Topic: What we've been up to - from a Modeller's perspective.

[Starfox1701]

Based on the model there are 5 possible single mount phasers on the dorsal saucer. Footage of Hathaway shows weapons fire from ventral positions that mirror the forward dorsal rim single mounts even though there are none visiable on the studio model ventral rim area. There are at least 5  single mounts but it is reasonable to infere that at least some had matching ventral single mounts because no there is no clear footage of Hathaways ventral hull. I can't be sure of stern guns or torpedo tubes either. I have included the 2 best pics I could turn up of the model stern and the resolution is just not good enough to be sure one way or the other. The impulse vents seam to be missing so it is possible that weapons were model on that were not painted.

[Norsehound]

So that's...what...11 banks on the top of the saucer? I wonder why so many... Maybe the constellations are overgunned. That, or the phaser banks are something else.

There are nubs on the back of the nacelles but I think those are nav lights, not weapons. The only weapon-on-warp pod I recall was the Venture phaser strips. And of course, Klink disruptors.

[intermech]

I love the ships and new models, so don't take it wrong, that the first thing that I would want to do is add my own ships. Will we be able to add our own ships, UI and all?

Any chance of using a TOS Defiant, in there? . . .  J/J I know the answer to that.

[Starfox1701]

So that's...what...11 banks on the top of the saucer? I wonder why so many... Maybe the constellations are overgunned. That, or the phaser banks are something else.

There are nubs on the back of the nacelles but I think those are nav lights, not weapons. The only weapon-on-warp pod I recall was the Venture phaser strips. And of course, Klink disruptors.

Yea in SFB terms they could be ph3s or phGs With all the hanger space she is just begging to have GCV conversion anyway

[Lieutenant_Q]

Birth of the Federation had the Constellation classed as a Heavy Destroyer.  Quick, powerful, fragile.  It likely doesn't even have aft weaponry.  Honestly, that makes it perfect for a TMP GSC.

[Norsehound]

Kind of interesting when you think of how the classification system has shifted between the eras.

Putting aside the ostentatious and non-descriptive label of 'explorer', seems like things get lighter as the years go on. The constitution was updated but the replacement was the Miranda. Some say it's a frigate but I think being a New Heavy Cruiser fits quite well since it does more than the constitution can for smaller size and better firing arcs. The Excelsior was also unveiled but as a Explorer Dreadnought since it was clearly heavier than contemporary cruisers in firepower and size.

When the constitutions were phased out and the Constellations brought in the Excelsior became a cruiser while the Mirandas were downgraded to Frigate/Destroyer roles. This is presumably what also happened to the Constellation, started as a possible replacement for the Constitutions (CA) but was downgraded (DD?) when Excelsiors gained prominence. Maybe the Ambassador class was also introduced as a Dreadnought-weight ship.

By TNG the Miranda class is the lightest effective military unit in Starfleet (As Frigates since Oberths are a joke), Excelsiors are the backbone (light cruisers?) what few Ambassadors are medium enforcers and the utopian leaders of Star Fleet call their Galaxy-class battle-cruisers "Explorers", phasing out real heavy-hitting star ships until they got smacked around by the Borg and the Dominion (Sovereign, in spite of being an "explorer type 2", is better recognized as a Dreadnought or Assault cruiser from sources other than paramount).

It's odd... the Miranda has been in service longer than the Constellation but folk in TNG laughed at how aged and clunky the Constellation was. Perhaps because no Constellations were constructed past the initial designs, once Starfleet decided the Miranda class was the more economical option.

Blah blah essay on trying to rationalize television blah blah.

[Panzergranate]

Well the Excelsior mounts 16 x Phaser 1 with 5 x twin emplacements of the saucer alone and is classed as a battlecruiser in TMP.

My plastic model of the Stargazer has 4 x twin Phaser mounts placed around the top of the saucer and only 2 x RS / LS twin Phaser mounts on the underside of the saucer with the underside forward Phasers being single mounts on bulges on the hull near the saucer's edge. The torpedo tubes are cut into the saucer front underside beneath the hangar doors.

There is  a twin Phaser mounting on the saucer top side behind the bridge which would only have a upward firing arc in 3D combat or limited RA / LA angles in SFB / SFC 2D terms. I've no idea why it is on my model but in a 3D combat role would enable a Constellation to exert 8 x Phaser shots in the upward arcs.

Compared to the Constitution II class the Constellations are weaker on Phaser mount numbers, making them more CR (cruisers) than CA (heavy cruisers).

One has to remember that the Constellations would be out all alone exploring uncharted space with no back up so some ability for self defence in case the run away option fails.
 
The Oberth is mainly a scout ship so definately not much good as a warship. Armament is only a token twin forward Phaser mount.

You could try the frigate progression tree as follows:

Daran (fast frigate) -> Knox (frigate) -> Miranda (heavy frigate) -> Commanche (assault frigate)

For a light cruisers have you considered a Podesti class cruiser in the role??

[Starfox1701]

Well the Excelsior mounts 16 x Phaser 1 with 5 x twin emplacements of the saucer

I think its actually 27 x Phaser 1s Panzergranate. % twins Dorsal saucer, 5 twins ventral saucer, 4 singles vental enginering hull, and 3 dorsal stern 2 above the hanger shroud and 1 on top the central necelle pylon bulge.

Compared to the Constitution II class the Constellations are weaker on Phaser mount numbers, making them more CR (cruisers) than CA (heavy cruisers).

One has to remember that the Constellations would be out all alone exploring uncharted space with no back up so some ability for self defence in case the run away option fails.

I don't know if I would call it weaker. Truth be told Constellation looks like a Strike Carrier to me. Lots of hanger space, high strategic speed and a weapons fit that looks more comfortable on the egde of battle then in the middle. Using the ship as a GSC during peace time seam just the sort of thing Starfleet would do to camoflage their true intent from the Federtion bean counters. It would also explain why Constelations are so rare.

The same thing with Miranda.  She has all the halmarks of a very modular design. so she is perfect as the CL/NCL From the SFB prospective.

[Panzergranate]

Jackill's lists 16 x twin emplacements which would give 32 x Ph1's.

On the plastic model I have the saucer clearly has 5 x twin emplacements alone giving 10 x Ph1's.

At the period of TMP the Excelsior is the most heavily Phaser armed starship in Star Fleet.

It is weak on torpedo armament though which is probally why it doesn't quite make it into the dreadnaught group.

By TNG it is over armed with near obstellete Phasers when compared to a Galaxy or Sovereign. Just about a match for a Cardassian Galor class cruiser but out of its depth with TNG Romulan warships.

I would of expected to see surviving the Excelsiors refitted with colinator Phaser emitters (Ph4) by TNG in order to keep them relavent as warships. It was just laziness on the part of Paramount that the models weren't modified for the TNG and DS9 shows in this way.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I wouldn't necessarily call it laziness.  I would more like call it prudence.  Remember that the TOS movies were still going on.  Footage from ST:IV was ultimately used for the opening scene of ST:V, but as TNG went on, they started working on ST:VI, and I would imagine early on in the script writing they knew that they were going to need to use the Excelsior Model.  With that constraint they couldn't do much with the model to modernize it for TNG.  Shortly after ST VI, they did upgrade the Excelsior model.  The Enterprise B/Lakota model, but they didn't use too much of it because I think they liked the original Excelsior better.  I know I did.

[Starfox1701]

It is weak on torpedo armament though which is probally why it doesn't quite make it into the dreadnaught group.

Loadout is the same as Reliant but with a bigger magazine.

It was just laziness on the part of Paramount that the models weren't modified for the TNG and DS9 shows in this way.

I think it was budget, not lazyness. The would have had to build a new model which was a way more expensive thing then doing a new CGI mesh today. The art department quite often wanted to build shooting models that the bosses wouldn't pay for. All the Wolf 359 ships where suppose to get  shooting models eventually but most fell prey to Budget cuts.

[Norsehound]

Hey FoAS, just spotted something. The Wolverine has a saucer deflector doesn't it? Why use that when the main unit is just as good? On top of the other additions, maybe subtle changes to the deflector (Alternate colors, interior structures) could indicate that the unit is up-powered, instead of adding an additional dish.

On top of not liking those oval deflectors :\ I held that usually a deflector is designed so that it is adequate enough to cover the cross-section of the ship when travelling through warp. Mirandas don't have that big of a front profile compared to the Constitutions, so the secondary system it uses was enough. Same with the Constellation, and the Oberth had an interior model. I think in the Intrepid's case, either the designers felt the ship needed the extra redundancy, or the saucer was too far forward for the main deflector to cover it. *shrug*

Just wanted to comment on that detail. Hope we can see more of these ships soon, that connie is the most perfect rendition of the ship I've seen (Matching WillDecker's work).

[Panzergranate]

The general principle of the navigational deflector is to protect the ship from object impacts at sublight as objects entering a ship's warp field, when it is travelling at warp speed, have a physical velocity of zero as does the ship.

It is the warp bubble that is travelling faster than light in relatation to the rest of the universe, not the ship or other objects contained within it.

All object inside a warp bubble are isolated from the rest of the universe.

A ship at warp doesn't need deflectors as it has zero momentum inside a warp field.

Read up Aulbecere's theories of warp drive from 1956, Professor Stephen Hawkin's take on the very real current theories on warp dynamics plus the conclusions of NASA's Feb 1999 successful static warp field experiments.

[Klingon Fanatic]

The general principle of the navigational deflector is to protect the ship from object impacts at sublight as objects entering a ship's warp field, when it is travelling at warp speed, have a physical velocity of zero as does the ship.

It is the warp bubble that is travelling faster than light in relatation to the rest of the universe, not the ship or other objects contained within it.

All object inside a warp bubble are isolated from the rest of the universe.

A ship at warp doesn't need deflectors as it has zero momentum inside a warp field.

Read up Aulbecere's theories of warp drive from 1956, Professor Stephen Hawkin's take on the very real current theories on warp dynamics plus the conclusions of NASA's Feb 1999 successful static warp field experiments.

Half way down this page is a good summary of what Mr. P is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

[Norsehound]

So then it shouldn't matter how many the ship has?

[Starfox1701]

On trek ships these locations are also often where powerful sensors and scanners are fitted. With the duel Combat/Exploration design ethic of SF it makes sence that Fed ships would carry more of these across a far wider range of classes.

[FoaS_XC]

I've always interpreted it as that deflectors are needed at warp as well as during the warp-up.

I added the second deflector to the wolverine because of two reasons: (1) Thought it'd make sense for faster warp to need a supplementary deflector. (2) if you've ever seen the SFB Fast cruiser, it has an arrow-head saucer that I am NOT a fan of in the slightest. I figured the deflector was a move that made sense and was a change to the saucer that avoided the arrowhead.

[Norsehound]

Not a fan of the arrowhead, nor the mouth deflector.

if I recall, Classic CAFs also switched the buzzards from red to blue. How about switching the nav deflector color from blue to violet, or subtle structure adds?

I did note the one photorp launcher though. I thought it would be easier to just plug one hole and keep the other one intact (yes I know, flying contrary to the other structure mods I've already suggested, but the idea is that the structure changes are applied only when necessary, not just for cosmetic purposes).

*shrug*

[Chrystoff]

Definitely with you guys on the CAF "arrowhead" saucer. Glad your losing it!

So, what will you be considering for dreadnoughts and battleships?

[Chrystoff]

Not a fan of the arrowhead, nor the mouth deflector.

if I recall, Classic CAFs also switched the buzzards from red to blue. How about switching the nav deflector color from blue to violet, or subtle structure adds?

I did note the one photorp launcher though. I thought it would be easier to just plug one hole and keep the other one intact (yes I know, flying contrary to the other structure mods I've already suggested, but the idea is that the structure changes are applied only when necessary, not just for cosmetic purposes).

*shrug*

I always thought of the Belknap class cruisers as CAF's. Sort of a reduced size heavy cruiser, a bit faster, smaller crew, slightly less armament. Just a thought, as I know some people don't care for the design. http://www.kitsune.addr.com/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Trek-Ships/Federation_USS_Belknap.htm