www.ditl.org

In terms of simple storage space, there's no reason why most any ship can't carry large numbers of torps. I once produced this to prove the point :



That's a basketball court, one deck high, with six hundred photon torpedoes stacked on it. As you can see, there is plenty of space to get in and out and perform maintenance on them or whatever, too.

Whatever the reason is that the GCS only carries 250 torpedoes, it's NOT a lack of available volume.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My own feelings mirror SGs. So, thats two yes

Mark wrote:My own feelings mirror SGs. So, thats two yes

Three.

Yes, for sure.

Yes, it needs fighters, for sure.

And forget everything I said about storage.
I just saw the size of the Galactica... I always thought it was like 600 meters long...
Actually closer to 1300-1400 meters... Lots and lots of storage space, so no torpedo issues, or any storage issues for that matter, specially with Starfleet Tech like replicators...

As for the Torpedo numbers, they may be more difficult to produce then we thought, may take more time, etc...

Praeothmin wrote: As for the Torpedo numbers, they may be more difficult to produce then we thought, may take more time, etc...

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.

Sionnach Glic wrote:

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.

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.

Yes, of course if you are desiging a Battlestar it needs fighters so you are 100% right.

The follow up question is what do you as the ship designer do for your next job when the higher ups tell you to stop wasting your time with a technological dead end and send you off to design the NX-68000 Combination Garbage Scow and Radioactive Waste Hauler.

I go steal a Malon garbage ship

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?

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?

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.

Captain Seafort wrote:

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?

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.

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.

Wasn't what you said though - you simply mentioned a gun armed prop aircraft, which are good for CAS because of their slow stalling speed and having plenty of ammo.