• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Federation Cube Ship

My Federation cube ship would have one power source and it would be centrally located and will be massive. Engineering will be located around the centre of it and the bridge located at the top.
The hull will be comprised of ablative armour and a shield generator.

The cube edges will be rounded and not to a point.

Each side of the cube will comprise of 9 phaser arrays and 4 torpedo launchers.

The majority of the cube internally will comprise power systems, shield generators and weapons systems and is built specifically to take on multiple targets such as a Dominion battle fleet.
 
I NEVER thought about a Federation cube ship! That might be really interesting as a far future design that integrates some level of biomechanical tech with Borg-like control systems. If you can't beat them, join them.

RAMA
 
Why go mega huge?

My personal design for the cube has got to be capable of taking on a fleet of ships or a Borg cube, it will therefore need many weapons emitters and torpedo tubes and along with that a powerful warp core to power it all along with shields. The majority of it's size is therefore required to make the ship massively powerful.

Being cube shaped, if it takes on another ship, it can keep just one side facing the enemy and thus divert the majority of shield power to that one square face.
 
A cube looks better.

A matter of opinion.

It's a logical shape and looks better in a logical sense. It's not designed for aesthetics, it's designed to get the job done and that job is to overwhelm an enemy fleet and blast them to oblivion.

1) Logic and aesthetics are often contradictory.
2) If it's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not going to fly as a viable option.
3) If you want something to overwhelm an enemy fleet, why not create a black hole ship or an asteroid ship or a moon ship. It would have the same effect.

There is no logical reason why a cube would be tactically superior to a sphere.
 
1) Logic and aesthetics are often contradictory.

Did I not just say that it's not designed for aesthetics?


2) If it's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not going to fly as a viable option.

That makes no sense at all. It's built to do a specific job, looks are irrelevant.

3) If you want something to overwhelm an enemy fleet, why not create a black hole ship or an asteroid ship or a moon ship. It would have the same effect.

because it would be easier and less resource and time consuming to just build a large cube rather than mine out a moon or asteroid and trying to fit things together.
Also using black holes as weapons isn't something Starfleet would approve of.
 
fedcubebattle.PNG
 
fed ships are all flowy. the ent d looks like it'd wrap it's nacelles round you in a big snuggly hug.

a cube ship is a statement. it's something to intimidate, something that creates an impact. not typically federation.
 
1) Logic and aesthetics are often contradictory.

Did I not just say that it's not designed for aesthetics?

You did. Nor is it entirely logical.


2) If it's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not going to fly as a viable option.

That makes no sense at all. It's built to do a specific job, looks are irrelevant.

Not if you're going to sell it to those with the resources to make your dream a reality.

3) If you want something to overwhelm an enemy fleet, why not create a black hole ship or an asteroid ship or a moon ship. It would have the same effect.

because it would be easier and less resource and time consuming to just build a large cube rather than mine out a moon or asteroid and trying to fit things together.
Also using black holes as weapons isn't something Starfleet would approve of.

Now we are trying to argue what Starfleet would approve of... Starfleet doesn't approve of your plan in general as it's a weapon instead of a tool.
 
it can keep just one side facing the enemy and thus divert the majority of shield power to that one square face.

There's only one problem with this logic... the fact that enemy ships won't really choose to stay in one place, as evidenced by how our ships were zipping 'round the big bad Borg Cube in First Contact...

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZbCNexctc[/yt]
 
it can keep just one side facing the enemy and thus divert the majority of shield power to that one square face.

There's only one problem with this logic... the fact that enemy ships won't really choose to stay in one place, as evidenced by how our ships were zipping 'round the big bad Borg Cube in First Contact...

Yeh because they're either equally matched or outgunned so they use evasive maneuvers. An super powered Federation cube ship will only need to sit there and knock the crap out of the smaller ships. Let's use a bit of common sense shall we.

Besides all that, did I say the cube would sit there? I said it would keep one side facing the enemy ship, so if the smaller enemy ship is moving all over the place so will the cube ship, it is after all trying to keep one side facing the enemy to keep shield requirement to a minimum.

Now we are trying to argue what Starfleet would approve of... Starfleet doesn't approve of your plan in general as it's a weapon instead of a tool.

So Starfleet does not use orbital weapons to defend planets? they're weapons and not tools.
Starfleet will do whatever it takes to defend the Federation from the Borg or another enemy like the Dominion and if that means building a cube ship they'd do it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top