posted
This depends on whether or not you think the attack fighter really is 30m long. ditl.org places it at 14m instead, and if you examine the cockpit at that size it's comparable with the TNG shuttlepod set - and from "The Maquis" we know that the cockpit is about that big.
A ship built to perform the same mission as the Intrepid class, with swinging wings supporting the same warp engines, and with planetary landing capability. However, a somewhat lighter variant, like a Miranda to the Constitutions - the big deflector and the voluminous secondary hull are missing, while the impulse engines and various weapons are more prominent. I'd call both the Yeagers and the Intrepids light cruisers and suggest a reconaissance and exploration role.
All those Galaxy variants from "BoBW":
Purpose-built ships with either short operational radius (the Freedom, at least) or then an independent extremely long range and high speed mission (Challenger, Niagara), meaning these ships won't be seen anywhere near the regular Starfleet. Except for the New Orleanses, Cheyennes and Springfields, which are absent from the DS9 war merely by sheer coincidence of the camera being turned the wrong way... No experimental ships or prototypes there.
All those Excelsior study models from "BoBW":
Either testbeds, or then any of the unseen ship classes with registries between 10000 and 50000. I suggest that the ugliest are testbeds while the prettiest are "real ships" like Hokule'a class cruisers or Apollo or Merced class starships of unknown type.
The Centaur:
An Excelsior-era light warship, a frigate perhaps. The saucer is smaller than the Excelsior hull. A series-production vessel, perhaps of Renaissance class, not a kitbash.
The Curry:
A) Another light ship, built on the same small saucer as the Centaur, and with regular Constitution-style engines (I think hulls are easier to build in varying scales than engines). The ship is a cargo pod carrier, and the thing that looked like an Excelsior secondary hull was just one possible cargo pod. Perhaps Mediterranean class, as suggested.
B) A relatively heavy ship, built on the Excelsior saucer and up-scaled Constitution-style engines. Still a cargo pod carrier, and the thing hanging between the nacelles is all that remains of an unlucky Excelsior - the Curry is simply hauling the wreckage home, and the "bow shuttlebay" is just combat repairs to seal the hole left by the missing neck.
The rest of the Frankenstein Fleet:
The three-naceller is IMHO quite tolerable when you turn her upside down (easy to do, for obvious reasons) and shorten the third pylon (which I think is incorrectly drawn in the image anyway). This could be any of the 10k-50k starship classes, possibly the Hokule'a class cruiser (doesn't it look just like the sort of ship that would find Data and then fail to find out ANYTHING relevant about the Crystalline Entity?). Perhaps the third nacelle is a Frankensteinian addition to an otherwise regular ship?
The Constitution saucer with two nacelles could be a kitbash, built out of wreckage to serve as a special weapons platform (plenty of those in D-Day, mind you). Or then a real TOS movie era design that was retired along with the Constitutions, with this one individual surviving for reason X. We know of very few classes from the TOS movie era, canonically. There's room for one more.
The Intrepid and Constitution kitbash is a monster, and if it exists, it ought to be either a testbed or perhaps another "flying bomb" that can barely move at warp.
The tug is of Klingon origin. Starfleet doesn't believe in tools that look like Darth Vader's torture droid or Edward Scissorhands. Their tugs may be utilitarian, but the manipulators and whatnot on those tugs will be aesthetically pleasing and devoid of sharp hooklike things.
posted
Umm...wow, I didn't mean to start a big fuss, I just wanted to show you my essay. Yes I agree with all of you that the part about "kitbashing" crap is BS. That first para is taken right out of the DS9TM. I do belive that the ship could have mutiple roles because of war time. I just tryed to think of ways that the ship that we know nothing about could be useful.
quote: This depends on whether or not you think the attack fighter really is 30m long. ditl.org places it at 14m instead, and if you examine the cockpit at that size it's comparable with the TNG shuttlepod set - and from "The Maquis" we know that the cockpit is about that big.
Enterprise-D shuttlebay with overlays
I've placed a 23m runabout, and a 14m and 30m fighter in there. Make of it what you will
Indeed, I was going by Bernd's assesment of the fighter and he's usually right about this sort of thing. Even so, you can see that it'd still be a squeeze to store and maintain a full squadron of 14m long fighters on a standard Galaxy-Class.
quote: The Intrepid and Constitution kitbash is a monster, and if it exists, it ought to be either a testbed or perhaps another "flying bomb" that can barely move at warp.
I think that this one is just a poor rendition of the Proto-Voyager study model. Perhaps this is a Bradbury-Class ship?
quote: The tug is of Klingon origin. Starfleet doesn't believe in tools that look like Darth Vader's torture droid or Edward Scissorhands. Their tugs may be utilitarian, but the manipulators and whatnot on those tugs will be aesthetically pleasing and devoid of sharp hooklike things.
I'm pretty sure this thing sported a starfleet delta. I don't have a problem with this since its a purely industrial ship and that asthetics would be a very low priority when weighed with practicalities.
posted
The USS Yeager was not distroyed in the First Contact battle - if it had then the Encyclopedia would have said as much! Any anyways, one of my email simming characters served aboard the Yeager all through the Dominion War so there!
It didn't die and is still alive!
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Why doesn't someone just email Drexler about the kitbash drawings? I think Spike has his address. That way, we can hear it from the horse's mouth whether he was drawing the Voyager prototype, or if all of those drawings represented actual models built, or any other questions we've had concerning these ships. Maybe he even has (gasp) reference photos of the models...
[ February 08, 2002, 13:19: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Mike Okuda doesn't always have the information handy or available. Because it's not stated in the Encyclopedia doesn't mean the Yeager wasn't destroyed. We saw a lot of Sabres and quite a few of them were destroyed. None of the Sabres were seen close enough or at the right angle to identify a particular ship being the Yeager. For all we know, one of the destroyed ships was the Yeager. Only the guys who did the SFX knows what happened in the battle sequence for sure. Besides we have a class of ship called the Yeager that appeared after the movie. Something must have happened to the Sabre class ship so the new class could receive the name.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Its quite possible that all of the Sabers ever seen were labled U.S.S. Yeager. The fact that a seamingly new class bearing the same name appears shotly afterwards is quite conclusive. The Yeager was destroyed in the Battle of Typhon - several times infact...
posted
You guys seem hell bent to make some of these ships real classes... there is absolutely no thought put into them
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Going by the schematic I did above, assuming a 14m fighter with wings that can fold up you could fit one fighter into the place of two of the shuttles parked along the rim of the bay. Thus, if you removed all the other shuttles you could easily fit 20 fighters in the main shuttlebay, probably more. Remember, modern aircraft carriers have 80-100 aircraft of varying sizes in a hull about 300m long, with only two decks to carry stuff on.
That being the case, I'm fairly confident that with a couple interior decks devoted to fighter space, an Akira can easily mount 40 fighters, plus a regular complement of shuttles.
posted
That would only be if the Akira truly was the kickass torpedo ship/carrier that that idiot Jaeger made it out to be. (I want to know what he was smoking when he started coming up with such an outrageous warship design.)
Anyway...
To go back to the "kitbash" designs... I did a little thinking on the subject of fleet size. Most estimates of the size of Starfleet range around 8,000 or so, with about 4,000 to 6,000 full-size combatant starships in service. Consider that these ships aren't just in the core region of the Federation, but also had to be spread out to protect all of Federation space (all 8,000 light-years of it). That means that Starfleet had only a few thousand ships available.
When you're playing with relatively small numbers like that, a Frankenstein's Fleet that numbered around 200 ships total would actually make a crucial difference, collectively. Spread along the relatively limited border regions (where a patrol fleet doesn't necessarily have to spread across a wide volume of space) the ships can be concentrated more effectively.
To address the "kitbash" nature of the ships themselves... I have a hard time believing that the starships were really designed that way deliberately as a seperate class. We know that Federation starships are highly modular, with only general characteristics attributable to each section. Therefore, mating two dissimilar components is possible given the interconnects. For some ships like the Yeager, I'd be willing to guess that the sections are actually fairly seperate, and the hulls are simply attached to create one more heavily armed starship.
In any event, remember that Starfleet was basically launching empty hulls with weapons strapped on to them at some points during the war. So the kitbash ships don't have to be fully realized starships. Instead, it's just a mating of semi-compatible components that each could house the necessary facilities. To use the Yeager as an example again, the saucer held the main weapons systems, while the raider-style hull held the warp core and engines. Aside from power and probably a few crew interconnects, not much is needed. Certainly not a fully integrated corridor structure with supply feeds in every deck and Jeffries tubes installed everywhere...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
If the registry number of the USS Curry is to be believed as accurate (45617) then that would place its construction to be in the late-2340's to early-2350's.
Sooooooooo, it ain't a "kitbash" it's a real separate class all of its own (even though it looks pretty silly).
I hereby declare this discussion ended as the answer is here.
Kneel before my superior knowledge! HEHE!
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
Rogue Starship
Ex-Member
posted
quote:Originally posted by J: You guys seem hell bent to make some of these ships real classes... there is absolutely no thought put into them
Well J, the reason we are trying to find a reason to fit these ugly looking ships in is because they are in the DS9TM. Hell, for all we know these ships could have been destroyed by the Dominion before they left the yards!!
I think some on should call the dick heads who made these drawings and ask them what they were on when they came up with these. :-)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
