Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: My CODA Akira-class Heavy Cruiser(CH)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hainburg, Germany
    Posts
    1,389
    Originally posted by Cmdr Powers
    You've been sketching decks, Andreas? Show me please! I'm very interested in seeing how you think an Akira is layed out- even if its the non-carrier variety.
    I'll email you what I have, but most of it are just rough sketchs, so don't expect any work of art.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788
    Originally posted by Lancer
    I'll email you what I have, but most of it are just rough sketchs, so don't expect any work of art.
    Excellent! I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I finally got Denzil Miracle to start back up on our Akira plans project. Expect Deck 2 by and by. Email away!
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hainburg, Germany
    Posts
    1,389
    Originally posted by Antonsb214
    So... Will anyone else post their CODA Akira so we can see if you can cram that stuff into the hull?
    Okay, I got into a little talk with JALU3 about my take on the Akira and I thought why not resurrect this tread to show him.

    AKIRA-Class Heavy Cruiser (Carrier Version)

    Year Launched: 2354
    Size: 7 (19 decks)
    Structure: 35
    Available Space: 89 <89 used>

    Transporters: 4 personnel, 4 emergency, 3 cargo <1>
    Cargo Units: 70
    Shuttlebays: 1 thru-deck launch and hangar bay, 1 shuttlebay aft <18>
    Shuttlecraft: 63 sizes (24 fighters, 7 shuttlecraft, 1 shuttlepod)
    Tractor Beams: 1 forward dorsal, 1 aft ventral <1>
    Sensor System: Class 3 (+3/+2/+1/0/0) D <3>
    Operations System: Class 4 E <7>
    Life Support: Class 3 D <6>

    Impulse Engine: Class 8 (.95c) E <7>
    Warp Engine: Class 8 (6/9./9.6) E <8>

    Beam Weapons: Type X (x4) D <20>
    Beam Penetration: 6/5/5/0/0
    Missile Weapons: Type I (x4) <4>
    Missile Penetration: 5/5/5/5/5
    Deflector Shield: Class 6 D <14>
    Protection/Threshold: 17/4

    Maneuver Modifiers: +2C, 0H, +3T


    As you can see in my game the Akira-class was launched in 2354, as I don't think the Federation would have as many Akiras as seen on DS9 if it was a design of the late 2360's.
    The other, even more important, reason was that my game is set during the TNG-era and I wanted to have an Akira, cause I like the looks of her very much.

    I know the torpedo penetration hardly reflects the 15 torpedo tubes Alex Jaeger claims the Akira has. I just couldn't bring myself to include them in the design - carriers are one thing, but a carrier-gunship is a bit over the top for my taste.

    Our ship (the USS Galahad) actually isn't one of those "Carrier Akiras". Her design history makes her a carrier version that was part of an Akira refit program started near the end of the Cardassian War, intended to turn at least some Akiras into more "traditional" Heavy Cruisers. Here are her stats:

    AKIRA-Class Heavy Cruiser (USS Galahad, NCC-68342)

    Year Launched: 2356, major refit 2367
    Size: 7 (19 decks)
    Structure: 35
    Available Space: 89 <88 used>

    Transporters: 4 personnel, 4 emergency, 3 cargo <1>
    Cargo Units: 80 <1>
    Shuttlebays: 3 shuttlebays aft <12>
    Shuttlecraft: 42 sizes (8 fighters, 11 shuttlecraft, 2 shuttlepods, Captain's Yacht)
    Tractor Beams: 1 forward dorsal, 1 aft ventral <1>
    Sensor System: Class 4 (+3/+2/+1/0/0) D <4>
    Operations System: Class 4 E <7>
    Life Support: Class 3 D <6>

    Impulse Engine: Class 8 (.95c) E <7>
    Warp Engine: Class 8 (6/9./9.6) E <8>

    Beam Weapons: Type X (x4) D <20>
    Beam Penetration: 6/5/5/0/0
    Missile Weapons: Type II (x3) <6>
    Missile Penetration: 5/5/5/5/5
    Deflector Shield: Class 6 D <14>
    Protection/Threshold: 17/4

    Maneuver Modifiers: +2C, 0H, +3T


    I kept some fighters on board as it seemed like a good idea for the frontier patrol/exploration missions the Galahad usually undertakes.

    And before somebody points it out: I know the Type II torpedoes have the same penetration as the Type I's on my 'Carrier Version' while using up more space. Changing the missile weapons in the refit looked like a good idea to me, to represent the more advanced technology used, and I had the space to spare.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    OOO . . . I like your idea Lancer, I do. If I were a CAG, in peace time this would be OK. A undersized fighter squadron would work fine for scout and light offense. But there's nothing like 21 fighters to fill the night sky!

    Actually, while were on the subject of Carriers, what of the Curry Class (Excelsior Carrier Variant).

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hainburg, Germany
    Posts
    1,389
    Originally posted by JALU3
    OOO . . . I like your idea Lancer, I do. If I were a CAG, in peace time this would be OK. A undersized fighter squadron would work fine for scout and light offense. But there's nothing like 21 fighters to fill the night sky!
    IMO a carrier with a full fighter complement is something you are unlikely to see, except in wartime. Carrying 20+ fighters around all the time makes no sense to me, as the fighters won't have much to do during extended peactime missions. The carrier has sensors that are at least as good as those on the fighters, so they won't see much use the "eyes and ears" of the mothership.
    And the fighters would IMHO be better used as light system defense craft, giving them the added benefit of larger dedicated repair and maintenance facilities and near constant opportunities for flight practice. Something that's difficult to accomplish during a carrier's mission that might be spent travelling at warp most of the time.
    Therefore I'd say that (at least during peacetime) understrength fighter squadrons should be the norm on carriers and not the exception. Of course during a large-scale conflict all bets are off.

    Actually, while were on the subject of Carriers, what of the Curry Class (Excelsior Carrier Variant). [/B]
    Uhrgh, that's one of the "kitbashed" ships, isn't it? While the idea that Starfleet would build ships from very different components during the DW makes sense, the ones we've seen on DS9 look so ugly to me that I never felt any inclination to give them game stats.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    788

    Cool

    Originally posted by Lancer
    IMO a carrier with a full fighter complement is something you are unlikely to see, except in wartime. Carrying 20+ fighters around all the time makes no sense to me, as the fighters won't have much to do during extended peactime missions. The carrier has sensors that are at least as good as those on the fighters, so they won't see much use the "eyes and ears" of the mothership.
    And the fighters would IMHO be better used as light system defense craft, giving them the added benefit of larger dedicated repair and maintenance facilities and near constant opportunities for flight practice. Something that's difficult to accomplish during a carrier's mission that might be spent travelling at warp most of the time.
    Therefore I'd say that (at least during peacetime) understrength fighter squadrons should be the norm on carriers and not the exception. Of course during a large-scale conflict all bets are off.
    And that's why in the Star Trek: Vanguard PBEM game the ship only started with 12 fighters. During war it carries over twice that. As Lancer's flight deck plan shows, there's certainly plenty of space for more than 12 of the Owen Oulten-sized Attack Fighters or the Valkyrie-class.
    "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank" -Montgomery Scott

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    I see. And I explained it away, as they were detatched to some other planetary unit. As in my LUG write up and explination that we gave it to.

    I mean even units today, maybe be downsized to individually operational units that are a part of the greater whole that are brough back together during wartime.

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    However, I will agree with you on your opinion of fighters. During War time their use would be negatable. And would be much better replaced by vessels such as Runabouts, which can do far more, mission wise in a peace time environement then a Fighter ever could.

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •