quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6: a little voice in my soul still yearns to call it a dreadnought...
I don't quite understand why every three nacelled starship needs to be classified as a Dreadnought. The number of engines has nothing to do with whether the ship is classified as a Dreadnought or not. I believe that the classification should be used to classify a very large battleship designed specifically for the battleship role, much like its namesake HMS Dreadnought does to this day, when classifying the Yamato-class, Iowa-class, and the Bismarck.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
It's lookin' good as a re-thinking but if you're going for studio model accuracy, yur phasers are off a bit: There should be strips at the saucer's starboard and port side with smaller strips towards the saucer's aft. I'll send ya pics if you want (I gathered all I could when building my physical model and still have them).
If you are updating the ship, I'd reccomend sweeping the dorsal pylons back slightly more so the nacelles don't obstruct the aft saucer phasers. I did that on my model and it really made the diffrence in the ship's looks and functionalty. Docking ports and escape pods are always a plus on srships too. Just my .02
Click on my sig-line for my finished Niagra class model.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
You're right about the phaser strips, haven't got round to doing those yet, (or retexturing the ship properly) but beyond that this version is based on all the model photos I've got, as seen here. I'm not aware of any others...
Judging by this photo it looks as though the dorsal nacelles do hang over the saucer aft phasers. Cheers though Jason, and your model looks great..
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Nope. The term Dreadnought originated from the HMS Dreadnought of the year 1906 because she was the first All-Big Gun ship. Previous battleships had two to four big guns (12" or similar) and many smaller guns (5" to 10"). The HMS Dreadnought had 10 12" and very, very smaller guns. No intermiate guns like before. From there on, every ship was considered a Dreadnought. However there are varients of this term however such as the Super Dreadnought, first used on the Orion class battleships. They were termed this becaause all previous battleships even the dreadnoughts possessed 12" guns. The Orion class possessed 13.5" guns and were heavier.
The term Dreadnought is only refered to the World War I era battleships. Every battleship built after WWI, was merely termed battleship or fast battleship. The Bismark, Yamato, and the Iowa are all fast battleships. The Yamato was termed Super Battleship by a few because she is the heaviest of all the battleships ever built. Though this is a false term since it's now widely known by the "battleship-folk", that the American Iowa class is near match for the Yamato at 15,000 less tons.
So therefore the term dreadnought used in the old TOS technical manual is incorrect. The Federation class is a battleship, there has to be a smaller battleship than the Federation class to make her a Dreadnought.
The Niagara class is not a Dreadnought, but she can be considered a battleship if she was built as a battleship. So if the Niagara class is a battleship than the Galaxy class can be considered a Dreadnought and the Sovereign class, a Super Dreadnought. But this is using old World War terms. Nowadays there are no battleships, no heavy cruisers, just cruisers, destroyers, frigates and carriers.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey I like the work you've done on the ship - but shouldn't there be some more hull detailing (like aztec patterns) on the top shuttlebay roof and the nacelle pylons?
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: So therefore the term dreadnought used in the old TOS technical manual is incorrect. The Federation class is a battleship, there has to be a smaller battleship than the Federation class to make her a Dreadnought.
The Niagara class is not a Dreadnought, but she can be considered a battleship if she was built as a battleship. So if the Niagara class is a battleship than the Galaxy class can be considered a Dreadnought and the Sovereign class, a Super Dreadnought. But this is using old World War terms. Nowadays there are no battleships, no heavy cruisers, just cruisers, destroyers, frigates and carriers.
false assumption: Trek goes by current naval terms.
since we know that there are heavy cruisers in trek (the Connie was never a HC in dialogue, but the Ambassador was, and the Connie has computer readouts indicating its a class i heavy cruiser) it seems to follow that Trek does not follow the current naval definition which may have phased out heavy cruiser as a classification. we also know that Trek breaks from US parlance in that, in TOS (and ENT), they use the rank commodore. obviously we cannot require the Trek universe to conform to modern military terms and definitions, its more of a mixture of historical qualifications.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
One has to wonder whether any analogies to current or past naval practices work for Starfleet.
Regarding the annoying habit of designating all three-nacellers as dreadnoughts, there is some real-world precedent there: nacelles are very analogous to propellers, and the short and long definition of "frigate" in late WWII and immediate postwar era used to be "single-shaft warship". Add nothing but a shaft and you get a destroyer.
Going back farther, nacelles could be likened to the rigging of sailing ships, again a major name-determining factor.
So generally, it would be easy to postulate a system where nacelle count is decisive in naming. All two-nacellers would be cruisers, I guess, while all single-nacellers could be destroyers or somesuch. Yet we know a four-naceller is a ("star") cruiser...
Personally, I see the Niagaras being closest to the Ambassadors in design and equipment balance (even including the apparent lack of torpedoes!) - thus, for me a Niagara is a heavy cruiser. Then again, if canon some day tells me otherwise, I'll happily accept. After all, the more designations and "roles" Starfleet ships have, the better. It's pretty silly for them to have sixteen completely dissimilar types of "cruisers"...
posted
IIRC, the DS9TM uses the various naval terms as well -- and they label the Akira as a heavy cruiser. (I know, I know... the DS9TM's appendix is a PoS. )
One other potentially interesting idea is that Starfleet may use the frigate classification as a heavier type than the destroyer. Taking the (conjectural) New Orleans-class ships that were mentioned-but-not-seen in TNG's "Consipiracy," it seems that those ships would be heavier than the Defiant- and Saber-class types, which, although called "escorts" in episode dialogue, best fit into the destroyer category, since escorting is a destroyer's role. At least in today's navy, that is.
One other confusion (at least for me) is the use of the term "explorer." That's certainly logical, but it's also a bit less descriptive of the size and capability of the ship (compared to "heavy cruiser" or "destroyer"), since an explorer could be really big (like a Galaxy) or relatively small (like an Intrepid). I've wondered if Starfleet has introduced a sort of "meta-classification" system, where they've got explorers (for any sort of exploration or survey platform), cruisers (large combat/patrol types), and escorts (small combat/patrol types) -- and this in addition to the traditional cruiser/frigate/destroyer nomenclature.
Complicated, I know...
-------------------- “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
I myself see one problem with this design (but not with the model)... either shuttlebay is extra-short, or it features two pylons in the middle... Maybe you could move those pylons forward a bit?
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
