A little while ago someone posted this link over on TrekBBS, which the man himself said was built for a Pilot pitch that he and two others put together that, needless to say never made it to our screens (see the thread here for details.)
Anyway, the design struck me as looking very Federation/Starfleet, in a utilitarian way that I find very appealing so I'm adapting (stealing) the design to be the Federation Hopper that's been mentioned occasionally.
In the long run I plan on adapting it to two scales. A half scale hopper, the kind that was used by Starfleet to transport platoons of tactical forces over short distances (like on Ajilon Prime) among other non-military functions and a full scale hopper which is closer to the original design's purpose as a mobile surface science and exploration platform. The kind I imagine is used by Federation colonists to further explore their new world once the transports and Starships have gotten the main colony established and then moved on.
So far I'm just roughing our the major hull components, trying to get everything in roughly the right proportion. Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
...Looks like something from Voltron 'And I'll Smoke a Bong, Err, Form the Head!'...
Really, don't know what to do with it (but i'm not a good judge of Misl. Star Fleet utility vessels. It seems ok but maybe a pic-in-action would help me vision it (I had the same problems with the VF-25 Messiah from MF before i saw the Deculture episode in Decemeber. once i saw the fighter in action, i spent several days flogging myself for being so weak...)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Just think of it as an LCAC without the rubber skirt mixed with a giant Snowcat type of thing. Don't expect it to do any barrel rolls or have an exciting music video made about it's exploits as it'd probably move and function more like a Chinook than anything else.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
So, it's pretty much just a landing craft in it's smaller configuration.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not exactly. A landing craft just goes from a mother ship to a beach head and back. This is more like a CH-47 Chinook or C-130 Hercules (with shades of the AC-130 Spectre) in terms of it's battlefield role or if you like a bigger and more powerful UH-60 Blackhawk. In a nutshell, once dropped from orbit it can operate independently of the mothership's support and would be mostly used to move assets (personnel and equipment) to wherever they need to be, while giving limited fire support.
In it's (much more common) civilian role it's more like a mobile command and exploration vehicle. Mostly used by established colonies to make long (trans-continental) survey missions on largely unexplored worlds or to simply act as a versatile support vehicle.
The BIG version is effectively a mobile base of operations. One of them (along with a bunch of auxiliary craft) can be dropped on an uncolonised world after a starship has done an initial survey and a crew of about 20-40 people would spend a year or five doing a detailed exploration right a cross the planet ahead of full colonisation.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
So,in vehicle terms, it is along the lines of an LAV, with the multi-usefullness of a HUMVEE.
I think I understand what you're getting at though.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Kinda-sorta. It's a hopper. Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
So, what happened to the old hopper? I was quite fond of that one.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I took it out behind the old paint shed and shot it.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Say it ain't so! D:
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Was the old one any good? Might it be usefull as another type of design, in another role?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It looked OK from the side, but as a whole I could never get it to work from any other angle. Lesson leant.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I hope you plan to leave off the flying sub.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yeah, don't worry about that, it'll be appropriate to what we know of Federation equipment. I'll probably replace that ray like craft with an Phoenix/AWACs type sensor pod, though I think the larger version will still have a landing platform on the aft section, for skimmers and shuttles.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Looks too much like a tank, i.e., a ground vehicle. It doesn't look like something that flies.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I was thinking hovercraft at first, but then I thought it'd probably have a max altitude of some miles. (It is sub-orbital at most, right?)
Also, how many are in a platoon? I kinda figured...way too many to fit into that thing.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Is that some sort of fighter on top? Wacky.
Really does not look very "federation" to my eye. I'd use that transport from DS9 (the design from that episode where some psycho-bitch stranded everyone on a world with no tech as a sorta luddite experiment). It sorta looked like a Trek Eagle Lander.
The DS9 design could be tweaked with weapons and such....the linked design looks too "TOS-meets-Terminator".
Still, if ayone can make treasure from trash, it's you Rev. (everyone do the wave for Rev)
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, in the US military, a platoon can vary between 36 and 50-ish, with like 3-4 squads of maybe a dozen men. I don't know how the Fed's troop structure differs though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, it doesn't fly, presumably, does it? It hops.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Looks too much like a tank, i.e., a ground vehicle. It doesn't look like something that flies.
Actually that's partly why I latched on to this so much. Although it is capable of "flight" it spends most of it's time skimming/hovering a few feet above the ground or just sitting on those pontoon like structures. I think it's also fair to say that the vast majority of the shuttles look like they're supposed to fly either, only the nose is vaguely aerodynamic (some more than others) while the rest of the hull is basically a box with engines. So in a way it is consistent with Federation technology.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I was thinking hovercraft at first, but then I thought it'd probably have a max altitude of some miles. (It is sub-orbital at most, right?)
Also, how many are in a platoon? I kinda figured...way too many to fit into that thing.
That's right. It can get dropped from low orbit and safely make atmospheric entry then when the time comes to leave it can climb back up out of the atmosphere so the mothership (which I'm toying with being a Steamrunner) can scoop it up. While the underside of those pontoons do feature some very strong anti-grav emitters, allot of the thrust is from those two scram-jet like engines, so it can bug out in a hurry if need be.
As for the troop capacity, I'm going with the assumption that it would carry 60 in those two pontoon like structures, with the flight crew and support personnel on the upper decks of the midsection. The lower decks connecting the pontoons is where the entry/exit ramps are and act as a staging area. Obviously in the civilian configuration those would be used mostly for equipment storage, particularly on long duration missions. That's the smaller version, the larger one is almost twice the size.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Is that some sort of fighter on top? Wacky.
Really does not look very "federation" to my eye. I'd use that transport from DS9 (the design from that episode where some psycho-bitch stranded everyone on a world with no tech as a sorta luddite experiment). It sorta looked like a Trek Eagle Lander.
The DS9 design could be tweaked with weapons and such....the linked design looks too "TOS-meets-Terminator".
Still, if ayone can make treasure from trash, it's you Rev. (everyone do the wave for Rev)
I do have a design for the Erewhon, but nobody seamed to like that either, go figure. Seriously though, that's more of a transport and is warp capable so not really a good candidate for a hopper. Though being a Sternbach design I got a definate Danube vibe so it's certainly in the same family as the Erewhon and Danube. Perhaps developed by the same company.
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Well, it doesn't fly, presumably, does it? It hops.
Pretty much. It dose go airborne, but it doesn't exactly fly. Put it another way, it looks like a collection of bricks and that's exactly how it flys. Not much finesse, no barrel rolls or swooping. In a combat situation it depends on some very heavy shields and armour for physical protection while a fighter escort dose the fancy stuff and of course the mother-ship would hopefully be available to provide some orbital cover too. However as was stated in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" these things can be knocked right out of the air, especially when they're forced to operate on their own. In that regard they're not unlike any troop carrying helicopter like a huey or a blackhawk where a well placed rpg can ruin a pilots day. Plus of course these things are about the size of a chinook, so it's rather hard to miss.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd always assumed it was a "Planet Hopper"- thus capable of impulse spaceflight and allowing troops to move in-system as needed instead of being trapped planetside while enemy ships bombard you from orbit.....I'd also hope a Klingon or Romulan version would have cloaking capibilities to prevent orbital pinpoint strikes.
Also, i'd think that such hoppers would have defenses like bigtime mass-area stunners (like the Enterprise cold do in TOS) to knock the fight out of roving Cardie/Dominion forces prior to the Hopper's setting down.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I would think so too. But then either way why use this instead of a bigger shuttle/runabout?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well, you've just described a large shuttle craft, so since those already exist a hopper with that kind of range would be redundant. Also one of these on it's own doesn't constitute much of a threat to even a lightly defended world and a whole convoy of these things plodding through space at impulse, with 60+ personnel per boat equals a very soft target.
No, it really needs a mothership for protection, fast transportation and aerial support, to say nothing of making it past orbital defences.
As far as what the other powers might be using, that's open to speculation of course, but not really a factor in this design. After all, landing craft seldom have to engage their opposite numbers.
A mass area stunner would, I imagine be useless against a shielded installation and I doubt large numbers of enemy troops will be milling around in the open during an invasion. For one thing they'd probably be under orbital bombardment and sitting in their bunkers and aforementioned shield structures.
As for these things being vulnerable to orbital attack, impulse drive doesn't eliminate that weakness at all, since it still has to actually land on the planet. What does compensate is having a mothership (plus escorts) in orbit, keeping enemy ships out of weapons range.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, but if the mothership is driven off, the hoppers and their crews/troops are dead.
As to the stunner thing, we saw the Jem Hadar travel klicks from their garrison without shield cover- something area-of-effect would have been handy against them.
Heck, at least add on a Runabout-sized phaser bar on the side of the hull to cover disembarking troops...possibly one on the ventral side for clearing a landing space too.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(I was just being snarky, by the way.)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Yeah, but if the mothership is driven off, the hoppers and their crews/troops are dead.
As to the stunner thing, we saw the Jem Hadar travel klicks from their garrison without shield cover- something area-of-effect would have been handy against them.
Heck, at least add on a Runabout-sized phaser bar on the side of the hull to cover disembarking troops...possibly one on the ventral side for clearing a landing space too.
And they're just as dead if there was no mothership to begin with. Impulse engines won't do them any good if the enemy has space superiority AND warp capable ships in system. Any invasion requires a coordinated effort from multiple platforms across an entire fleet. You can't just have a bunch of shuttles turn up filled with troops and have an invasion. First you have to attack they planets to eliminate any nearby ships, neutralise any static defences THEN secure the planet with a full scale invasion. Miss out the first two steps and it's a turkey shoot.
As for onboard weaponry, I haven't gotten that far yet. Right now I'm making sure the proportions and internal layout is about right before I start worrying about the superficial details. Though I imagine any weaponry on the tactical version would be purely defensive to give covering fire, nothing too offensive as this is most certainly not a gunship.
As for the Jem'Hadar, I presume you're referring to the siege of AR-558. In which case the argument is irrelevant as they were the invaliding force assaulting an enemy that was dug in, not the other way around. Because they happened to be dug in right next to a valuable asset (the comms relay) orbital bombardment wasn't an option. As for the stunner, I think it's be established the stun setting doesn't work on Jem'Hadar.
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: (I was just being snarky, by the way.)
Yes, I did notice that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think we ever saw someone atempt to stun a Jem Hadar...maybe that kid version, but that may have been low setting at Odo's order.
I'm not saying it should be a battleship or anything, only that it can suppress enemy fire and cover troops.....possibly extend a shield over a few yards around the hopper to evac wounded, etc.
It occurs to me that Quark has more Jemmie kills than Nog or Bashir....making him the single toughest Ferengi of Trek.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Like I said, the tactical model will have a pair of Phasers (Type V?) for fire support, so a stun setting isn't out of the question. Point is you don't generally land your troops right on the enemy's heads as it's a very efficient way of getting yourself shot down, so I doubt it often comes up.
It also might be worth remembering that at close range a hand phaser on stun can be lethal (ST:VI) so I imagine the same is true at medium to long ranges for more powerful phasers. In fact that could be precisely the reason why we don't often see stun being used on anything larger than a hand phaser, the more powerful the beam the harder it is to get a non-lethal effect within a certain range. We've seen it effective from high orbit to a planet surface but I'd be willing to bet if you were in the path of that beam, say a few kilometres away in an EVA suit it would have fried your nervous system.
So in the case of a hopper's Type V, the stun setting could have a minimal safe stun range that is very close the the maximum effective range, greatly hindering it's usefulness. While it's possible to use it as you're in the upper atmosphere but once you're at a lower altitude and your horizon is reduced it would be next to useless and as I said before, you're not going to come dropping on their heads so a sub-orbital stun (even IF they're unshielded AND in the open) won't be possible as the drop zone is likely out of range.
Again, at AR-558 the Jem'Hadar didn't just land right outside the installation and charge out as that would have been tactically moronic. What they did do in land some kilometres away and establish a secure LZ and forward base. I dare say the same would apply if the roles were reversed.
As for a stun's effectiveness against the Jem'Hadar a quick visit to Memory Alpha shows that they are indeed immune. I'd post a link, but it's not letting me.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, if not a stun setting on the phasers, why not a small automated grenade launcher to launch stun grenades? The launcher itself could be small, and the hopper could carry a lot of small grenades. The same launcher could be used to launch smoke grenades to cover an advance or a landing.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Oh for heavens sake - As I've repeatedly said, it's not a tactically wise thing to do. Helicopters don't use tear-gas, they pick an LZ that is secure, or they make damn sure they get in quick and get the hell out, preferably before RPGs start flying at them. Ever seen Black Hawk Down? I'm sure dropping out of the stratosphere right on top of the enemy, stun grenades and phasers a flyin sounds great and terrably dramatic and I'm sure a fanboy could make a very exciting CG animation out of it, but the reality is, doing that will get your hopper shot down before it even has a chance to fire stun grenade #1. So the only thing that will hit the ground running to the accompaniment to Song 2 by Blur would be smoking wreckage and cooked flesh.
It'd be like trying to mount the d-day landings by sailing up the Elbe and into Berlin. You'd last about three seconds longer than a snowball on the surface of the sun.
If you want to quickly insert a small team, you'd use transporters. If the transporters are being jammed, then it's likely there are other defences like shields and force fields, in which case stun grenades will do precisely f*ck all, except tell everyone for half a mile in every direction exactly where you are about to land and it's death from below again.
Which ever way you cut it, landing on the base and using stun devices of any description will only cause an enemy to point and laugh. If you're doing the sane thing and established a beachhead a safe distance from any fortifications and you happen across a lone patrol, you don't waste time trying to stun them, allowing for the possibility one will hit a panic button, you vaporise the buggers and hope you can dig in before they're missed.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
How about a giant mass driver cannon that rains down asteroidy & cometary death from above? That's make the LZ super-secure, yeh?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Oh for heavens sake - As I've repeatedly said, it's not a tactically wise thing to do. Helicopters don't use tear-gas, they pick an LZ that is secure, or they make damn sure they get in quick and get the hell out, preferably before RPGs start flying at them. Ever seen Black Hawk Down? I'm sure dropping out of the stratosphere right on top of the enemy, stun grenades and phasers a flyin sounds great and terrably dramatic and I'm sure a fanboy could make a very exciting CG animation out of it, but the reality is, doing that will get your hopper shot down before it even has a chance to fire stun grenade #1. So the only thing that will hit the ground running to the accompaniment to Song 2 by Blur would be smoking wreckage and cooked flesh.
It'd be like trying to mount the d-day landings by sailing up the Elbe and into Berlin. You'd last about three seconds longer than a snowball on the surface of the sun.
If you want to quickly insert a small team, you'd use transporters. If the transporters are being jammed, then it's likely there are other defences like shields and force fields, in which case stun grenades will do precisely f*ck all, except tell everyone for half a mile in every direction exactly where you are about to land and it's death from below again.
Which ever way you cut it, landing on the base and using stun devices of any description will only cause an enemy to point and laugh. If you're doing the sane thing and established a beachhead a safe distance from any fortifications and you happen across a lone patrol, you don't waste time trying to stun them, allowing for the possibility one will hit a panic button, you vaporise the buggers and hope you can dig in before they're missed.
All that anger and ranting and you chose to censor "fuck all"?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Oh for heavens sake - As I've repeatedly said, it's not a tactically wise thing to do. Helicopters don't use tear-gas, they pick an LZ that is secure, or they make damn sure they get in quick and get the hell out, preferably before RPGs start flying at them. Ever seen Black Hawk Down? I'm sure dropping out of the stratosphere right on top of the enemy, stun grenades and phasers a flyin sounds great and terrably dramatic and I'm sure a fanboy could make a very exciting CG animation out of it, but the reality is, doing that will get your hopper shot down before it even has a chance to fire stun grenade #1. So the only thing that will hit the ground running to the accompaniment to Song 2 by Blur would be smoking wreckage and cooked flesh.
It'd be like trying to mount the d-day landings by sailing up the Elbe and into Berlin. You'd last about three seconds longer than a snowball on the surface of the sun.
If you want to quickly insert a small team, you'd use transporters. If the transporters are being jammed, then it's likely there are other defences like shields and force fields, in which case stun grenades will do precisely f*ck all, except tell everyone for half a mile in every direction exactly where you are about to land and it's death from below again.
Which ever way you cut it, landing on the base and using stun devices of any description will only cause an enemy to point and laugh. If you're doing the sane thing and established a beachhead a safe distance from any fortifications and you happen across a lone patrol, you don't waste time trying to stun them, allowing for the possibility one will hit a panic button, you vaporise the buggers and hope you can dig in before they're missed.
I wasn't exactly suggesting it as an offensive weapon, more of a deffensive deterent to protect retreating troops, trying to load back up in an emergency, or to provide some sort of fire support role, like a BlackHawk does.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
It seems the militaristic/infantry tactics discussions kinda spilled out of the Fed Army stuff in my thread and into the wild huh?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Yes. It's all your fault.
So, this doesn't deliver the troops right into the combat zone, might the Federation have anything that does that? Perhaps there is a version of this with a big transporter system, so you can deliver a whole platoon in 3 or so squads through the Transporter, 12 men ( or how ever many constitutes a squad)at a time.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
The magic nature of Treknology annoys me. It has so many shortcuts it makes for lazy thinking sometimes.
Not that I'm accusing you of that, Sean. It's just that the first solution to almost any problem is 'Transporters'.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I only thought of transporters because Reverend mentioned them for small team insertion. Most of the T-porter pads we see in Trek have maybe 6 or so transport platforms, so to insert a whole squad at one time, you would need a larger pad. You could probably deliver a whole platoon within a minute, without really risking the ship itself.
But, I know what you mean. It's either transporters, or some new technobabble device that disappears from existance next week.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: The magic nature of Treknology annoys me. It has so many shortcuts it makes for lazy thinking sometimes.
Not that I'm accusing you of that, Sean. It's just that the first solution to almost any problem is 'Transporters'.
Why WOULDN'T you go for the easiest solution first? Why complicate things unnecessarily from the outset?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Because whenever transporters are the easiest solution, there's a diffuse magnetoflux spectroscopic subspace gravimetric shear force that means they have to use the shuttle. Not to mention lots of ionizing radiation to interfere with sensors. (You wouldn't think ionizing radiation would do a damn thing to FTL sensors, would you? And if it's bad enough to blind the ship, the away team should be toast or riddled with tumors...)
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik:
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: The magic nature of Treknology annoys me. It has so many shortcuts it makes for lazy thinking sometimes.
Not that I'm accusing you of that, Sean. It's just that the first solution to almost any problem is 'Transporters'.
Why WOULDN'T you go for the easiest solution first? Why complicate things unnecessarily from the outset?
Essentially it boils down to the fact that your opponent would have to be totally fucking incompetent to not know that and take measures to reduce the effectiveness of that tactic or find a way to use it against you entirely.
A forward assault is almost always the easiest course of action in a battle, but an even slightly competent enemy will cut you to shreds if you aren't smart about the way you do it.
Trekno-magic makes for very lazy thinking; the perception is that the solution is always a wave of a wand and a push of an inoffensively colored button away.
The instant they run into an enemy who is even the smallest bit challenging, they get caught flat-footed and have their asses handed to them.
Using the toys should only ever be part of a more comprehensive and thoroughly planned strategy, not a means in and of itself.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Yes. It's all your fault.
So, this doesn't deliver the troops right into the combat zone, might the Federation have anything that does that? Perhaps there is a version of this with a big transporter system, so you can deliver a whole platoon in 3 or so squads through the Transporter, 12 men ( or how ever many constitutes a squad)at a time.
Well, since their default seems to be about six pads then, at least for SF, a "squad" seems to be 6.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:All that anger and ranting and you chose to censor "fuck all"?
There be young'uns present. And that wasn't anger, it's mild irritation.
quote:I wasn't exactly suggesting it as an offensive weapon, more of a deffensive deterent to protect retreating troops, trying to load back up in an emergency, or to provide some sort of fire support role, like a BlackHawk does.
Why would you want to stun pursuers? This thing will have at least two Type-V phaser turrets, so you can just kill the bastards or force them to ground.
quote:So, this doesn't deliver the troops right into the combat zone, might the Federation have anything that does that? Perhaps there is a version of this with a big transporter system, so you can deliver a whole platoon in 3 or so squads through the Transporter, 12 men ( or how ever many constitutes a squad)at a time.
Sure it does, just not directly into the line of fire as that's suicide. It really all depends on precisely what you're attacking and what defences it has. Attacking a fixed installation like a ground base mean's it's likely to have a defence perimeter and heavy anti-vehicle weapons, so you'd set down out of range or out of sight (hopefully not in the middle of a mine field) and establish a forward position from there. If you're re-enforcing one of your own bases that's under attack by a ground force then yes, you much land right on their heads. As a rule, you still don't stun them.
As far as Transporter based invasions go, again it depends on the situation. By the late 24th century transport inhibitors seam to be small, quick and easy to deploy so it's more than likely that the first wave of a ground assault has to be done the old fashioned way. Once a planetary "beachhead" is secured then I suppose they could deploy pattern enhancers to cut through the jamming, but I wouldn't depend on it. On the odd occasion when a mass transporter based invasion is possible then I imagine that would be done from the mothership (which I still fancy as a Steamrunner) with specialised pads, not unlike the evacuation transporters from the old FJ manual, at least in concept. Of course, you'd also transport down equipment and possibly small shuttle sizes vehicles.
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: Essentially it boils down to the fact that your opponent would have to be totally fucking incompetent to not know that and take measures to reduce the effectiveness of that tactic or find a way to use it against you entirely.
A forward assault is almost always the easiest course of action in a battle, but an even slightly competent enemy will cut you to shreds if you aren't smart about the way you do it.
Trekno-magic makes for very lazy thinking; the perception is that the solution is always a wave of a wand and a push of an inoffensively colored button away.
The instant they run into an enemy who is even the smallest bit challenging, they get caught flat-footed and have their asses handed to them.
Using the toys should only ever be part of a more comprehensive and thoroughly planned strategy, not a means in and of itself.
Although Ahkileez and I tend to fundamentally disagree on the military nature of Starfleet and the Federation, the same basic tactics apply. In any war there is usually one side that has some technological or tactical advantage and for the other side to survive, they need to find a way to counter that advantage. The Dune Universe provides a good example of this as after tens of millennia of warfare using advance field technology, energy weapons and numerous variety of nuclear weapons, the point and counterpoint nature of warfare technology results in it all coming do to human vs human, armed with a pointy stick...and of course being sneaky always helps. In the case of Star Trek you have tachyon beams to detect cloaks, better cloaks to get around that, shields the block phasers, phasers with rotating modulation to defeat shields, regenerative shields for better protection and on and on and on.
At the end of the day it still comes down to sneaking up on the enemy and beating him to death with a heavy object...strategically speaking. That means boots on the ground and killing them before they kill you.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Exactly so, Rev. Exactly so.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
That's what I never fancied about the way Starfleet operates throughout most of TNG (DS9 was much better about it) - you don't go into a battle to be honorable and chivalrous and stun your enemies and give them a ham sandwich, not in an all-out war. A skirmish with a power you're likely to reestablish ties with, that's a different story. But the Borg or the Dominion - no. Kill them. From behind if you have to. While they're sleeping. Before they come and kill your children, rape your women, and steal your land. Or, y'know, the 24th-c equivalent of that...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well that's a totally different situation. During the run of VOY, TNG, TOS and most of DS9 they weren't at war so while they did occasionally exchange phaser fire it was rarely an "us or them" scenario so it's treated more like a security issue. Stun if possible, kill if necessary and violence in general only as a last resort. Starfleet aren't supposed to be the bullies of the Galaxy, hunting down potential threats and killing them off. Quite the contrary, they went to extraordinary lengths to make peace avoid open hostility with the likes of the Cardassians, even under open provocation. The Dominion War was the exception because never in Federation history had an interstellar war of that magnitude been waged. Border wars, sure, stand-offs, yes, prolonged cold wars, absolutely, but nothing even approaching that scale. The Dominion are most certainly NOT on par with the Borg. They're an organisation of many distant worlds under the control of a race that knows exactly what they're doing. Negotiation is possible with them, they're not machines or a force of nature like the Borg and regardless I don't think one's conduct in war should be dictated the likelihood of meeting them again at a diplomatic social. Of course Section 31 has other ideas, but that's why they're a rogue unit and not representative of the Federation as a whole.
(Ahkileez and I disagree at this point) Starfleet is an essentially peaceful, non-militant organisation (which not the same thing as pacifist.) They're the coast guard of the Federation, the backbone of interstellar science and exploration and at most, act as a reserve defensive force.
That is why I'm designing this thing as an essentially civilian craft, adapted for Starfleet use. NOT as a gunship & APC for the space marines. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I'm not saying you should kill them because you won't be negotiating with them soon. What I meant was there's a difference between problems that can be solved by diplomacy (i.e. 99% of them) and problems that can't *be* solved until one of you wins a real war, like happened with the Dominion. I mentioned the Borg because they were even talking about what was acceptable to do them as if there *was* another solution - as if they could negotiate with what was essentially a cancer instead of just destroying it.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
People are fundamentally non-violent. They look for the solution that doesn't require force first. This is a good thing, because it keeps us from collectively becoming bloodthirsty barbarians.
I don't have a problem with seeing that reality portrayed in Trek as a slow-to-anger kind of policy. That's pretty normal.
As Rev pointed out, we differ in opinion as to the role and purpose of Starfleet and I won't bring that disagreement in here to derail his thread. I'd only add that as far as policy is concerned, the Trek world is unrealistically biased toward one end of the spectrum - which makes no sense since they seem to be under constant and unceasing attack and threat of attack by hundreds of small and large entities.
I understand why they do that of course: to show Starfleet, and especially humans, as 'the better man' every time; winning hearts and minds or just plain forcing their agenda down the throats of dirty little independent species as they encounter them.
Anyway, I like Rev's approach to designing this craft. I think he's right in the way he's doing it. Only in the movies do you really try to land in the middle of a firefight - that's a surefire way to lose the aircraft and everyone it's carrying. This ship should be biased towards transportation, and I mean physical transportation of personnel and cargo - not transporter beams.
It doesn't make any logical sense to create a personnel carrier that then uses transporters to send its contents somewhere else. It'd be like rigging a modern-day APC with a trebuchet to lob its soldiers the last half mile. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Rev: Write less; Draw more!
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
"People are fundamentally non-violent. They look for the solution that doesn't require force first. This is a good thing, because it keeps us from collectively becoming bloodthirsty barbarians. "
What the fuck have you been smoking? People are non-violent because there are police, courts, and jails. Look at countries where they don't have those, or good ones at least, and - the people are collectively bloodthirsty barbarians.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Dan, there's a big difference between what an average person will do and what a bunch of average people will do.
Masao, yes, I am don't worry. The lack of updates is because I'm working out the rough internal layout and how that effects the exterior before I start making the outside all detailed and pretty. I'll try and throw together something presentable soon,
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler:What the fuck have you been smoking? People are non-violent because there are police, courts, and jails. Look at countries where they don't have those, or good ones at least, and - the people are collectively bloodthirsty barbarians.
Hehe, I understand why you would think so, but it's actually far from true. The fact that the Earth is not constantly swimming in blood is proof enough of that. Lack of police, courts and jails don't turn people into barbarians. Humans (in this example) self-organize automatically and the vast majority of us don't go looking to start trouble.
In those regions where violence is rife, there's usually several contributing factors; it's not simply the fact that it's a bunch of human beings in one place.
In this respect it makes sense in Star Trek.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I dunno. It's possible I'm too cynical sometimes. I just don't see a lot of evidence that people really *want* to be good and peaceful. Mostly not exactly *violent* I guess, though...Mostly, they seem to want to party a lot instead of doing anything productive.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Which is why the "We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity" crap is such bullshit.
Why would anyone volunteer to drive a garbage truck?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: How about a giant mass driver cannon that rains down asteroidy & cometary death from above? That's make the LZ super-secure, yeh?
Nonsense: with transporters you should be able to beam away just half the atoms in a given area causing massive a hard radiation detonation.
Or, you could drop neutronium pinballs on them frrom orbit.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Or do the transporter scramble protocol Picard used to destroy the Tox Uthat on every soldier in transporter range. Or, to save power, just beam them into space - dispersal pattern if desired, but not really necessary.
Edit: Or, y'know, install windows.
[ June 25, 2008, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Daniel Butler ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So wasteful- just beam everyone's molecules into your ship's stores of water and protien.
Or get creative and just beam out their bones. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I would think using transporters as a weapon is banned by treaty.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
As promised, a very rough cross-section and deck plan, to make sure everything makes sense on the inside. Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I would think using transporters as a weapon is banned by treaty.
What about using them to deliver weapons, like mines onboard an enemy ship?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or just beaming out key components (like on Enterprise). Really, a treaty stipluation is pretty silly once you consider all the hostiles that would not sign such a limiting treaty. There's no countermeasure if the shields (or transporter scramblers) are down.
You should be able to beam out all the atmosphere on an enemy ship and take it for yourself.
Nice deck plan (as always) but this design just does nothing for me.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I would think using transporters as a weapon is banned by treaty.
What about using them to deliver weapons, like mines onboard an enemy ship?
Not relevant to this thread.
Update to the exterior. I know it's looking a little mono-chrome and the gradients are all over the place, that'll be fixed as it progresses. First I want to get all the lines in the right place.
In other news, I've been looking at the Steamrunner-Class as a candidate for the mothership and assuming Bernd's length of 355m is correct then it's looking pretty good. At that scale the read shuttlebay door is actually slightly bigger than the Galaxy's big door and the facilities inside the saucer should be able to comfortable hold three or four hoppers. More if the majority of the saucer's interior is given over to shuttle and cargo bays. Which is as good an explanation as I've heard for the deflector (and perhaps even the warp core) being all the way out there in a separate pod.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm Steamrunners could certainly carry these, possibly the Norway as well, assuming they entered and left the bay single-file...the pylons could provide some coverage there.
Hmmm...a Galaxy could have that lower cargo bay in the aft secondary hull converted to launch these, I suppose. Wartime and all that.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Oh sure, other ships can carry it. With some rigging that ventral open cargo area on the Excelsior could handle at least a few for example. What I'm thinking of is that the Steamrunner is a born carrier class or medium transport. Of course in peace time (that is, 99% of the time) it would act and a mid to long range transport carrying supplies and personnel, even shuttles and runabouts, acting as a roll-on/roll-off ferry for smaller vessels that are too slow for deep space travel. Of course the real advantage of a transport this size is that it's small enough to be nimble and as such a viable combat craft, unlike say a large bulk freighter or container tug. While at the same time it's bigger than say a Deneva (my version anyway) or a Ju'day-Class so it can pack for of an offensive punch rather than depend on speed and defences to run and escape, which also makes it useful as a mothership to the hoppers when orbital fire support is needed, or an LZ needs clearing. Also because most of it is empty space, in war time it becomes very versatile and easy to convert to other uses. Dropships with orbital weapons support, med-evac, munitions, prisoner transport, fast supply runners or just a plain old troop transport.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Steamer's a nice choice I think, Rev. She looks pretty tough and able to handle being a light transport/carrier.
She's fairly small too, so she might very well be able to land.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
For some reason I've always thought of Steamrunners as sort of 'tanks' - fairly slow things with a lot of shielding and maybe ablative armor, with a large complement of quantum torpedoes and not many phasers or probes or all that. Sort of a heavy support vessel. Your vision might make more sense, though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You've been biased by it's role in Armada games, methinks. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Possible. Possible.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Man, the Steamrunner is a cow in those games.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I could never get into playing it when I tried the Demo. After the Homeworld games it just felt...well, crap.
As for the Steamrunner's weaponry, I'm thinking some of those random features on the underside of the saucer could be modular weapons bays that could potentially be fitted with orbital fire support and planetary bombardment type ordinance. So the artillery isn't entirely inconsistent.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Neat idea about the modular weapons bays. Possibly they'd have mass-transporter emitters there rapid evac. as well.
Nemesis showed the Enterprise-E snatching up a shuttle in flight via transporter, so maybe a specialized ship like the Steamrunner could beam Hoppers into the holding bay from planetside.
How else they gonna get back to the mothership? If the area is still "hot", they'd be target practice going up.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
...but then they'd have to drop shields to transport...ah but then they'd have to do that for docking anyway. Hmm. Ok, my argument against that one (under normal circumstances) is that if they're using hoppers in the first place it probably means the ground has transporter scramblers in operation. No beam ins, not beam outs.
But yes, being primerally designed as a medium transport ship, it would have mass transport capabilities.
Since it's relevant to the hopper, here's a diagram I made depicting a rough idea of how I thing the interior is laid out. The blue outlined area is from the base of the main aft bay upwards (about 3 or 4 decks on average) while the red is the two or three decks below that, from the two smaller bays upwards. The decks between there and the ventral hull would be used for loading bays, cargo lifts, those modular weapons bays and perhaps even landing gear. It's crude, but it give you an idea as to how much cubic space there would be and how it still leaves a surprising amount of floor space for the crew areas.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Now that rocks.
The transporter thing can still work if the Steamrunner is useing those wacky Nemesis shields: they could drop shields over only the ventral saucer, transport and raise shields back up.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
That's one of my bigger issues with Trek, and in particular fan treknologists like ourselves: People fail to realize just how big these ships are. They're enormous. There's tons of space for all sorts of things aboard.
Layout looks pretty good, Rev Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Now that rocks.
The transporter thing can still work if the Steamrunner is useing those wacky Nemesis shields: they could drop shields over only the ventral saucer, transport and raise shields back up.
Well I'm thinking the Steamrunner and this particular Hopper were both designed around the time of the Cardassian War, some time in the late 2340's or early 50's so I don't think that kind of tech was available at the time. So I can't make design oriented conjecture based on technology that was developed after the fact.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
They could be retrofitted...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Sure, much later. It could also be retrofitted to travel through time, fire quantum torpedoes and use Janeway's batmobile hull armour, but it's hardly relevant to the original intent of the design so I don't take it into consideration.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Have fun and set railgun-like launchers into the Steamrunner's ventral saucer- inertial dampeners would protect the crew and the hopper would shoot out like a big torpedo. A tad TOS-BSG though.
It'd be neat of the hopper's could join up like the lifeboats (though planetside, obviously) to make a mobile command post- sorta like circling their wagons, TNG style.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Photon torpedo launchers are already railguns of a sort, no?
As for the other thing, the larger model hopper would be a more logical choice for a mobile command base, though to be honest, that sort of thing would be done from the CinC room on the mothership, or possibly the task force flagship. Failing that there's ample facilities on a normal hopper for an abbreviated command centre. Besides, physically connecting them in a "gaggle mode" would leave the hoppers vulnerable and unable to "hop" in any kind of hurry and in the age of wireless communication, it'd be little more than a gimmick. Later models might have a holo-comm system so unit commanders can meet in the ops room without transfering over from their own hoppers, but again, little more than a gimmick as a video or audio link on a short range, or orbitally relayed narrow beam transmission would work just as well.
What they might do however it fly in a close formations of three to five hoppers so they can overlap shields to give them a better chance to withstand any AA fire from the surface. Any more in formation and they'd present too big a target and would become too difficult to mask from enemy sensors and would make it impossible for them to take evasive manoeuvres without crashing in to each other, any less and the shields might not be strong enough to warrant the risk of giving the enemy a one hit, two kills opportunity.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I wonder what sort of AA would be in use during that time. Would there be some way to turn a disrupter bolt into a proximity "shell" to create flak? If they were just to use phasers, it would be a waste as the beams could be avoided, although maybe a micro photon torpedo could be configured to explode within a certain rang of a target.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
When something is travelling towards you at or near the speed of light it's very difficult to consciously avoid it, more so when you're in the middle of atmospheric re-entry. All you can do is swerve and change course and hope they don't manage to get too many hits in. You increase your odds by overlapping shields, but as I said above not too many too close together so you can still take evasive action, I imagine the mother ship would be dropping swarms of probes that send out false sensor readings to act as decoys. Chaff and general sensor jamming jiggery pokery to create ghosts, shadows, reflections and echoes to make it as difficult as possible to get a lock should also give you a better chance, but there's always the chance of a lucky shot.
As for what weapons they have on the ground, I think it was said in that DS9 ep where Dukat nicks the Bird of Prey that the outpost that was attacked had a heavy duty phaser array, specifically designed to operate within an atmosphere. Torpedos would also be a possibility. It all depends really who you're facing. The Tholians for example might have and orbital web system that traps and destroys anyone attempting a drop while the Breen may used cloaked, self guided mines in the upper atmosphere. It all depends.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
::taps fingers together like Mr. Burns::
Exxxcellent... I've got you thinking like a Trek militant now, Rev.
Welcome to the dark side. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not at all. Tactics are tactics, no matter the doctrine. If I ever bother to write an essay about the Hopper/Steamrunner development I would include a bit where allot of old lessons had to be re-learned as up until that point, Starfleet had never been involved in large scale ground warfare in it's 200 year history. Until then it had all been space based engagements, boardings and the odd small scale skirmish. With the Cardassians they were taking colonies and digging in, so Starfleet was forced to dig them out again when the usual methods proved ineffectual. This is essentially why I don't believe in a Federation standing army, or for that matter fandom's favourite "Starfleet Marines". They're required so infrequently (only twice in 200 years as far as we know) that it's more likely a case of reservists and local planet based security/police being called up only as needed. The Federation is so big and has so many people that allot of resources can be diverted in wartime without detrimentally weakening the whole.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
My thoughts exactly. What is a standing army going to do for the federation? Better to have local defense forces. They don't even need to be all that compatible in terms of gear and doctrine. If they know how (at least in theory) to interface with the fleet to get moved as needed then all the "system X" forces can, mostly, only interact with their planet-mates while off system.
What I mean is, if there is a Vulcan defense force then they can have Vulcan weapons and Vulcan doctrine. If they are "assigned" duty occupying Cardassia then they can interact only with themselves and SF for the most part. They don't need full interoperability with the Bolian troops on the other land mass.
A standing "federal" army would be a huge liability for the, allegedly, peaceful UFP. Something their neighbors could hold up as proof of their duplicity. However "local defense forces" with "defensive" posture and training would have the same effect of increasing the difficulty of invading Federation worlds. These "local" forces could then voluntarily allow units to serve in a "federal" role as needed.
Somewhere between the UN peacekeepers and the National Guard. This has the added benefit of keeping the cost of maintaining these forces local. Though perhaps the UFP would pay the members back for resources used during federal deployments.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Your opinion on whether the Fed would have an army seems to be based on how it would look.
That's an incredible weak reason for such a decision to ever be made. The reasons why standing armies exist are the same now as they've always been.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
There is the possibility of how the US Army was until the late 1800s: state militia & guards-based. That allows for some interesting ideas in terms of units: the Blue Line (all Andorians) Surak's Shield (Vulcan-based unit specializing primarily in defense), as well as resurrecting the old Earth units--101st Spaceborne, the Taman Guards, the Queen's Own Highlanders.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
A UFP Burka division would be the most bad-ass thing ever.
Just my two cents.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Burka? As in burqa? Or do you mean the Gurkhas?
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Motherfuck. I lost cool points... I submit.
They're still badass though. Been reading about the British Army, and I always thought the Gurkhas were pretty cool.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Would they still use kukris?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: Your opinion on whether the Fed would have an army seems to be based on how it would look.
That's an incredible weak reason for such a decision to ever be made. The reasons why standing armies exist are the same now as they've always been.
I agree, it shouldn't be about how it appears to non-aligned powers, more about what the Federation stands for. The way I see it, the Federation is a political and economic alliance unified by a common government. It's not held together through the military power nor from fear of constant exterior threats. As such Starfleet is a tough organisation to understand from our (according to Gene) un-evolved point of view. While I don't for one second we'll have solved poverty, war and prejudice by the 24th century, Gene at least hoped we would and shows what that might be like and that is the world of Star Trek, for better or worse, credible or fatally naive, it's not up to us to say "Star Trek isn't like that" because it quite clearly is....and now I've started a rant. This is why I tend to stay out of Ahkileez's threads as we so totally disagree on this point, it's not worth arguing as neither will ever convince the other. Respectfully, of course.
Ok, getting back to the "Federation According to Reverend". As far as how the local security forces are organised and to what extent they are integrated into Starfleet, the canon point I draw from is a line from DS9 where some Admiral is talking to Sisko about Bajor's eventual introduction into the Federation. At one point he mentions that after they're officially in, begins the process of ABSORBING the Bajoran militia into Starfleet. Though of course, I'm sure some of you can think of equally valid interpretation; to me this implies that all Federation worlds have an indoctrinated Starfleet security force that (mostly) stays in the home system (though, I'm sure transfers and sponserships to the Academy are available.) In the case of the "older" worlds this is a no-brainer, most of the founding members had a significant role in developing Starfleet's ethos and doctrine from a purely human exploration organisation into the quasi-defence/security/exploration/R&D/engineering/diplomatic super organism it has become by the 24th century. With the newer members like Bajor, it seams as if the existing military (or inequivalent) institution is made a part of Starfleet. That includes uniform, equipment, rank structure and most essentially, doctine. Now that wouldn't mean the entire Bajoran militia (generals and all) gets shipped off to San Francisco to march in lines and learn the Federation anthem. More like it'd be a process taking years and mostly involving Starfleet instructors coming and training the Militia in the basic Starfleet protocols and equipment. Over time Militia personnel would also train the Starfleet instructor in their ways and hopefully both parties will learn something useful, maybe affecting what gets taught at the Academy later on down the line. In my mind, I like to think that the rank pins used on Voyager for the Maquis is the actual pins used by Starfleet personnel that are still in the midst of integration before they're certified and sworn in as "officially" Starfleet. So it's a gradual process where the ranks are sorted out over time, with certain individuals picked out to go to SFA for full officer training and the "culture shock" is cushioned as much as possible.
This approach may explain where the rank of SF Colonel fits into things, that being the equivalent of what we'd call an army General, but on a planetary scale. Though in my mind Colonel is more of a title than an actual rank in it's own right. In terms of hierarchy it's probably on par with a RADM or VADM. I would suppose it was chosen over other old ranks like Brigadier, Major or General as it at once is both senior, but not so high up as to be above the troops. Also since there isn't a standing army, most of the other ranks become redundant and so the structure would be more streamlines. It may also be a reasonable explanation why the officers in Starfleet seam to outnumber the enlisted, that being the majority the enlisted ranks serving mostly in their home systems, on surface facilities and space stations. Starships by necessity have to have a large number of Academy graduates to fulfil the science/exploration and diplomacy mission requirements. Serving as an enlisted person on board a starship is probably seen more as a path to getting a commission rather than because Ensigns need someone to order around. I'm sure the likes of O'Brian get offered commissions (like Riker gets offered Commands) but for their own reasons, choose to decline.
Ok, enough rambling, I've forgotten what I was getting at now...oh yeah. Starfleet isn't the military!...not the kind we're familiar with anyway.
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808: Motherfuck. I lost cool points... I submit.
They're still badass though. Been reading about the British Army, and I always thought the Gurkhas were pretty cool.
Gurkhas are an oddity and a bit of a relic from the old days of Empire and thieving of countries. The closest Star Trek equivalent I can think of would be the KDF exchange program. I imagine after the Dominion War, many blood oaths were sworn and with the lighting of R'uustai candles and the exchanging of baldrics I can see a great many Starfleet officers and soldiers that fought alongside the Klingons finding themselves members of a Klingon Houses. Still, not quite the same thing though.
The real reason the Gurkhas still serve our country is that (so far) they're paid enough that when they retire, they're set up for life. At least that's how it's supposed to work, I think the MOD have recently been caught short changing them. I'm not sure how much of the old warrior spirit survives in them today as I have it on authority from certain WO2s that the current generation can be a bunch of lazy gobshites when they want to be. Of course that may not be accurate, WO2s often have the distressing habit of talking out of their arses. Not as bad as the Ruperts, of course, but still noticeable. Back in the days of WWII though, about the only thing that mad the Japanese (suicidal nutters that they were) think twice about going out into the jungle is if they heard a Gurkha regiment was in the area. There's an old war story about how after their British "Boss" was KIA they stripped down, got greased up and went into the jungle at night armed only with Kukris and their bare hands and slaughtered a camp full of Japanese. Not sure how much truth there is in the story, but it's supposed to have scared the shit out of Japanese.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: There is the possibility of how the US Army was until the late 1800s: state militia & guards-based. That allows for some interesting ideas in terms of units: the Blue Line (all Andorians) Surak's Shield (Vulcan-based unit specializing primarily in defense), as well as resurrecting the old Earth units--101st Spaceborne, the Taman Guards, the Queen's Own Highlanders.
That's what I was trying to describe - a UFP "army" being made up of local militia/guards.
I agree with Rev that some effort to standardize across cultures would be done. The differences in biology would still lead to a lot of diversity, I'd think. Standardization would probably focus on something we might recognize as web standards - basic communications protocols and some sort of universal system of naming (even if it is mostly via the computer).
As for the "worrying about how it looks" thing. That is always a primary concern. Maintaining just enough tough image to keep from being attacked while not so tough that they attack you because they're scared is a vital component of diplomacy.
If you think that is only true "for the good guys" then read the history between Hitler and Stalin. In trek terms the UFP clearly scared/worried the Dominion - but failed to look tough enough to avoid being attacked. If they'd had one of the big "mushroom" starbases at the wormhole with a dozen Defiants....
Besides, UFP only really needs local forces and a strong fleet to deter known alpha quadrant powers.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:If they'd had one of the big "mushroom" starbases at the wormhole with a dozen Defiants....
Then they would have attacked much sooner and with overwhelming force. They did what they did because they knew enough about the Federation to know that unless it was directly provoked, the Federation would always explore a diplomatic solution before a military one, so they took the slower, more sneaky approach. It would have worked too, if the Prophets hadn't intervened.
The way I see it, to a smaller outside force (like the Ferengi, Breen or Gorn) the Federation looks at first glance like a bunch of soft pacifists. In other words, easy target or something not liable to meddle with their own expansion. Of course the bigger powers like the Romulans and Klingons know differently, that while they're not exactly "Warriors" in either culture's frame of reference, there's a bloody awful lot of them, they all share a respectable level of technology and if you attack one, the other one hundred and forty nine will jump on you.
I suppose you could compare the Feds to a particularly large herd of elephants. Essentially peaceful creatures, but you really don't want to piss them off on mass, if you can possibly avoid it. Safer to try picking off the odd straggler when the others aren't looking.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Would they still use kukris?
Yes, but they'd be powered by lasers!!!
Haven't the Vulcan security forces or ministry or department or something been mentioned more than once in TNG and DS9?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I should say the fact that not even their enemies appear to fear the Fed, combined with what Rua'fo said in Insurrection, they aren't nearly as tough as we've come to assume by being watchers of their propaganda films.
Their sheer mass seems to be a big factor, but they have enemies that are their equals technologically.
I'll always argue that the Fed has an army because it cannot be otherwise. 'Militia' have their place in the form of the local defense forces of the Fed's constituent elements, but the whole is not always stronger than the sum of its parts. A multitudinous force will often fight less effectively than a single integrated force will. Not to mention they'd present a logistical nightmare.
Armies are used to defend. But they are also used to police, to patrol and to extend power. They're used for humanitarian purposes, for training, to provide an avenue for young men and women (and any other genders) to learn and to serve their people. There's also the fact that if you do need to fight a ground war somewhere, it's highly unlikely that a species who has a force built strictly as a local militia kind of entity will have the ability to transport their units to where they need to go - which means you have to do it and have a huge reserve fleet of troop transports sitting around for no explicable reason.
The problem with always using a territorial approach is that you are unprepared for anything but a defensive strategy, and everybody knows that if you can avoid it, you should never try to fight a war on your own land because you'll often end up being the one who takes the biggest losses.
Armies exist for very good reasons. And to try to toss one together out of whatever's lying around the Fed doesn't make one iota of sense. It merely satisfies the Trek fan's expectations of what the tv show has told them: That Starfleet is the beginning and end of the Fed, and the Fed doesn't fight wars on the ground.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Rev - it remains to be seen if they could have projected "overwhelming force" through the wormhole if the Feds had a real station w/ whatever would constitute as "heavy defenses". They had an obsolescent Cardie mining station.
Ahkileez - I think when you're talking about an army spread out as much as the UFP having a "multitudinous" force may be *less* of a logistical nightmare than trying to maintain consistency across the light years and multiple biological forms. Each world or sector could set up their own supply chain. You probably can't move meaningful numbers from one side of the UFP to the other faster than you can train and replicate gear on the side under attack.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
No. I don't expect you can move people faster than you can replicate gear, but you can have large segments of that Army (big A) stationed on key worlds in key sectors without relying on a piecemeal approach - and certainly faster than fast-tracking some forehead-alien-of the week Fed Member through some kind of integrated bootcamp. Some militias will always be less effective than others for completely intrinsic reasons that can't be surmounted.
Earth, for example, might have a couple of armies (little A) fortified there, Vulcan a couple more, Betazed a couple more and so on and so forth the same way armies are broken down and detached in a modern environment.
Anyway, I'm going to stop derailing Rev's thread, hehe. Rev, where's those new pics! Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Hmm. Don't think we're going to agree. I see what you're saying, but I can't imagine the resources being worth it. I'd put all my resources into powerful ships, take the non-key worlds with inferior troops and cut your superior troops off.
If I can keep them from getting out of their gravity well I win as I can pick them of at my leisure.
It sounds like you're thinking of fighting D-day and I'm thinking of the Pacific war where the land forces are secondary compared to the naval forces. Not to take anything away from the Marines...I've climbed the hill at Peleliu.
But yes, pictures.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:I'll always argue that the Fed has an army because it cannot be otherwise.
Ah, this would be the part where we totally disagree and I don't think either of us will convince the other. As for the militia, I was only using Bajor as an example as it's the only (potential) instance of Starfleet absorbing a local force which we have any degree of insight on. Getting the locals up to Starfleet standard would only happen when a new world joins, the majority of worlds in the Federation (and potentially thousands of colony worlds) have been members for a century or more and so the local planet bound Stafleet detachment would mostly be made up of enlisted personnel recruited from the local population who have no immediate wish to serve on a Starship, are on a waiting list to get a Starship assignment or are semi-retired and have chosen to come back to their homeworld in the role of a specialist or in leadership roles. There'd also be a percentage of reservists made up of retired officers and enlisted that can be re-activated if need be.
Put simply, I don't see the ground forces of Starfleet delineated into a separate branch of the service (such as Army, Airforce, Navy) StarFLEET is just one service. People in Stafleet who happen to serve on planets mostly do so out of choice and come under Starfleet Security, since Starfleet are responsible for the security of member worlds.
quote:Rev - it remains to be seen if they could have projected "overwhelming force" through the wormhole if the Feds had a real station w/ whatever would constitute as "heavy defenses". They had an obsolescent Cardie mining station.
Well sure, it's a totally hypothetical scenario so you could argue it one way or the other. I'll just say they with the sheer numbers of ships they were able to assemble in the Gamma quadrant to go to Cardassia between "Inferno's Light" and "Call to Arms" I think it's safe to say that they have formidable resources at their disposal. In point of fact Starfleet believed it was worth loosing all those ships in "Sacrifice of Angel" if it meant cutting off access to the wormhole, so the threat is significant.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
...and here's the pretty picture. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Looking good, Rev. Love the Rodger Young reference Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Roger Young
Loved Starship Troopers. But is that thing up front an antenna or a weapon?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, Rev said this thing was armed with phasers, so I'm assuming arrays or emitters. That doesn't look much like a phaser, and if it was, it would have a severely limited arc, no good for covering fire. So I'd say it is an antenna. The thingies on the front of the pontoons look like phasers.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Would hoppers necessarily have USS names like that? I mean, a transport aircraft today might have a name but not with USS in front of it. Wouldn't it be more like a nickname? Like, NCC 55555 "Roger Young" ?
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
The hopper might be from the Roger Young, hence why the ncc number is stamped on it. Kind like a shuttle craft. It looks to me that the hopper's registry is RVK06190/B, whatever that means...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Rodger Young. Bitches.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: Looking good, Rev. Love the Rodger Young reference
I've used it before, way back when I adapted the old Federation-Class dreadnought into something more appropriate to the NCC-21xx range (yes, I designed a warship, try not to faint!) I've gotten in the habit of reusing the same starship names, giving different regs for different eras. Why should the Enterprise be the only name with a legacy? In this instance, the Rodge is a Steamrunner-Class and of course it would usually be partnered with the Valley Forge.
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808: Roger Young
Loved Starship Troopers. But is that thing up front an antenna or a weapon?
Sternbach's original sketch has that labelled as the "main sensor". In this instance I imagine it would be the primary active sensor, as opposed to the many other passive sensors. On the tactical hopper it would be used to cut through jamming, on the civilian model it'd be used to make long range observations.
quote:Originally posted by Sean: The hopper might be from the Roger Young, hence why the ncc number is stamped on it. Kind like a shuttle craft. It looks to me that the hopper's registry is RVK06190/B, whatever that means...
Correct.
The number itself is just a serial number, vaguely patterned after RAF aircraft numbers. The "/B" indicates it's attached to a mothership, rather than a ground installation.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Rodger Young. Bitches.
Thank you Shik, always helpful. Keep taking those pills.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I can't stand misnomers.
I don't know what to tell you that hasn't been said before, other than I keep thinking those are treads & that it's made for the Imperial Space Marines. Oh, & that it looks a lot like Soviet ACVs, which might actually be an avenue you want to explore.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well in a way they are treads. I had an idea about a series of anti-grav generators running along the bottom of the pontoon and working in alternating pairs to give the craft some serious lifting power and solid stability on uneven ground and adverse weather conditions. They also provide flanking cover for disembarking troops and can be quickly detached in flight in an emergency.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend:
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Rodger Young. Bitches.
Thank you Shik, always helpful. Keep taking those pills.
Possibly the single funniest thing I've ever seen you post, Rev.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Really, don't know what to do with it (but i'm not a good judge of Misl. Star Fleet utility vessels. It seems ok but maybe a pic-in-action would help me vision it (I had the same problems with the VF-25 Messiah from MF before i saw the Deculture episode in Decemeber. once i saw the fighter in action, i spent several days flogging myself for being so weak...)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
