The latter's what I had in mind. Reshape the flight pod and use the flight deck as the hanger/repair bay. Shove some blast doors on either end to ensure no enemy fire gets lucky and takes out the whole hanger (or just keep Galactica's[/]i retractable pods and only extend them when launching/recovering craft) and turn what is now the hanger deck into a massive weapons battery.Cpl Kendall wrote:Depends on the how much maintenance space there is in that deck though. A good portion of the flight pod is taken up by the hanger and the workspaces to keep them running. Mind you if you just want to slap a forcefield (or a door) on the pod then you can probably use the actual flight deck for both, seeing as ST small craft don't seem to need a runway.
I'm going to say yes, if only because we're creating a Battlestar. Remove the fighters and you remove one of the whole key points of the ship's design. No fighters means no need for the flight pods, which in turn means a complete redesign of the ship. To me, when someone talks about a Battlestar I think of a hybrid carrier/battleship design. Remove the carrier aspect and you remove the ship's essential Battlestarness. It just becomes a battleship shaped like a Battlestar.Mark wrote:Ok.........here's what needs to happen it seems. To create a Starfleet Battlestar, before going any farther we need to decide if the ship is going to make use of fighters.
I'm calling a vote. Please state your answer and reason.
Three.Mark wrote:My own feelings mirror SGs. So, thats two yes
Also, remember the GCS was built and launched at a time when Starfleet was still operating in it's "bending over backwards to appear nonthreatening" modem, 250 matter/antimatter variable-yield warheads are bad enough, I doubt they'd make a good impression on new, and younger, species by packing thousands.Praeothmin wrote: As for the Torpedo numbers, they may be more difficult to produce then we thought, may take more time, etc...
Yes, of course if you are desiging a Battlestar it needs fighters so you are 100% right.Sionnach Glic wrote:I'm going to say yes, if only because we're creating a Battlestar. Remove the fighters and you remove one of the whole key points of the ship's design. No fighters means no need for the flight pods, which in turn means a complete redesign of the ship. To me, when someone talks about a Battlestar I think of a hybrid carrier/battleship design. Remove the carrier aspect and you remove the ship's essential Battlestarness. It just becomes a battleship shaped like a Battlestar.Mark wrote:Ok.........here's what needs to happen it seems. To create a Starfleet Battlestar, before going any farther we need to decide if the ship is going to make use of fighters.
I'm calling a vote. Please state your answer and reason.
Mark wrote:I go steal a Malon garbage ship
Anyway, I think yes, you could design a very nice carrier type. I just think the question is somewhat akin to asking that the United States build the worlds best gun-armed prop plane right now. Sure, it could be done. The question is do you really want to do it?
Sure you would - they're great close-support aircraft. The Fed Battlestar idea, on the other hand, is daft - you'd be much better off building a pure gunship, for reasons already stated.BigJKU316 wrote:I just think the question is somewhat akin to asking that the United States build the worlds best gun-armed prop plane right now. Sure, it could be done. The question is do you really want to do it?
FYI what I meant was like a P-51 successor designed to fight air to air, but we are on the same page none the less.Captain Seafort wrote:Sure you would - they're great close-support aircraft. The Fed Battlestar idea, on the other hand, is daft - you'd be much better off building a pure gunship, for reasons already stated.BigJKU316 wrote:I just think the question is somewhat akin to asking that the United States build the worlds best gun-armed prop plane right now. Sure, it could be done. The question is do you really want to do it?
