posted
This may have been asked before but what are the official specs for the Akira Class Starships? I have heard that they have 15 torpedo launchers and provisions for 150 fighters but you never see evidence of this on screen as far as I know. Please let me know. Thanks.
Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
Well, at least he didn't ask when they were commissioned.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Supposedly, the designer of the ship thought it should have a ton of launchers and it's been speculated that it's a fighter carrier. But as you say, we never get any evidence of this on screen. The closest looks we get of the ship are in First Contact and Voyager's "Message in a Bottle". And neither of those give us an in depth tour of the ship's capabilities.
I'm of the opinion that the ship is older than the galaxy class and it just so happens that we hadn't seen any of them prior to FC.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Harry: This is a bit of an old question, and the 15 torptube figure is silly and 'fanboyish', IMHO.
I would rather believe the Akira is a less impressive ship slightly older than the Enterprise-D.
And there is zero on-screen evidence for �berspecs for the Akira (or any specs for that matter).
I disagree about the 15 torptubes. The designer included them, so that should be considered. Depending on the rate of fire, though, that may not be so big a deal. The Akira was supposedly (according to the designer) a combination gunship/aircraft carrier, whereas the Enterprise is an Explorer. So an Explorer, with lots of space dedicated to survey and research facilities, might use a few tubes with a high rate of fire (to compensate for the low number of delivery systems), whereas a ship designed to be a combatant might have more delivery systems, at a lower rate of fire, for improved accuracy, reliability and redundancy. This is also why I figured the Enterprise refit added about 12 phasers - not to have more firepower, but to help ensure that a weapons hit would not totally disarm her. Another example would be current navy designs - older ships have a onee-arm or two-arm bandit, a missile launch system drawing from a magazine. Newer ships use VLS, or Vertical launch system. Each missile is in it's own launch tube, and fires independently. Fewer moving parts, fewer systems to break down, and an increse in overall rate of fire. The only disadvantage is the loss of direct trajectory, since the VLS fires within a very limited arc from 90 degrees.
Now, since the Akira was supposedly a new ship at the time of First Contact, why do you prefer it to be a Galaxy contemporary? I ask out of curiousity, not criticism.
-------------------- Darkwing If you don't drink the kool-aid, you're a *baaad* person - Rev Jim Jones It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion - William Ralph Inge Almond kool-aid, anyone? - DW [email protected]
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The speculation that the Akira class is a bit older comes from the fact that the ship we see in FC has a registry number lower than the U.S.S. Galaxy. I believe it's in the 6XXXX range.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
IMO, the nacelles look like an older design, and the wide-oval saucer has always seemed to be a Galaxy-Nebula-New Orleans contemporary, and its correct the registry is from the NO/Nebula pre Galaxy 6xxx xgroupings.
The only real selling point on it being a Sovereign contemporary are the different shaped escape pod hatches, but they could be the result of a refit or simply a hatch design which is just as old but was only used on certain vessels.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks all for the answers on age speculation. I'll have to think about that for a bit before I decide which I prefer, but your points in favor of an older ship do make sense.
-------------------- Darkwing If you don't drink the kool-aid, you're a *baaad* person - Rev Jim Jones It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion - William Ralph Inge Almond kool-aid, anyone? - DW [email protected]
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
150 fighters is a bit much. I did an analysis of the GCS main shuttlebay a while back, and we proved that it should be able to support 12 fighters easily, space-wise. Wish I could remember where I put that piture...
posted
Not too mention that the fighters we have seen seem to be able to operate without a 'mothership'. They are quite big, and could easily be as capable as Runabouts. There doesn't seem to be a particular need for fighter/shuttle-carriers.
posted
The only sticking point for requiring a carrier of some kind would be whether or not the fighters are warp-capable. For all we know, the fighters seen in DS9 episodes could have been based off of the various Galaxies and Akirae.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
the opening left though, is that while large fighters seem to have warp drives and independant capability, there is still the nominal possibility of a sub-light fighter design, between the size of a shuttle and a shuttlepod.. a GCS or any vessel could potentially support dozens of these.. the only problem is they dont fit into the milieu very well, since most Trek battles are at Warp Speed and with heavily shielded vessels.. however, sublight fighters could be useful in space-station assaults or planetary interdiction.. but it seems these special purpose craft would hardly be standard issue for long range starships, possibly they are only used in inner space scenarios, which would actually create the need fora carrier design to deploy them, since it would simply be inefficient to include them in anybody else's arsenal, for their near uselessness in many situations.
BTW, i liked Diane Carey's depiction of sublight attackcraft, she called them sleds, they were a little bigger than a shuttlepod but smaller than a full scale short-rang-warp shuttlecraft, and could only be used in specialized situations.. the original Enterprise only had a handful (in "Dreadnought!") and Starbase 10 deployed some for a diplomatic retrieval in "Red Sector" (they were used as the equivalent of a choppers jet-fighter cover in a 'last flight from Saigon'-type scenario).. so basically it makes sense that we never see them, since the whole of filmed star Trek doesnt deal with these types of scenario
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
While we never see the big fleets actually go to warp or drop out of it, that I can recall*, we do see "Peregrines" out in their formations both before and after, suggesting that they didn't need to dock inbetween. Plus they have glowy blue bits, which on a Federation ship is a pretty good indicator of warp capability.
*: Multiple warp flashes are one of my favorite little details, and one way to see the evolution of special effects is to note how we almost never saw more than one ship go to warp before Enterprise, with the exception of Generations. In fact, was Generations the first time we saw more than one flash at a time? I could be way off on this. Anyway, one of my favorite moments of this comes at the end of the recent "Future Tense," where the Tholian ships jump to warp at just slightly different moment, and their warp flashes go off like fireworks. Imagine if they had had the resources to animate flashes for all the ships in, say "Sacrifice of Angels." Oh yes.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Doesn't matter much wether warp capability would dictate if they're ACTUALLY based on a ship; odds are that they wouldn't be very fast regardless. Shuttles are warp capable, and are stationed on starships all the time.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
