a little voice in my soul still yearns to call it a dreadnought...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Nah. It doesn't look threatening enough to be a dreadnought.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Mmmmmmm, those are some big mother nacelles.
Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
Probably just a small saucer compared to the nacelles.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6: a little voice in my soul still yearns to call it a dreadnought...
I don't quite understand why every three nacelled starship needs to be classified as a Dreadnought. The number of engines has nothing to do with whether the ship is classified as a Dreadnought or not. I believe that the classification should be used to classify a very large battleship designed specifically for the battleship role, much like its namesake HMS Dreadnought does to this day, when classifying the Yamato-class, Iowa-class, and the Bismarck.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's lookin' good as a re-thinking but if you're going for studio model accuracy, yur phasers are off a bit: There should be strips at the saucer's starboard and port side with smaller strips towards the saucer's aft. I'll send ya pics if you want (I gathered all I could when building my physical model and still have them).
If you are updating the ship, I'd reccomend sweeping the dorsal pylons back slightly more so the nacelles don't obstruct the aft saucer phasers. I did that on my model and it really made the diffrence in the ship's looks and functionalty. Docking ports and escape pods are always a plus on srships too. Just my .02
Click on my sig-line for my finished Niagra class model.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
You're right about the phaser strips, haven't got round to doing those yet, (or retexturing the ship properly) but beyond that this version is based on all the model photos I've got, as seen here. I'm not aware of any others...
Judging by this photo it looks as though the dorsal nacelles do hang over the saucer aft phasers. Cheers though Jason, and your model looks great..
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Nope. The term Dreadnought originated from the HMS Dreadnought of the year 1906 because she was the first All-Big Gun ship. Previous battleships had two to four big guns (12" or similar) and many smaller guns (5" to 10"). The HMS Dreadnought had 10 12" and very, very smaller guns. No intermiate guns like before. From there on, every ship was considered a Dreadnought. However there are varients of this term however such as the Super Dreadnought, first used on the Orion class battleships. They were termed this becaause all previous battleships even the dreadnoughts possessed 12" guns. The Orion class possessed 13.5" guns and were heavier.
The term Dreadnought is only refered to the World War I era battleships. Every battleship built after WWI, was merely termed battleship or fast battleship. The Bismark, Yamato, and the Iowa are all fast battleships. The Yamato was termed Super Battleship by a few because she is the heaviest of all the battleships ever built. Though this is a false term since it's now widely known by the "battleship-folk", that the American Iowa class is near match for the Yamato at 15,000 less tons.
So therefore the term dreadnought used in the old TOS technical manual is incorrect. The Federation class is a battleship, there has to be a smaller battleship than the Federation class to make her a Dreadnought.
The Niagara class is not a Dreadnought, but she can be considered a battleship if she was built as a battleship. So if the Niagara class is a battleship than the Galaxy class can be considered a Dreadnought and the Sovereign class, a Super Dreadnought. But this is using old World War terms. Nowadays there are no battleships, no heavy cruisers, just cruisers, destroyers, frigates and carriers.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hey I like the work you've done on the ship - but shouldn't there be some more hull detailing (like aztec patterns) on the top shuttlebay roof and the nacelle pylons?
Andrew
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: So therefore the term dreadnought used in the old TOS technical manual is incorrect. The Federation class is a battleship, there has to be a smaller battleship than the Federation class to make her a Dreadnought.
The Niagara class is not a Dreadnought, but she can be considered a battleship if she was built as a battleship. So if the Niagara class is a battleship than the Galaxy class can be considered a Dreadnought and the Sovereign class, a Super Dreadnought. But this is using old World War terms. Nowadays there are no battleships, no heavy cruisers, just cruisers, destroyers, frigates and carriers.
false assumption: Trek goes by current naval terms.
since we know that there are heavy cruisers in trek (the Connie was never a HC in dialogue, but the Ambassador was, and the Connie has computer readouts indicating its a class i heavy cruiser) it seems to follow that Trek does not follow the current naval definition which may have phased out heavy cruiser as a classification. we also know that Trek breaks from US parlance in that, in TOS (and ENT), they use the rank commodore. obviously we cannot require the Trek universe to conform to modern military terms and definitions, its more of a mixture of historical qualifications.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
One has to wonder whether any analogies to current or past naval practices work for Starfleet.
Regarding the annoying habit of designating all three-nacellers as dreadnoughts, there is some real-world precedent there: nacelles are very analogous to propellers, and the short and long definition of "frigate" in late WWII and immediate postwar era used to be "single-shaft warship". Add nothing but a shaft and you get a destroyer.
Going back farther, nacelles could be likened to the rigging of sailing ships, again a major name-determining factor.
So generally, it would be easy to postulate a system where nacelle count is decisive in naming. All two-nacellers would be cruisers, I guess, while all single-nacellers could be destroyers or somesuch. Yet we know a four-naceller is a ("star") cruiser...
Personally, I see the Niagaras being closest to the Ambassadors in design and equipment balance (even including the apparent lack of torpedoes!) - thus, for me a Niagara is a heavy cruiser. Then again, if canon some day tells me otherwise, I'll happily accept. After all, the more designations and "roles" Starfleet ships have, the better. It's pretty silly for them to have sixteen completely dissimilar types of "cruisers"...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yep, to me it's simply a Heavy Cruiser, and I would see the system probabaly defined as such:
Heavy Cruiser = 400+ Metres Medium Cruiser = 300+ Metres Light Cruiser = 200+ Metres Tactical Cruiser = (determined by armament)
AndrewR, as I think I said somewhere, I haven't got round to retexturing it yet...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
IIRC, the DS9TM uses the various naval terms as well -- and they label the Akira as a heavy cruiser. (I know, I know... the DS9TM's appendix is a PoS. )
One other potentially interesting idea is that Starfleet may use the frigate classification as a heavier type than the destroyer. Taking the (conjectural) New Orleans-class ships that were mentioned-but-not-seen in TNG's "Consipiracy," it seems that those ships would be heavier than the Defiant- and Saber-class types, which, although called "escorts" in episode dialogue, best fit into the destroyer category, since escorting is a destroyer's role. At least in today's navy, that is.
One other confusion (at least for me) is the use of the term "explorer." That's certainly logical, but it's also a bit less descriptive of the size and capability of the ship (compared to "heavy cruiser" or "destroyer"), since an explorer could be really big (like a Galaxy) or relatively small (like an Intrepid). I've wondered if Starfleet has introduced a sort of "meta-classification" system, where they've got explorers (for any sort of exploration or survey platform), cruisers (large combat/patrol types), and escorts (small combat/patrol types) -- and this in addition to the traditional cruiser/frigate/destroyer nomenclature.
Complicated, I know...
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
I myself see one problem with this design (but not with the model)... either shuttlebay is extra-short, or it features two pylons in the middle... Maybe you could move those pylons forward a bit?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The problem is that the shuttlebay on Red's model is too short. The actual shuttlebay is identical to that of the Ambassador Class and is significantly longer.
I would also point out that the neck is not really as substantial as the mesh portrays.
This is a drawing done by Masaki that correctly portrays a side-view of the ship. The only thing that may be a little off (which Red did get right on his rendering) is that the lower nacelle pylon should be thicker rather than a flat "fin."
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why would the lower nacelle pylon be thicker that the others?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And why would the shuttlebay be identical to that of an Ambassador? Sure, the two came out of the same mold originally - but that was before the hull was extensively reworked (including getting "battle-damaged").
Even in the long version, the shuttlebay seems pretty idiotic, hampered as it is by the proximity of the three pylons (even the TOS Constitution had relatively more clearance, I think). One could more plausibly place some impulse engines there, as the ship lacks them anywhere else...
A lot of the "real" appearance of the Niagara class remains conjectural, since we wouldn't even know if a fourth nacelle was blown away.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, the Niagra's shuttlebay matching the Ambassador yields a LOT more clearance from the nacelles than the Connie Refit: It just looks like less becaue everything is scaled waaay up.
The Impulse engines are directly behind (and flush with) the saucer. Shadows obstruct them onscreen and we never see the studio model from the rear. Besides, if you group all your ship's engines in one small space at the back of the ship, you'll make a tempting target for one good torpedo hit! ...and the ship would have no shuttlebay at all if the impulse engine was waaay back there. Soundeffect and I have debated this on many occasion for the sake of building our model versions of this odd ship and I think it's the only answer.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
All right, only answer accepted.
Still, a torpedo in your shuttlebay is a good way to ruin a perfectly nice day. Both in the Niagara and in the Connie-refit; just put a delay fuze on the thing so that the outer bay doors don't detonate it yet, and the next solid object it will hit is the warp core (or at least a primary plasma conduit)!
Perhaps starships are supposed to out-accelerate torpedoes fired from their six, and thus traditionally have weak and almost undefended derrieres?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
HaHAHAHAH!! I've always wondered why Chang didint just pop a couple of torpedos in through those thin shuttlebay doors! Or the Impulse Engines!
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
The reason the neck is more substantial than one would immediately speculate looking at the model photos is that it is where I inserted the impulse engines. They have to be somewhere, and eliminating most other areas from the photos we have this seemed the logical location.
I don't know what that bottom pylon should look like, it's a weird structure, but I modelled it as best I could according to the one helpful angle we have in one of the photos. And according to that same picture the Niagara doesn't seem to have a shuttle bay at all! It has either been entirely blown away in combat or this area is quite different to the aft quarters of an Ambassador.
MinutiaeMan, starship categories and hardware types is indeed interesting. I must point out that regarding the combat terms the Destryer is at the top of this tree, above Escorts and Frigates. There's a full run down here with explanations and theories: http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/ship_designations.htm Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And why would the shuttlebay be identical to that of an Ambassador? Sure, the two came out of the same mold originally - but that was before the hull was extensively reworked (including getting "battle-damaged").
As Jason already pointed out, it's so the shuttlebay is clear of the nacelle pylons. Besides, what do you think Jein did? Remodel the aft end before burning it to shit? I would doubt that...
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote: As Jason already pointed out, it's so the shuttlebay is clear of the nacelle pylons. Besides, what do you think Jein did? Remodel the aft end before burning it to shit? I would doubt that...
Exactly. But that's why we don't know how the aft end of the undamaged Niagara looks like and may speculate a bit. The question is rather if we would want to see an undamaged version...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd have liked to have seen at least one in battle on DS9. With that extra nacelle, she's got to have lots of power for phasers and I DO dig the design. It just kind od grows on you...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I agree that once you get used to the initially ungainly proportions of the ship, it looks kind of neat. It takes a while, but it *does* grow on one...
And Bernd, I understand that there is room for speculation on the shuttlebay, but the point was that the idea of it being shorter than on the Ambassador is decidedly BAD speculation, considering that without that length the pylons screw it up. And it happens to be a bonus that the longer configuration is in fact what the model looked like before being damaged.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Why would the lower nacelle pylon be thicker that the others?
It is particularly apparent in this pic that at least the leading edge of the lower pylon is thick and rounded, rather than flat and angular at the upper ones are.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: With that extra nacelle, she's got to have lots of power for phasers
But energy flows to the nacelles, not from them. (Presumably you are postulating that more nacelles = more powerful warp core to make them all work, but I'm not so sure that's justified.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, I'm of the opinion that the aintmatter in the warp core is akin to a car's gasoline and that starships with more or more advanced engines are akin to having a V8 in your car instead of a V4.
Either that or the Niagra is built for high speed warp to the federation's borders. The extra nacelle could relieve much of the strain on the other two nacelles, allowing for a longer time at high/ maximum warp compared to a GCS with far less mass to warp as well. It's supposed to take 10 years to cross the federation at warp six (I think it's six anyway)so starfleet would need to constantly build high-warp starships and ship them off to the expanding border to fortify new colonies and explore and get into trouble while killing off new life and new civilizations. Upgrading the older Niagra class from Ambassador nacelles to Galaxy and adding on the third nacelle would have been more expedient than waiting for new galaxy classes to be built. Sound plausable?
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: aintmatter
Third. Best. Typo. Evar.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Lol, but I am agreement with Jason, the third nacelle I think would increase range and prolong flight times at high warp. Anyway here's an update with a nice little beauty shot showing more of the back of the ship, and new side and top views with improved structural proportions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: aintmatter
Third. Best. Typo. Evar.
Fuck. Me am good Pakled Typist. I make paragraphs "go".
Red, that is a GREAT shot (and where I placed my impulse engines too!) but the starboard nacelle pylon appears to bend in the wrong direction... It should angle back to the center of the shot (where the pylon bends, that is). Did that make any sense whatsoever? mabye?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Look for things that spellcheck. B)
Yeah, the pylon seems twisted awkwardly... it's a perspective eccentricity, not a modeling error.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
quote:it's a perspective eccentricity
Correcto. An abberation only, not much I could do from that angle. But you can observe the proportions a little better with this: a small and basic rotational animated Gif.
Gif - 273K Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's a crazy new dance: "the Niagra"! You just need a latin beat and Ricky Martin to sing the lyrics..... Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Oh no not Ricky Martin. Anyway, just to add further speculation here's a very quick comparison shot with a couple of other quick and basic renders of the imagined first batch Niagara...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dig the pototype but mabye you could add those vent things from the tops of the Ambassador's nacelles (I think it would look good) or mabye just add movie-era pennants running their entire length. Just a thought. I really DO like it though: I'll build it (with the phasers in that configuration)if I can get ahold of the resin FXM Excelsior model (it's a POS but good for parts).
I really can't see the Niagra with a neck though. The pics just don't support it.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Are you sure a Block 1 Niagra would have the nacelles slung so high? Not that we'd really understand how warp field dynamics work, but it seems to me that most starships would be balanced more if the nacelles were lower...
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Lookin' sweet, Mark!
Personally, I really think that the upper nacelles and the lower one should be level in the Z-axis. I've always thought the ship looked better-balanced with the lower nacelle just slightly forward.
(And you didn't add the starboard and port phaser strips... )
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You don't understand basic warp dynamics? No Ivy League schools for you, young man!
I agree that the prototype's nacelle pylons would be lower but they would be tilted up so the Galaxy's nacelles would clear the saucer. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Or swept back. Or canted downwards.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or flapping like a duck as it warps along: a natural progression from Voyager's silly nacelles. Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I was actually thinking of creating new pylons for the prototype, ones without the angled kink. But it looked just too similar to a regular Ambassador that way. I think with this particular shape and configuration, with little or no neck, nacelles higher than saucer seem more likely.
And yes I've forgotten to redo the phaser strips again, darn it!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
And your shuttlebay is still too short. But who's counting... Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Well, not necessarily. I'm basing this model more on the actual photos, and they show no shuttle bay at all. So IMHO the precise dimensions, size (and even existence) of the shuttle bay is purely at the modeller's discretion
And after this I'll be dragging my old Freedom model out and giving it a similar workover, based on the model pic.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: Well, not necessarily. I'm basing this model more on the actual photos, and they show no shuttle bay at all. So IMHO the precise dimensions, size (and even existence) of the shuttle bay is purely at the modeller's discretion
And after this I'll be dragging my old Freedom model out and giving it a similar workover, based on the model pic.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)