Topic: Cheyenne Class

[nx_adam_1701]

What type of class is this, Dastrom has it as dimplomatic and explorer, but in sfc, would it be a cruiser, or a lightcruiser, etc....

Another thing is, the Constellation Class is a cruiser in its time, and the New Orleans is a Frigate in its time, but the New Orleans class is bigger than the Constellation, in the TNG era, will the Constellation classification be changed into a Frigate in the New Orleans era like what happened to the K'T'Inga????????????????????????????

adam out  

[sandman69247]

The Cheyenne I did (Smiley textured it) I use as a cruiser, but IIRC it's supposed to be a frigate...I always use my ships in power slots.  

[Futurama_Guy]

Quote:
What type of class is this, Dastrom has it as dimplomatic and explorer, but in sfc, would it be a cruiser, or a lightcruiser, etc....

Another thing is, the Constellation Class is a cruiser in its time, and the New Orleans is a Frigate in its time, but the New Orleans class is bigger than the Constellation, in the TNG era, will the Constellation classification be changed into a Frigate in the New Orleans era like what happened to the K'T'Inga????????????????????????????

adam out  

Well what era are you wanting to define the Cheyenne in?  Probably in the early/mid 24th century when it was new it was a diplomatic/explorer....however, one wonders why the Constellations stayed in existance for so long after the Cheyennes were introduced...Anyway, In my SFC3 I classify it as a "light cruiser"...in my humble opinion I think of it as maybe equivelant to Voyager but no more than an Excelsior. I'm not sure why they called the N.O. a "frigate", its far too heavily armed in my opinion for that, suggested by the triple-dose torpedo-launchers on it.

[Marauth]

The New Orleans doesn't have 3 torpedo launchers on it, going by the model it has 2 in the same locations as the Galaxy. The three pods are not torpedo launchers, they most resemble some kind of sensor equipment. Also SFB got it's naval terminology kinda screwed up, in modern navies the frigate is generally speaking larger than a destroyer, smaller than a cruiser but almost as heavily armed as a cruiser. Also while destroyers and Cruisers may be multirole in some circumtances a frigate is a dedicated warship - hence the Chandley is actually a frigate. FASA got the terms correct for the most part. SFB is rather the wrong way round

[Magnum357]

Thats not true at all.  

First, we are not sure what those pods are on the New Orleans class.  The Daystrom Institute indicates that they are Torpedo launchers and I have not heard any source anywhere else say they are Sensor pods.  

As for SFB being wrong on the terminology of Ship types, it depends what era you are looking at.  SFB based its classification of ship strengths by the old World War II criteria.  At that time, Ships were rated by Tonnage and Armaments.  Destroyers in that time period where usually heavier and equiped with a wide range of armaments (Many 5-inch guns, Torpedoes, Depth Charges, etc.) while frigates where basically light Police/Warships armed mostly with Guns.  Today, Frigates are considered more powerful then Destroyers for a variety of reasons (not sure exactly what they are specifically) and Crusiers today are the "ships of the line" of the seas.  The reason for this is that Surface ships fight differently then they did back in WWII.  Missiles are the primary weapon of todays wet navies and Warships are rated buy their Offensive Missile capability then their other armaments.  I'm in the understanding that Frigates are roughly the same size as Destroyers, but equiped with a wide Range of Weaponry for different Roles, while Destroyers use Less sophisticated tech for One type of role in the fleet.  Crusiers are basically Just Super Frigates today... bigger, with a wide range of capabilties and strengths.  

When you say that SFB screwed up, it really didn't.  SFB just uses a system similar too the old World War 2 classification system too simplify things.    

[starforce2]

frigates might be more powerfull due to the weapon types...IE cruise missles..ect

[Marauth]

Quote:
Thats not true at all.  

First, we are not sure what those pods are on the New Orleans class.  The Daystrom Institute indicates that they are Torpedo launchers and I have not heard any source anywhere else say they are Sensor pods.  

As for SFB being wrong on the terminology of Ship types, it depends what era you are looking at.  SFB based its classification of ship strengths by the old World War II criteria.  At that time, Ships were rated by Tonnage and Armaments.  Destroyers in that time period where usually heavier and equiped with a wide range of armaments (Many 5-inch guns, Torpedoes, Depth Charges, etc.) while frigates where basically light Police/Warships armed mostly with Guns.  Today, Frigates are considered more powerful then Destroyers for a variety of reasons (not sure exactly what they are specifically) and Crusiers today are the "ships of the line" of the seas.  The reason for this is that Surface ships fight differently then they did back in WWII.  Missiles are the primary weapon of todays wet navies and Warships are rated buy their Offensive Missile capability then their other armaments.  I'm in the understanding that Frigates are roughly the same size as Destroyers, but equiped with a wide Range of Weaponry for different Roles, while Destroyers use Less sophisticated tech for One type of role in the fleet.  Crusiers are basically Just Super Frigates today... bigger, with a wide range of capabilties and strengths.  

When you say that SFB screwed up, it really didn't.  SFB just uses a system similar too the old World War 2 classification system too simplify things.

Fair enough I'll be the first to admit I don't know that much on naval nomenclature and how it's changed over time. I just know that in today's navies frigates are generally 'heavier' in terms of size and armament than destroyers, that's why FASA worked their ships out the way they did.

Re: the sensor pods the stuff on DITL written in white is completely unofficial and so you can't really give that any more credit than my opinion just because that guy has his own site, I've seen no source in background info from anyone in the know (like the guy who came up with the N.O. for example) that says they're torpedo pods. And given that I don't like the idea of little uber ships with vast numbers of torpedo launchers when starfleet ships are primarily exploratory, I choose to take them - aswell as the pods on the Soyuz - as being sensor equipement of some kind. It's doubtful either of us will be contradicted at a later date so we should just as the tired phrase goes - 'agree to disagree'.

[Captain Pierce]

Some very superficial research has turned up the following:

A US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer displaces anywhere from 8300-9200 tons; a US Navy Perry-class frigate displaces 4100 tons.  Now, this is just for the US Navy, it's of course entirely possible that other countries are doing things differently.    I think it entirely likely, though, that the people at FASA knew less about naval nomenclature than you, Marauth.    (No offense intended, BTW.   )

As for the pods on the New Orleans...  I do my best, as a Star Trek modder myself, to shy away from the temptation to create uberships.  I firmly believe, for example, that all that stuff added to the Soyuz is sensor equipment.  In the case of the New Orleans, however, I had to go with the pods being torpedo launchers; and it was mostly because it looks so darn cool.    Especially the time I did a fanboy refit and made the bottom pod into a quantum torpedo launcher...   My justification for the pods being torpedo tubes runs something like this: I see the New Orleans as being a sort of "half-scale" prototype for the Galaxy class, and given its layout, there's really not a whole lot of room for a forward torpedo launcher.  Maybe, in the optimism of the 2330's (when I figure its design probably started), the designers simply didn't give it torp launchers.  However, when the Rutledge (allegedly a New Orleans class according to the Trek Encylopedia or something like that) got toasted by the Cardassians at Setlik III in 2347, a crash program to add torpedo launchers might have been initiated, and Ambassador-type photon launchers might have been mounted in the pods to improve the class's firepower.  I use this version of the N.O. as a corvette in a mod I'm working on for a game called Cataclysm (using, BTW, models made by the Star Trek: Homeworld team, some of which have been drooled over on these boards of late ), and it's a LOT of fun to watch in action.  

Not saying that any of this is "right," just giving my personal take on the ship...  

[Futurama_Guy]

Quote:
Maybe, in the optimism of the 2330's (when I figure its design probably started), the designers simply didn't give it torp launchers.  However, when the Rutledge (allegedly a New Orleans class according to the Trek Encylopedia or something like that) got toasted by the Cardassians at Setlik III in 2347, a crash program to add torpedo launchers might have been initiated, and Ambassador-type photon launchers might have been mounted in the pods to improve the class's firepower.

The Rutledge never got toasted....the colony did, no mention was ever made about the ship being attacked...it was merely responding to the distress call.  

[Magnum357]

I do agree that the Daystrom Instittute really isn't Cannon, but I have talked too the guy that runs the site a couple of times and I think he does a fine job with it.  Also, he has had many interveiws with the production crews of Star Trek too make the site as "Cannon" as possible (much better effort then I can say with some other sites I have seen).  Overall, I like the Daystom Institute.

As for New Orleans again, your right that we will never really know what those pods really are suppose too be.  But I do like Pierces idea the best.  Its very possible the Originall design had No photons (as it could have been a forerunner too the Galaxy) but later discovered that having no Photons was a disadvantage.  Kinda like the problems the Airforce had back during the 60's.  At that time, the Military was determine too get rid of all short range guns on their aircraft because they figured all fighting in the skies would be of Missiles and long range dog fighting..  When the Vietnam war started, the US found how wrong they were too assume they would never get close too the enemy and that the old Fashion gun would be needed for close range Dog fighting.  The F-4 Phantons where never designed too have a gun and it wasn't until later when they installed a Gun pod that they actaully faired better too Russian Migs after they fired all their missles.

[ModelsPlease]

I think they're both comperable to light cruisers in size.Both are about the size of Voyager.My $.02
-MP  

[Captain Pierce]

True, nobody ever comes right out and says that the Rutledge was destroyed.  However, given some of the other tidbits that have surfaced about the battle on Setlik III, it seemed a reasonable assumption.    O'Brien talks a lot about fighting on the ground; given that he was the Tactical Officer of the ship, and assuming that if the ship was still intact, it would have been fighting Cardassian ships, it seems odd that he would be on the ground.  I guess I just always got the subtext from mentions of Setlik III that the ship had been destroyed...  

[sandman69247]

How about this...they designed the ship to be "modular" in that in regular service it carries sensor pods, but in time of war it can be quickly refitted with photon pods? Kinda makes sense if you think about it. Starfleet has always maintained it was primarily an exploration organization, but, in time of war can and will defend itself. That way, everyone is right and we can all get along.  

[Futurama_Guy]

Quote:
True, nobody ever comes right out and says that the Rutledge was destroyed.  However, given some of the other tidbits that have surfaced about the battle on Setlik III, it seemed a reasonable assumption.    O'Brien talks a lot about fighting on the ground; given that he was the Tactical Officer of the ship, and assuming that if the ship was still intact, it would have been fighting Cardassian ships, it seems odd that he would be on the ground.  I guess I just always got the subtext from mentions of Setlik III that the ship had been destroyed...  

The jist of the entire scenario was that:  Setlik 3 was a massacre, not a battle. The Rutledge arrived at the scene too late to save the colony completely, and their away team, which included OBrien was able to save 13 of the colonists and beam away to the Rutledge, whereafter he was promoted to its tactical officer (and the gold uniform).   It was never even implied that it was engaged, much less damaged or destroyed.  I've re-read all the scripts (hence the above synopsis) to all of the episodes the ship was referred to, and none whatsoever gave any such indication.  In fact, for that matter, the Rutledge was mentioned in season 5 of DS9 as being on the front in the Fed/Klingon conflict.