and other new classes of ships for this war, we might have a real world basis from which to work with.
We already did this about a year ago. Go sift.
And "shipbashing" as you call it isn't that uncommon in the real world, either. Look at the early 2oth-century, when most early aircraft carriers were built on the hulls of other ships. Hell, the Langley was a COLLIER first.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, but that's a lot easier. Take a ship, stick a big platform on the top, and you've got a carrier. But try doing something like cutting the ship into five pieces and putting them back together in a different arrangement, and see how well it works.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
:::blinks::: How do you think ships are made NOW?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Am I invisible? Because I'm pretty sure that I presented an opinion on the problem regarding the connection of corridors/pipes/tubes/etc. between sections.
And my point is that there don't have to be that many connections. Take the Yeager Class, for example. The saucer section holds the crew facilities and everything else, like weapons. The Maquis-style hull holds the engines. All you REALLY need between the two sections is the power feeds and a couple of hallways.
But if the insides of one hull (whichever one) have ALREADY been GUTTED to make way for the retrofitted equipment, then it should be no big deal to install some custom corridors.
Also remember that these ships are essentially EMPTY. They're flying hulls with weapons strapped on, and a few crew quarters for the skeleton crew assigned to fly the thing. THAT'S ALL.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Hi!! Newbie here!!
The Shelley class unlike the other "shipbashes" in the DS9:TM appears to consist entirely of Excelcior class components (with the exception of the nacelles). If this is so then why move the saucer section if it is one of those ships that was quickly knocked up from whatever was lying around during the war? I believe that the mods must have been made for a specific reason and so the Shelley should be a pre-war purpose designed ship.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Exactly. Or then it wasn't a ship at all - just the remains of a number of half-destroyed ships welded nonfunctionally together for the duration of the journey home. None of the windows were lit, there were no floodlights on the registries, and the deflector dish didn't glow. Perhaps this was just a heap of junk duranium?
Admittedly, there was what seemed like the usual blue warp glow on the nacelle grilles... So perhaps that should be amended to "a functional pre-war-built ship consisting of the saucer and the nacelles, towing home a heap of junk duranium that included the secondary hull of an Excelsior class starship"?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
But why would Starfleet purposely build such a monstrosity BEFORE the war? When all ships (with very few exceptions) are all designed on their own as original vessels, why would Starfleet resort to such an ugly kitbash?
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
[/QUOTE]That sounds like an excellent idea! I nominate Rogue Starship to call the "dick heads" to get the answer. (If we don't hear from him a the call, we know that the "dick heads" sent in the Jem'Hadar.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
My appoligies if I offended anyone by my snide remark. I am sorry.
Ok, What really bugs me is that we have seen On-screen evidence that the Shelley exists. If we had'nt than I would have said sent the DS9:TM to hell, it's full of BS. But the pictures are nice to look at anyway.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...monstrosity..."
"...ugly kitbash..."
So say you. Personally, I don't have any problem w/ the Curry, and especially not the Centaur. Granted, some of the ones that were invisible on screen were pretty bad, but that's assuming the diagrams are accurate, which I doubt.
Besides, there are people who call the Freedom and Niagara "ugly kitbashes", but no-one's claiming that those were anything but actual SF classes.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I'm really getting sick of seeing this thread title spelled wrong. RS or someone should fix it.
A lot of these designs I dont consider so bad.. If an experienced CGI artist got to work on them, I bet they could make them look like acceptable ST ships by tweaking details a little and giving them a little character.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I agree with TSN. The Curry and the Centaur are not "Ugly Kitbashes." Their designs are likely functional to what their missions are. That's why I came up with the theory that they were the Mediterranean & Rennaissance classes, respectively. Just because they share similar parts to the Excelsior, in a re-arranged configuration, does that make them any more "ugly-kitbashed" than the Miranda class or Constellation class is to the Constitution?
Also, what if we had seen the Curry before we had seen the Excelsior? We wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
If the Curry is towing a knocked out Excelcior secondary hull what's with the shuttle bay on the front? I don't think that it's very likely to be a repair; I can't see much damage below the bay on my tape and I think a hit would probably cause more damage. Also where would they get it from? Finally I can't see any tractor beam so it must be a physical connection; either a docking/ latching system or it's part of the same ship.
PS: I actually rather like the Curry and Centaur.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I actually like the Centaur design. That's close enough to a "clean" design to look good to me.
However, the Curry is butt-ugly. The parts are rearranged in a nonsensical jumble -- literally the only difference in components is the warp nacelles, which are supposedly Constitution-refit-type instead of Excelsior-native. I can see absolutely no benefit from this design, and it seems structurally very weak. I don't like how the neck has been reattached to the aft end of the secondary hull, or the nacelles attached directly to the saucer. Compared to the vast majority of the starships that we've seen Starfleet use, it's ugly and illogical.
Yes, there have been "kitbash" starships before, some of which look quite good -- like the Nebula, New Orleans, Cheyenne, even the Niagra (which I like as well). But when you get to such random reconfigurations merely for the sake of redesign, that is very weak, artistically. And even weaker from an engineering standpoint.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
In the VFX department's defense, I doubt they were thinking much of engineering standpoints. They were thinking, "we need damaged ships...what's the cheapest way of providing some? Well, we can buy model kits to build & destroy, and while we're at it, let's make some new designs."
Keep in mind that these ships were made by the VFX guys, not someone like Rick Sternbach. He himself told me that he hated the designs, and kitbashing in general.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rogue Starship: My appoligies if I offended anyone by my snide remark. I am sorry.
Ok, What really bugs me is that we have seen On-screen evidence that the Shelley exists. If we had'nt than I would have said sent the DS9:TM to hell, it's full of BS. But the pictures are nice to look at anyway.
Snide?
Rogue Starship - you miss understand me. I didn't take offence. I was joking. I was winding you up! Geeez! And I thought that I was travelling in reverse at high warp! Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: I'm really getting sick of seeing this thread title spelled wrong. RS or someone should fix it.
A lot of these designs I dont consider so bad.. If an experienced CGI artist got to work on them, I bet they could make them look like acceptable ST ships by tweaking details a little and giving them a little character.
How, I would do it in a moment if I new if how to.
Yes they are stupid doped up Sons of Guns...if only they knew the crap they started...I would fire them...
RS
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Simply edit your original post. Like I just did.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Besides, there are people who call the Freedom and Niagara "ugly kitbashes", but no-one's claiming that those were anything but actual SF classes.
Actually, I happily believe that those turd nodules are nothing more than old experimental testbeds of funky crap you could try with Galaxy nacelles, and that the ships were constructed by crackwhore monkeys.
Starfleet only hauled out the two of them to help fight the Borg.
G2k
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Considering the nature of Wolf 359, I suspect every ship there was in fact a real, working vessel, and not something hastily grabbed out of a junkyard. Because I don't think there was time to do any junkyard grabbing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, one person claims they aren't real classes...
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I hope you're not thinking of me TSN. I think that the ships at Wolf 359 are real classes... they were testbeds for the the early portion of the Galaxy Class project. Most of them were in junkyards until Starfleet pulled them out [the best things they had there].
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
If the Wolf 359 classes were experimental ships used in Galaxy class development, where did the crews come from? Presumably Starfleet does move the personnel at its shipyards and development areas around occasionally. Also if they're from a junkyard there is even less likelihood of crews being available at the facility.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I think that all the ships weve seen were actual commissioned vessels of various classes that had full crews.
Why do people like this 'pulled out of mothballs' bit?.. seems a bit crap to me. As noble as so many fanboys think it is to fly in a piece of garbage, I think that Starfleet actually has its act together and had proper starships present. Why does everyone think that Starfleet is so fucking misguided that whenever a battle comes up, it just puts people in flying deathtraps? You guys have a fairly distorted view of the way things should be.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I agree -- it should really take several days or even weeks to activate a mothballed starship. And the fleet at Wolf 359 would seem much less powerful if it were made up of a bunch of flying rejects.
No, it's much more likely that the ships were all fully integrated and active classes. However, that doesn't mean that the ships were in wide use. Some of them could be limited-run home-defense starships that were kept in Sector 001 for precisely an invasion like this.
Although... I just remembered one instance that shoots down my own argument. In "Peak Performance," Riker's away team reactivated an abandoned Constellation-class starship in 24 or 48 hours, using a skeleton crew.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
But the Hathaway proves some good things. Even though the vessel was scrap, it had a) a name b) a registry number c) was not a one off test ship designed to be scrapped, but from an established class.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I'm also with the Freedom et.al. being real, active classes. Again, just because we don't see 'em around doesn't mean they're rare or new!
One wonders however if the Sol system, being the centre of everything nice and neat in the Federation, would even *have* a junkyard or mothball fleet. It's not like the system is too small for it or anything like that.. It's just why would you have a junkyard in paradise?
Mark
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
Man, I was really disapointed by the article in the StMag about the Freedom and Niagra. I agree with you Mark...just because we don't see them doesn't mean they are rare. I think they were so butt lazy that they said that to get out of using their brain cells to accualy think of a good history... or at least give us some clue.
We should write to them with a history for every starship, with full names and regs and have them ok it because they are too lazy to do it themselves.
Ok, so we have determined that Shelley is(or was) never a "kitbash" put together design. I agree with MM that the engineeres who disign those ships (Starfleet engineeres that is) could not just randomly stick the neck at the back with some Connie warp nacelles. So how did the ship come about? Here are som suggestion...not all of them I might agree with, but what the hell anything is possible.
1. Like the Miranda/Avenger and the Connie class's, basiclly made up the same parts...just different arangmen....the Excelsior, Shelly and Centar(sp?) class are all new class gone through the same design process made for different mission types.
2. These were mothballed ships, stripped of all equipment and weaponry. When Star Fleet saw that the Dominion War was comming, in a scramble to find ships, they take Shelley and Centars and God knows what other ships, strap them with warp cores, and whatever basic things needed to fly with a crap load of weapons and sparse crew and send them to the fleet.
3. Every thing that the Good Book said (DS9:TM) is true.
4. If you are having trouble coping with 3 read the Bible. Esp verses about being slow to anger and slow to murder of stupid bastards who decided to make us lose some sleep because they lost some.
Later, RS
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: I think that all the ships weve seen were actual commissioned vessels of various classes that had full crews.
Why do people like this 'pulled out of mothballs' bit?.. seems a bit crap to me. As noble as so many fanboys think it is to fly in a piece of garbage, I think that Starfleet actually has its act together and had proper starships present. Why does everyone think that Starfleet is so fucking misguided that whenever a battle comes up, it just puts people in flying deathtraps? You guys have a fairly distorted view of the way things should be.
No, I see nothing noble in flying around in pieces of garbage. I think you misunderstand where I, at least, am coming from about this.
This is not a matter of wanting to dream up some alternate view of ships at random. It is simply that in a situation where you have a butt-ugly ship which is only seen in one example, and which defies the common Starfleet technologies and aesthetics we know and love, the option is there to choose to accept the notion that the ship was a one-off, a testbed, a special-role ship, or something like that.
There is an example of this with the Defiant . . . it was built by Starfleet, set aside for a time in the Terran system, and then Sisko went to grab it when he needed it. Thus, you had an operational starship which was a one-off, until they decided to build more because damn, it rocked.
The Freedom and Niagara may have been operational starships. But, we have never seen such ships again. This suggests a small number (perhaps one), or a special-role class (which itself suggests a small number). It may also suggest that the vehicles were testbeds, given their proximity to Earth.
Further, both ships defy the common notion that ships with odd-numbers of nacelles are acceptable, and are just about the only canon examples of ships with such oddities.
Let's take a look at the Freedom. If the ship is to be scaled off of her nacelle, we have a vessel that is fairly long (around 430m). Why, then, the abnormally long 40m neck? For that matter, why put the nacelle so far backward? This makes no sense tactically, for the shield envelope for this monstrosity is going to be huge compared to other starships with similar internal volume, and predominately empty, to boot. It is apparent from starship designs that the nacelle needs to be away from the habitable areas of the ship in most cases (exception: Defiant), but unless the Freedom has no hull to speak of, she's gone too far . . . Nebula Class warp engines are far closer, and the Niagara's ventral nacelle is almost bumping the secondary hull.
Further, the useful internal volume of this ship is going to be absolutely sad. Even if the warp core is squeezed into that little Constitution-derived neck (which again makes no tactical sense (even a Pakled could figure out where to aim), and is technologically questionable), you're still going to have to have engineering facilities in the 220 meter long saucer (i.e. not much bigger than an Excelsior saucer), not to mention space for the deuterium tanks (unless an itty-bitty one is all she has, and it's in the neck, too).
What could such a thing be used for? One might argue that it could be some sort of high-warp courier, given the probable low weight of the ship compared to the warp output of that nacelle, mixed with the tactical uselessness. But, it couldn't have great range, unless the majority of the saucer section is devoted to deuterium and a big reactor to power the warp drive. Further, why make a high-warp courier with only one nacelle? That's just begging for high maintenance and frequent coil replacement. The same problems hold true if one tries to claim that the Freedom is a tug of some sort.
Maybe it's a higher-speed science ship? Perhaps, but the DS9TM suggests that even the Defiant is capable of performing a great deal of scientific investigation, even though she's a warship. Why go to all the trouble of designing and building this ugly joker?
It's not that I want to see ships pulled out of scrapyards every time Starfleet needs a fleet. I just hate to see ship designs that haven't had enough forethought put into them. In situations where I see that, I'm more than willing to take the option of believing that the floating turd we see is not one of Starfleet's finest.
G2k
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If they make a ship that's aesthetically pleasing, people will question why more attention was paid to aesthetics, and not to the technological feasibility.
If they make a ship that's not aesthetically pleasing, people will call it a "floating turd".
Maybe they should just stop making ships.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Star Trek: The Slow Years
"What's our ETA, Mr. Nisse?"
"At our system's current speed, Sol should reach sector 133 in 255,000 years."
"Hmm. I don't suppose the chief could boost power to the, um...galactic orbit, could he?"
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: If they make a ship that's aesthetically pleasing, people will question why more attention was paid to aesthetics, and not to the technological feasibility.
If they make a ship that's not aesthetically pleasing, people will call it a "floating turd".
Maybe they should just stop making ships.
Great! That will put me out of business all together!
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
I'm sorry but i cant help myself
Laughs uncontrollablY
yeah if they stopped making ships then we wouldnt have anymore problems... but who are we to argue in the first place? none of us are 24th Century Starship design extraodinaires, perhaps there are some stuff within those 'floating turds' which are prupose built...
Like - Class Name: Freedom Role: Fleet defence ship in the unlikely even that the Enterprise wont arrive in time
Note: this class maybe mothballed until needed
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Just a small point; experimental ships don't usually carry weapons and I don't think Starfleet is in to kamikaze attacks (although given the design of the Freedom, I wouldn't blame them ).
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
ok, now that we have started to talk about the Freedom and Niagra class's I think we should move it to a new thread. If anyone has any other things to add about Shelley or anyother please do.
RS
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Oddly, that new thread doesn't seem to work. It's a SIGN, I tells ya!
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Why would an experimental ship not carry weapons? Just how did the Excelsior intend to stop the Enterprise from escaping in "Star Trek III"? By calling them rude names over the comm?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Saved themselves from a TAS reference when they would have had Styles yell 'Kirk is a Jerk' on the viewscreen, then have the appropriate lettering beamed onto the good admiral's back.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
hehe i'd love to see the look on some Klingon commander's face if they tried THAT on the Klingon
Buzz
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
lol. Sorry; I was thinking of modern aircraft, the famed x-planes never carried weapons (to my knowledge) and neither do prototype combat aircraft.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well gosh darn if a starship aint a plane
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
What modern equivilent should we class stsrships as? They're kinda half plane half ship.
[ February 23, 2002, 12:22: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Mostly ship, though. Not much that's plane-like about them.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Apart from the whole flying thing.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
we could say that they 'float' in space...
-well it was just a thought
Buzz
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:hehe i'd love to see the look on some Klingon commander's face if they tried THAT on the Klingon
What would they put on the screen!?! "Kang suck my Wang"!?! ;o)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Kor is a whore? Kruge drank my splooge?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Eeew.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The one from my shiplist. Basically I did the same as Curry and consorts - I kitbashed. This seems to be the most accurate version (hehe...). The saucer is not above the forward shuttle bay, but behind it. Furthermore, the nacelles seem to be connected with the saucer behind the saucer (at least my reference screenshot looked like that). I have no idea how the connection between saucer and secondary hull could look like, but the solution pictured in the DS9TM seems to be... adequate. Sacing the nacelles right would make them appear smaller than they really are. Of course, I could do the same thing as I did with the Niagara, resize them, but I have to finish this somwhere. An I think that's my own little deadline. We never saw the Niagara close enough to say how big the nacelles really are (forget the Jein-shot for the moment), but this one appeared right in the foreground and we got a pretty clear view of it. So... what's your opinion? Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, the difference with the Niagara is its nacelles were on the right scale with the other parts of the ship...it's just that the Fact Files screwed up when drawing it.
With the Curry, the actual model had nacelles that were at a larger scale. That can't be ignored like a faulty schematic can. The Curry definitely has larger nacelles.
Your schem looks pretty good. I really like TSN's. It's about as accurate a view of the ship as can be gleaned until we see some model pics...(Hint, hint, Mr. Drexler )
[ February 25, 2002, 15:31: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Alright, are the pictures of the studio model floating around the Internet and if so where are they so I can see?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)