posted
That's an affirmative roger dildo. Maybe there aren't supposed to be any there at all. This whole "gunboat"-talk is really un-starfleet, I mean, the Constellation class has four forward launchers, but there's no way in hell they'd use them to their full potential. Starfleet will always be the one fired-upon, not the other way...
I think the Akira was meant to have three launchers from the start, two forward, one aft, all in the pod. I mean, they DID fuck up with the Nebula.
posted
I've talked to Jaeger sevral times about the Akira, and he said once that he wanted the Akira to play a big role, it was sort of like being able to design a ship in detail that rivaled the Enterprise-E. I think Jaeger is a graphic design god and worship him daily for the Akira Class (although if I told him that he would probably stop responding to any of my emails).
Anyway, I respect his design above anything else, including any FUBAR tech manuals. 15 torps. many phaser arrays. carrier-type shuttlebay. YUM. bottom line for me.
if you couldnt tell, im in love with the akira-class ship.
posted
LoL this topic is way off track anyway regarding the akira:people will fall into 2 catagories
people who are appalled at the idea of 15 torpedo launchers and believe although alex jaeger is a good original designer-he has no idea what he is doing with trek ships specs. and despite alex's comment, they will go by what is shown onscreen
and the second bunch are the people who are waiting for starfleet ships to be beefed up with photonic cannons and think its about damm time the akira came along and also buys into the whole carrier thing too.
[This message has been edited by TheF0rce (edited March 30, 2001).]
posted
by the way, the akira registry numbers are all about 10,000 below the uss galaxy, and are thus presumably from the late 2350's, originally. to answer the original question, those red rectangles can't be torp tubes. they don't look like ANY tubes ever seen before. besides, the confirmed tube in the very front of the nebula's pod looks like any other tube i.e. a hole. the red rectangles are probably sensors.
--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).]
"hitting a ship with a single torpedo from a side tube won't eliminate a target at all."
I never claimed it did. What I *do* think however, is that hitting a ship with a single torpedo can weaken the shields, and that if another torpedo hits the shields soon enough afterwards, it will weaken still furthur. Instead of knocking the shields down in one massive blow, the shields would be gradually pounded down until the enemy ship is vulnerable and can be destroyed.
"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."
Huh? Are you saying that a single-fire tube is to a burst-fire tube what a musket is to a machine gun? That is simply ridiculous, as a machine gun has a fire rate thousands of times that of a musket. A 10-torpedo burst-fire tube, even if you assume it can fire it's bundles of torpedos at the same rate as a single-fire tube, is only 10 times more powerful. Furthurmore, I *don't* think a burst-fire tube has a rate of fire matching that of the quantum single fire launchers we've seen: they often seem to fire multiple times a second. When was the last time you saw a burst fire tube firing multiple times a second.
"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,"
On the back of the ship and the bottom of engineering, there are a bunch of piddling small arrays. On the saucer, there are two huge arrays. Though some people seem to think that the strip size has no relation to the power of the beam it can put out, I think it makes more sense to interpret thins as a sign that the designers did not intend to attack powerful targets with phasers from the rear of the ship.
"and has 2 burst fire tubes that can cover the entire ship."
You *assume* that they can cover the entire ship. Those two tubes are forward facing. Have you ever seen a galaxy fire torpedos to the front that looped around to attack ships behind the Galaxy?
"the galaxy is the best ship seen for fighting multiple targets."
Actually, I would say that Voyager has been shown to be pretty good at it as well. But how often have we seen the Galaxy attacking muliple *large targets* at the same time?
"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."
But can the torpedos hit enemy ships on opposite sides of the firing ship? There's a reason why many ships out there have rear firing torpedo tubes you know.
"i don't think that making a torpedo maneuver in the 24th century is anymore taxing than making one maneuver in the 21st century."
Since we are less than 3 months into the 21st century, I'll assume you meant the 20th century.
Here, we come to the crux of the argument, I happen to strongly disagree. I would say a Starfleet torpedo isn't really very much like a 20th century naval torpedo. Naval torpedos a minature submarines that have a fairly long endurance, several minutes at the very least. Starfleet torpedos, by contrast, last no longer than 14-15 seconds according to the TM's.
Also, Starfleet torpedos are hurled out of thier tubes at immense speeds, whereas Naval torpedos are not. Why is it that Starfleet torpedos require that large and powerful launcher? Why not just let the torpedos accelerate up to thier cruising speed of 0.75 c? I think it's because they *can't* -- at least not in a reasonable amount of time. To perform a 180 degree turn with no speed loss in the 14-15 seconds allocated would take an acceleration of at least 30 million m/s^2. According the the TM's, an Ambassador class has a maxium acceleration of 10 thousand m/s^2. I find it a bit hard to believe that a torpedo can do 30 thousand times better. And even if they can, to be a maneverable as missiles and the like, their acceleration would have to be far greater, and the fact that they have to be accelerated by tubes in the first place seems to rule this out. Therefore, I don't think they are maneverable enough to prevent rear-firing and side-firing tubes from being a good idea.
I know we did see *one* example of a torpedo that maneuvered a lot, in Star Trek VI, but that was a special modification. It ran for longer than any torpedo we've seen, and there may be other factors like a possible slower speed that would make manevering torpedos easier in that situation. We've never seen a torpedo move like that again.
"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 believe other people have already covered this, but I reiterate: just because the Federation was not in danger of being overrun does not mean that there was no need for warships. There *were* several smaller wars then, and if starfleet was to do thier job of defence properly, warships would help greatly.
posted
There's the multiple borg torpedoes in "Scorpion, Pt II", which aquire their targets with advanced flight paths.
Second, if we are to believe the onscreen evidence of torpedo performance, photons do not travel at immense velocities. Take Voyager's torpedo in "Thirty Days". If it had traveled with immense speed it would've been smashed against the surface of the sea, the same as if hitting solid ground. Water is incredibly hard, if forced. I remember some test in the Guiness book of records, where scientists had broke the record in compressing a body of water. It was not by much, let me tell you.
posted
James Fox: Are you saying that photon torpedoes are sublight weapons (cruising speed 0.75c)? That means a torp can't be fired forwards by a ship traveling at warp speeds? I thought the whole reason for developing torpedoes was that they could be used at warp speeds?
Here's something else I've wondered about: How are torpedoes detonated? If they are travelling at high multiples of c and detonate on impact, isn't the internal circuitry limited to light speed? Wouldn't the torpedo have passed completely through the target by the time it could detonate? Maybe the torpedo drops out of warp before it hits? Or maybe there's some sort of proximity fuse. Of course, at those speeds, if you detonate a fraction of a second to early or too late you'll be off by possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers. Just thinking...
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
for those of you who have never seen star trek TNG, or seen the galaxy class starship, the galaxy class has ONE tube in the front, and ONE tube in the back. also, it doesn't make sense for longer arrays to be more powerful than shorter ones. if the phaser arrays are more powerful when they have many banks in it, then the best way to design a phaser would be to make a continous array all around the ship. i would bet the longer arrays simply give a better field of fire. otherwise, why bother putting them [the short ones] on the ship, if they weren't tactically valuable?. my musket to machine gun idea was an exageration, but why bother putting single tubes on instead of burts fire when you have burtst fire technology. also, the galaxy class tubes have been seen firing bursts of 5 torpedoes in very short succession, as well as firing the bursts of ten torpedoes. i think that the soveriegns tube has more than one mode just like the galaxies, one of which is firing a few every couple seconds.
i don't think that hitting a ship with one torpedoe would do that much damage. if you watch star trek IV, you will see the excelsior take 1 hit with no real effect, besides being tossed around for dramaturgical effect. the E-A also takes many hits, and it is several impacts before the shields are degraded. i imagine that shield technology will grow faster than torpedo tech (as tank armor has developed faster than tank rounds), so i imagine that late 24th century ships can probably shrug off a single hit. i stand by my assessment of the akira class.
--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."
posted
by the way, since we ARE in the 21st century, thats what i meant. i wrote it afterall. don't presume to know what i mean. also, we are just about 4 monthes into the 21st, not less then three. since torpedoes have warp extender systems, and large amounts of antimatter used as fuel, they are more like a small starship than you might think. also, in yesterday's enterprise, the k'vort class ships are shown to be large and powerful. therefore, we have seen the galaxy class attack multiple large targets.
--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
Regarding the statement that the little phasers are "weak" on the Galaxy. According to the TM, each emitter by itself has 5.1 Megawatts of energy. Is that weak?
Second, the Rex has a point. Why make small arrays if they are not as good as their larger cousins?
As to torps not able to move outside a certain firing arc by themselves with their own navigational system, that same TM that is used against the "conservative" Star Trek fans states that the Galaxy's 10 torps launched in one volley can fly together for 150 meters or so before each seperating to its specific target. It even STATES that this is found to be an effective way to fight multiple targets. Check out the torpedo section of the TM.
Finally, on the Akira, I didn't mean that ALL 15 launchers are on the pod, but we know at least 5+ are located their according to the designer. Where are the torpedoes stored for the pod?
------------------ Ace
"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."
[This message has been edited by Ace (edited March 31, 2001).]
posted
I've heard it suggested that the Akira's pod contains several T-shaped launchers. If you look at the launcher in the TNG tech book, it's L-shaped. Torpedoes come down the vertical shaft, then are accelerated out the tube.
In the Akira's weapon pod, a couple tubes could be T-shaped, where the torpedo comes up a vertical shaft, then is accelerated out either the front or back. This cuts down on some of the machinery needed for the many, many launchers.
-----
Is the Akira armed way, way above the norm? Yes.
Did Starfleet need to build such a ship? Probably. They were way more effective in the Dominion war than re-comissioning (is that the right term for un-mothballing?) more ablative Mirandas for the Defiant.
Will they build more Akiras in peacetime? No.
In my opinion, which counts for little but I'll share it anyway, the Akira (and Steamrunner) were designed when the Federation had just finished the Cardassian War, had just come out of a brief conflict with the Klingons, was fearing invasion by the Borg, the Dominion, the Romulans...
Didn't US naval production pick up any before Pearl Harbour? "My goodness, you want to build a ship that carries 50 fighters? Our heaviest cruisers only carry two spotter seaplanes! Ships just do not carry more than that!"
2378: The Dominion war is over, the [insert 10th movie plot here] is finished, and the Borg are long overdue for their next visit, prompting some to believe that they've finally given up on assimilating the Federation. Now, the Federation and Starfleet can get back to what it does best. Exploring strange new worlds. Seeking out new life and new civilizations. Going boldly where few have gone before... [start 5th series intro music]
Note that the Galaxy's burst-fire tubes (and the Sovereign's, according to the MSD -- you know, the four launchers in the secondary hull) are much longer than the shorter single-fire tubes of the Akira and Sovereign classes. I do consider the cycling rate of the Sovereign's chin turret to be one of the "advanced" things about the design, as it fired off three quantorps a second as opposed to the Galaxy's single-fire rate of about one a second ("Encounter at Farpoint").
The Galaxy's burst-fire capability can probably be seen to best effect in "The Arsenal of Freedom". Granted, they were trying to blanket a small area, but you can see something of the maneuverability of TNG-era torps there.
One of the annoying fallacies of recent Trek tech is the notion that torps to compensate for phasers' inability to fire at warp. Cow poo. In TOS, it was quite the opposite. We frequently saw the Enterprise firing phasers at warp, and only rarely firing torps at warp. In TMP, Kirk's first reaction to news of the asteroid in their path was to order phasers.
Noodle that, y'all... --Jonah
------------------ "It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."
posted
There are a couple of real-world examples of ship design that might be relevant.
One is this single-bore vs. multi-bore argument. Many seem to think that multi-bore = more powerful than single-bore, but typically it is just vice versa - multiple launching systems are introduced to cover for the inherent weaknesses of the weapon being launched. In the eighties and nineties, vertical-launch tubes were introduced for the Sea Sparrow SAM for use in a variety of ships, including Dutch and South Korean designs. While the arrays of these weapons may look pretty impressive, they in fact tell that these ships are weaker in air defence than their cousins with reloadable launchers.
The VL systems of modern US warships are on par with the single or twin launchers of the previous generation only because there are several dozen launch sells in every VLS array. Rate of fire is not increased all that much, since one can't easily launch simultaneously from several cells.
Considering all this, the original Akira could be a peacetime ship, equipped with primitive slow-rate launchers because it wasn't expected to fight a full-scale war. The Galaxy would feature hugely more expensive and complex weapons that would be more useful in war. And Starfleet's response to the more warlike 2370s could have been to equip the initially, say, six-tubed Akira with large numbers of additional weak tubes, because this sort of refit was possible whereas a refit introducing the complex Galaxy type launchers was impossible (too expensive, too bulky hardware, not enough power available).
Judging by "First Contact" alone, Akira torpedo tubes may not be capable of repeated shots. I don't think we ever saw a tube fire twice in the movie (the two volleys fired came from multi-tube locations, namely the seven-tube pod and the three-plus-one-tube deflector area).
It is of course possible that the Akira is an invincible battlewagon. If this is so, though, then why does it not utilize its weapons? Why are Akiras weak in practice if they are supposed to be strong in theory?
As for torps vs. phasers, things may have changed quite a bit between Kirk's time, and Picard's...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
