posted
Don't forget, sometimes there just isn't any "real" explanation for phasers coming from strange places, torps being fired in weird angles etc. (Remember my favorite: the one episode with the phaser on the Ent-D firing out of the forward photon torpedo tube!)
Sometimes, the FX guys just don't know these models as well as we do, or maybe they just dont care/think nobody will notice. ;-)
------------------ Kryten: Pub? - Ah yes. A meeting place where people attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks. - Red Dwarf "Timeslides"
posted
they could be anything, that module is made for mission-specific systems, so if they were to goto war with 8472 or something, i would say putting a few more in there would help---specially cause its a nebula and not an akira.. hehe
Anyway, another thing to consider in the Akira torpedo problem is that a Nebula's pod can obviously hold enough torpedoes for several launchers. To me, the Akira's "weapons pod" is simply to small to support 15(!) launchers. Perhaps the 15 are more like the Connie-Refit where you had one launcher and two firing bays, at least I think that's how the Connie worked...
------------------ Ace
"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."
[This message has been edited by Ace (edited March 29, 2001).]
posted
For the people who are still searching for a Nebula class in First Contact. You cannot find it if you do not have the widescreen (aka: letterbox) version of the movie. It is simply cut away to fit the screen to the standard 4:3 TV format (this is also the case for the two instances where Oberth class ships were visible).
------------------ Terry: "Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, ...." Max: "And?" Terry: "I forgot." Max: "Come on, Clinton was the fun one, then came the boring one." Terry: "They're all boring."
posted
And the 15 torpedo launchers are not all cramped in the pod. There are at least 5 in the saucer: one (or more?) on the bottom above the deflector dish, and two on either side of the saucer (that's four side-ways faced torpedo launchers).
------------------ Terry: "Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, ...." Max: "And?" Terry: "I forgot." Max: "Come on, Clinton was the fun one, then came the boring one." Terry: "They're all boring."
posted
Jaeger said the Akira had 15 launchers. He created it, and we have no reason to doubt it.
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
posted
OK, we know for a fact the Akira pod has at least 4 torpedo launchers, facing forward. Looking at the CGI Model, it is possible that there are 3 more launchers on the lower part of the pod, plus 4 rear facing launchers. Now, it is possble that the 3 lower holes are not launchers, but the question in my mind is, can the 4 rear launchers be real too? Would there be enough room to place two launchers BACK-TO-BACK? These launchers appear to be on the same deck and would be running into one another if they're too big.
Also, when I checked my FC DVD last night, that one "Oberth" definatly looked like a Steamrunner to me. The arms connecting the engineering hull to the saucer were at a shallower angle.
------------------ "No, 3 & 6 are mandatory, so you only have to do them if you want"
Alex, fellow classmate, trying to explain an assignment (2/2/01)
posted
Personally, I have no problems with the 15 launchers on the Akira. What people seem to forget is that there are different types of torpedo launchers. The Enterprise-D has burst tubes that can fire *10* torpedos at once. Old style torpedo tubes that we see on the Constitution-refit, or the Excelsor, seem to fire only one. We could say, therefore, that the Enterprise-D has the equivalent of 20 torpedo tubes.
I would think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the tubes on the Akira can only fire a single torpedo at once. The difference between the two systems (Galaxy vs Akira) lies in thier functions.
The Galaxy, as an explorer, would probably not be expected to wade into an enemy fleet, attacking right and left, but would rather be expected to encounter single enemy ships in the course of explorations. Therefore, it's armanment would be optimized to to eliminate a single target as fast as possible, thus resulting in burst fire tubes and a massive phaser array, all facing forward (since the ship is free to manuever to face it's target).
I view the Akira as a battlefleet ship. During battle, it might spend quite a bit of time diving through an enemy fleet, with attackers firing on it fromm all directions. 'Shock attacks' like the Galaxy's would not eliminate all the threats, so the Akira is designed to attack multiple targets at the same time, with rapid-firing single-torpedo tubes to keep up a steady and punishing rate of fire in all directions. Many forward tubes would also be included since the ship would probably start firing at an enemy fleet well before the Akira would get 'into the thick of things'.
As for sideways tubes and the like, I expect that making a torpedo manever radically just to get on a flight path towards the target is rather wasteful of time and energy, even if a torpedo can actually do that.
posted
James, hitting a ship with a single torpedo from a side tube won't eliminate a target at all. 15 single fire tubes makes even less sense than 15 burst fire tubes. thats like putting 15 smoothbore muskets on a humvee instead of a machinegun. also, your idea about the galaxy is flawed, as the galaxy has by far the best total phaser coverage of any ship in trek ever seen, and has 2 burst fire tubes that can cover the entire ship. the galaxy is the best ship seen for fighting multiple targets. the bursts of torpedos that the galaxy class fires can actually hit multiple targets, as seen in "yesterday's entreprise" where a single burst hits at least 2 klingon ships. i don't think that making a torpedo maneuver in the 24th century is anymore taxing than making one maneuver in the 21st century. besides, the akira was, if NCC numbers are any real way of determining age, built in a time when the federation had no need for warships. having that many nonsensical tubes makes even less sense given the time frame.
i chalk the akira class to someone who has no real idea how to design a ship that is appropriate for the star trek universe. just because the designer says something, especially a designer who did not work in the core production of trek like andy probert or john eaves, doesn't mean its "Real" in the star trek universe. we have never seen a good schematic for the akira, unlike with the galaxy class, so we don't have an "official" idea of what the akira class specs are. a quote by one person isn't official. if it was, then we would have had wolf 359 figured out a long time ago.
many people accept jaeger's statement with blind faith becuase they want a warlike star trek, and they don't want to think of things that make sense "in" the star trek universe. besides, if rick sternbach said that voyager had a large purple hand that extended to flick off enemies, and we never saw it on the screen, would anyone believe it? well, it is voyager, so things that don't make sense are common, but i doubt it would be given any credence, regardless. i find 15 torpedo tubes on one ship, whether burst fire or single fire, to be just as ridiculous as the purple hand.
--jacob
------------------ "Hi, my name's Locutus, and I'll be your assimilator tonight. Can I interest you in our specials? Super. Well, currently we're offering an arm-replacement tool with extra wiggly-waggly bits on, or, for the more daring among you, not one but two ocular replacements! Terrific. You want fries with that? Ohh, I'm sorry, I've just heard from the chef that fries are off - they're irrelevant, apparently."
-Vogon Poet, March 13, 2001
[This message has been edited by EdipisReks (edited March 30, 2001).]
posted
"besides, the akira was, if NCC numbers are any real way of determining age, built in a time when the federation had no need for warships."
Quite the contrary, I think. Going by the numbers, as you say, would place the Akira class in an era where the number of aggressor groups was increasing, although the severity of any individual conflict may have been minimal.
posted
My God, someone used me in a .sig quote. Fame at last, I can retire. Byee. 8)
Am I just mis-reading all this, or is everyone trying to fit all 15 launchers on the Akira in the pod? I thought it was 15 total, and likely positions for them all over the ship had already been determined?
------------------ "Kif, I have made it with a woman! Inform the crew!"
posted
The Akira CGI model seems to have at least torp tubes.
On the saucer: One below the defelector. Three above the deflector. Two port dorsal. Two starboard dorsal.
In the pod: Four forward (upper row) Three forward (lower row) and a hard to see number facing rear (either one or two in each angled section)
That gives a total of 17 or 19.
One could hope that some of them aren't torp tubes but something else...
There's no problem having so many tubes in the pod: the Miranda has two forward and two aft tubes in its much smaller pod. It's just the sheer number of tubes and their rather illogical placement that bugs me.
For example, if the pod is a mission specific attachment, and peace time Akiras (which we've never seen) have sensors or something there instead, then it would be more logical for the saucer to have only the two or three torp tubes (I'd suggest two forward and one aft) that other ships have rather than an over the top eight. The port and starboard tubes are daft - torps can not be used at short ranges, see numerous, references from TNG, but how often would you get a long range shot from port or starboard? And torps are not straight line weapons anyway.
If I could redesign the Akira I'd give it two forward torp tubes above the deflector and one aft torp tube somewhere on the aft central saucer surface. I'd remove all the other saucer tubes. I'd remove the lower row of tubes on the pod, leaving four foward and four aft tubes in the pod. I'd also add phaser strips to the nacelle pylons. Finally I'd increase the size of the forward shuttle bay doors to match that of the aft ones so that the ship can operate in a proper through deck fashion (at the moment it can land craft larger than it can launch)...
Hmm, this has nothing to do with the Nebula. Oh well.
posted
Those three "torp tubes" above the deflector are the launch bays for the Akira's embarked fighter-craft, as near as we can determine.
Given everyting seen on that class, I view the Akira as a blockade runner. Redundant launchers to offset inflicted damage. Full y-360 coverage to deal with ships that pass to the sides and aft as the Akira closes with its objective. Embarked fighters to run interference. It's a penetrator class. Quite probably originally used to secure planetary "beachheads" in the Cardassian or Tzenkethi conflicts...
--Jonah
------------------ "It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."
posted
I can't remember right now, but the scene with the Akira popping up over the E-E and firing a volley of torps - those came from the launcher below the deflector then?
------------------ "Kif, I have made it with a woman! Inform the crew!"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
