Page 3 of 44
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:43 am
by Mark
GK....I kind of like that. A Battlestar looks handsome with warp nacelles.
Big J....I do see your point, but the same was said about the aircraft carrier when they were first concieved.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:00 am
by BigJKU316
Mark wrote:GK....I kind of like that. A Battlestar looks handsome with warp nacelles.
Big J....I do see your point, but the same was said about the aircraft carrier when they were first concieved.
The difference being an Aircraft carrier can strike from like 10 times the distance anything else could during WWII. If I don't get that in space...whats the point? Distances are so vast that even a warp 5 or 7 fighter is not really useful when the other ships are warp 9 plus.
They are useful today because you get 10 or more times the speed and range in a given time with the aircraft than you do with the mother ship.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:24 am
by Mark
Thanks to GK, we have a working base line picture. Is this something you guys would like to take up? The design and construction of a Federation Battlestar. We may even need to design Federation Vipers and Raptors as well.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:36 am
by Graham Kennedy
I'm thinking weapons might be those pop out turrets from DS9 rather than arrays.
There are already many non canon designs for Federation fighters knocking around. I like
this one.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:42 am
by Mark
Nice....but I have to wonder about the size of one. It that something that could be catapulted down a launch tube?
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:47 am
by Deepcrush
For a UFP Battlestar I would skip on the launch tubes. Have them fly straight in and out of the main hanger doors.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:53 am
by Mark
I'm not so sure. The cat system doesn't take up a whole lot of room, and lets the fighters leave the at combat speed, instead of a slow acceleration from the bay like a SF shuttle or a BSG Raptor.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:16 am
by Sonic Glitch
I like the
Lightning (about halfway down the page) but I'll admit it's purely for asthetic reasons, and all IMO. I don't know if we could make it work with the Catapault system tho
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:38 am
by Mark
I actually think the BSG viper itself would be a doable design. Just replace the twin guns with pulse phasers of variable yield and there ya go. Some docking arms under the wings for some heavy ordenince maybe as well.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:16 pm
by Deepcrush
Thats a workable idea too. Though something a little larger would allow for a better payload.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:28 pm
by Mark
BSG Vipers don't have FTL ability and that seems ok, but wouldn't SF Vipers NEED warp drive? Otherwise any ship they attack could make a quick warp hop and escape a swarm of them.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:35 pm
by Captain Seafort
Whereupon the ship they were attacking is out of the way, establishing local space superiority.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:31 am
by Graham Kennedy
Until it comes back at warp and strafes the hell out of the fighters as it passes.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:34 am
by Mark
So the fighters would NEED warp drive, if only for manuvering. That is going to increase their size.
Re: Federation Battlestar
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:30 am
by Nickswitz
Mark wrote:So the fighters would NEED warp drive, if only for manuvering. That is going to increase their size.
How much could it increase their size? All the smaller shuttles have warp drive IIRC. So it can't be too huge to do so...