Saladin and Hermes

[MantaBase]

Timo Saloniemi

I see what you are saying and I know you are not alone in that thought. I always wondered why the Saladin was so large. In my own mind what I came up with was that Warp Nacelles must be really pricey and secondary hulls must be really heavy. Starfleet battles is where I saw most FJ designs modified. Including my favorite "Stingray" class which I am sure was just limited to my group of friend (or maybe not). It has a smaller primary hull, dish stuck on the front, and nacelle attached to the top, not bottom, of the primary. Closer to what I think of as a destroyer and also why I think I like Kelvin class so much.

Alas, my modeling skills are not up to that task and at least Saladin variants are quasi canon (and they make conversion kits - lol).

 

[MantaBase]

CDR6 just posted a fascinating take on the destroyer over in Fan Art.

Thanks BTW - that was awesome.

 

[Forbin]

I must say I'm not fond of the idea of giving these ships a shuttlebay. The lack thereof is a major defining factor of the design, after all - it loses all character when gaining a bay, or two even.

Real destroyers (frigates, whatever you call 'em poor man's capital ships) of the floating sort generally come in two distinct lines, too: helicopters or no helicopters. And you can tell from the silhouette! Giving a Saladin a bay should be done the Kelvin style, by making it look as if it might hurt a lot. Just like in the real world.

IMHO, of course.

Timo Saloniemi

Which reminds me:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/trek/masao1.html
Designed by Warped9, inspired by Masao, built by me.

 

[Forbin]

There's also this interesting take with sensor masts by Shaw:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=467617
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=116909

 

[Timo]

That's a really pleasing way to continue the lines of the neck...

...Somewhat reminiscent of the covert ops ship from FASA's Starfleet Intelligence sourcebook.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net..._Manual.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100912152509

Perhaps the Hermes was primarily supposed to be the carrying platform for instruments like that, omitted from the diagrams for various and obvious reasons?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[B.J.]

There's also this interesting take with sensor masts by Shaw:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=467617
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=116909

Neat! (And I really like that insignia, too!) I did something similar a while back, but with two nacelles:
http://bj-o23.deviantart.com/art/Survey-Ship-357199544

 

[Forbin]

There's also this interesting take with sensor masts by Shaw:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=467617
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=116909

Neat! (And I really like that insignia, too!) I did something similar a while back, but with two nacelles:
http://bj-o23.deviantart.com/art/Survey-Ship-357199544

OOOh, nice!

 

[Forbin]

Oh, BTW, Shaw's is a complete scratch-build! NOT kit parts!

 

[Wingsley]

As long as we're kicking around alternative designs, design critiques, and philosophy-of-use, I thought I would weigh in...

The Saladin/Hermes really intrigued me in the 1970s and 80s. I even bought the fanon blueprints for them. Cool little ship in my book, until the awkward one-nacelle aspect of its design lost its charm for me.

The Saladin and Hermes, according to those (clearly unofficial) blueprints, housed a forward-launching hangar deck in the lower vortex of the saucer. I have my doubts about how practical such an arrangement would be for a Federation starship in the TOS/TAS Universe, or anything derived from it. I'm not sure if the deck arrangements and height would be compatible, either. It comes back to the question of how many decks are there in a Constitution-class starship's (or similar starship's) saucer and what the overall dimensions of the ship are.

I prefer the two-nacelle designs embodied by the Reliant, Saratoga, and Grissom. The other design aspects of these ships don't always make sense, but the symmetry and overall lines of these ships do have a very appealing logic to them. To my eye, the Reliant was (very roughly) the TMP-era's Saladin, while the Grissom was the TMP-era's Hermes.

Count me in the camp that says a Federation starship-of-the-line, the kind of non-Runabout ships that either can't land or don't typically do so, are not going to be of much practical use if they can't deploy extra-vehicular craft. Some may be more capable than others at doing so, but if it's a starship, it has to have some kind of built-in hangar.

That's just my rant.

Setting aside all the philosophical and design considerations, the Saladin/Hermes concept is still really neat. I'm glad this was before TWOK so FJ didn't give it a roll-bar.

One other design concept should not be overlooked: re-imagining JJ's Kelvin as a Saladin/Hermes. Instead of an upper secondary hull, an FJ/TOS interpretation could give this ship a second nacelle. The pseudo-Stargazer-style nacelle-above/nacelle-below a single saucer hull arrangement would make the saucer a more useful platform for weapons, allowing for cleaner flank and aft firing arcs.

Just my 2¢.

 

[Timo]

I guess my angle is that if Starfleet has decided not to build all of its ships to be Constitution class (or a chain of near-identical predecessors and successors), it is for a reason. So if there's a single-nacelled design, it also stands to reason that there would be designs lacking shuttlebays, photon torpedoes, perhaps even transporters or warp drives. And, conversely, possibly ships that have goodies the Constitution never could afford to carry. FJ's two "supporting players" are a good start at diversifying Starfleet into leading and affordable types, something we first encounter only in ST3.

As for the number of nacelles, I love to consider these pieces of machinery analogous to the propellers of a seagoing ship. There are distinct advantages to having more than one, but sometimes those don't outweigh the penalties. And numbers between 1 and 4 are the most commonly found in the seas, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MantaBase]

Timo Saloniemi

Well, as much as I think they did have shuttles (in as much as they didn't/don't exist), there are some problems with both designs. I don't think they could have carried full size shuttles.

According to FJ's plans, standard deck interior height is ~7.5-8 ft.
Standard Shuttle is 7-7.5 ft tall.

So you need two decks, not one - or at least a deck and a half.

Two places to put them on a standard primary hull are decks 6 and 7 (outer rim) or decks 9 and 10 (deck 8 would require a very large door) because of the hull slope. Standard shuttle is 25-26 feet long. But the "rim" is only ~25 feet before the concavity kicks in on deck 7. On decks 9/10 you would have to dedicate most of the decks and you would also waste a great deal of usable space because of the hull slope - all to fit 3 shuttles at the very most.

The only way I can see around this is either a smaller shuttle - or, and I like this - decks 6 and 7 are a single deck on the outside and the outside "ring" on the ship is utility conduit space. You could then raise the deck 7 floor on the outside a meter, fit a large(r) shuttle or a few around it and have a utility space below. Its actually kinda clever - but it would also have been clever on the Connie design, and it isn't in FJ's plans. Interesting though.

 

[Timo]

You could also park standard shuttles on a slope, or stack dozens of them vertically along the rim, and then adjust shipboard gravity so that each shuttle would still be effectively horizontal. Or just arrange for entry into the shuttles despite the difference in gravity orientation between them and the ship; the sloped or nose-down attitude within the ship's gravity field would then be used to facilitate launch!

As discussed in recent threads, though, there probably is a reason for the seemingly excessive size of the Constitution shuttlebay, and that unknown reason precludes "silo" type facilities that require precision maneuvering, at least in recovery if not in launch. This despite the shuttles indeed maneuvering with great precision every time they land on those crowded and confining TOS "planetary surface" sets...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Norsehound]

FIWI, I figured the Saladin and Hermes were the cheapest way to create starships to employ on a scene. Need a starship to go check something out? Send a Hermes in that direction to look at it. Need a starship with phaser banks for patrol and convoy defense? Send a Saladin. You send these ships whenever you want something done but don't want to make a big statement about it (like sending a Dreadnought), or don't need the best of the best (as when you would send a Constitution cruiser).

Nevermind that these ships weren't really capable or flexible. Shuttlecraft are really only a luxury, used only for conveying sensitive cargo or employed on special assignments that neither ship really has in its mission profile. If you needed to move personnel or put things on a planet, transporters work just fine. Why bulk up a cheap ship with a shuttlebay that isn't routinely used, along with the maintenance hangars needed to maintain them?

As I recall DDs in SFB were quickly superseded by other classes, which would have happened canonically as well. The Saladin/Hermes were good stopgap designs, but with more effort other ships would be designed to do their roles better.

 

[MantaBase]

FIWI, I figured the Saladin and Hermes were the cheapest way to create starships to employ on a scene. Need a starship to go check something out? Send a Hermes in that direction to look at it. Need a starship with phaser banks for patrol and convoy defense? Send a Saladin. You send these ships whenever you want something done but don't want to make a big statement about it (like sending a Dreadnought), or don't need the best of the best (as when you would send a Constitution cruiser).

Nevermind that these ships weren't really capable or flexible. Shuttlecraft are really only a luxury, used only for conveying sensitive cargo or employed on special assignments that neither ship really has in its mission profile. If you needed to move personnel or put things on a planet, transporters work just fine. Why bulk up a cheap ship with a shuttlebay that isn't routinely used, along with the maintenance hangars needed to maintain them?

As I recall DDs in SFB were quickly superseded by other classes, which would have happened canonically as well. The Saladin/Hermes were good stopgap designs, but with more effort other ships would be designed to do their roles better.

It's an interesting thought (and forgive as I am on my 3rd G&T and about to hit the hay), but I think I agree on the not overstating part and not sending the most expensive hardware to do a job that something else can - but the shuttle stuff is different - and general concept of "stopgap".

I get what folk are saying, but Saladin class is still a full starship - with what?.....200 crew? Even jamming everything into the primary hull there is plenty of room for quarters and plenty of jobs to be done. Transporters are notoriously unreliable, and I think it would be natural to have a backup plan. To me, it makes no sense that any large ship would not have at least some physical ship to ship transport better than a space suit - or transporter.

I also have issues with the term "stopgap" (likely just my own). Everything is a "stopgap" until the next thing comes along - which itself is a "stopgap" until the next thing comes along. You yourself gave a very convincing purpose for the classes (or at least for having one of the classes). Maybe I am just in a feisty mood, but "stopgap" for what exactly?

Or - maybe I just don't understand that word - lol. Likely.

It is so very strange that I am attached to these classes but find the need for justification of that attachment. I just recall deploying them in SFB to great effect and we had a "budget rule" and they turned out to be very noble and effective - though not bullet proof. They were worthy ships to have in your fleet that - - under the constraints of an economy - were very useful.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

My thoughts are similar.

My take on the FJ destroyers and scouts has always been based on the premise that warp nacelles for "class I starships" are the scarcest resources in starship construction.

At one extreme, producing only single-nacelle starships would maximize the number of points in space that could be defended, but at the cost of defending none of them as effectively as an equal number of two-nacelle starship could.

In this theory, the rationale for constructing scouts and destroyers isn't exactly a stopgap approach, but rather it's the idea that some strategic points don't require the same commitment of resources to defend as others. So, it would really be more effective for the Federation to spread a limited number of warp nacelles out among as many starships as it can afford to, so long as its objectives aren't compromised, as opposed to building strictly only starships with two or more nacelles.

 

[Mytran]

Nacelles as rare commodities makes more sense if you use the aviation model of starship design - as in all the fuel, reactors, warp coils etc are all contained within the nacelle. Slap one of those bunnies on any old freighter and BOOM! You've got yourself a Federation spanning starship.

 

[Timo]

Nacelles could be viewed in the naval context, too: functionally, they are like the propellers of the ship, but as far as manufacturing is considered, they are the gun barrels. It is not just a matter of industrial capacity: it takes time to cast a barrel. So ships in the World Wars era are being designed around the available number of barrels, or even around specific individual barrels, and sometimes the precious barrels are being shuffled from one battleship to another.

The TNG Tech Manual even uses this casting excuse directly as a partial excuse for why starships in the 24th century aren't created with a push of a button, or at least quickly slapped together from pre-replicated parts: warp coils are best created by time-consuming casting, there apparently being penalties to trying it with replicators. Even greater time required, perhaps. Or then the material is so poorly understood that the engineers don't know what to ask from the replicator, which would churn out identical pieces of potentially useless coils when the casting process creates a range of subtly different coils that can be combined to functional sets by trial and error...

But not just any old crate can take a 16 inch gun barrel. The mere installation of one of those could well sink most lesser ships, let alone an attempt at its use. Scotty's darling, too, was always in danger of failing structurally when the engines overperformed. So "slapping on the bunny" might be a solution that is rarely applicable.

In any case, omitting one nacelle from Saladin and Hermes is no doubt but one way around the "nacelle shortage". Starfleet probably has many alternate, smaller, inferior nacelle designs in use as well (even if the only assuredly Starfleet one we see is for the Antares in TOS-R). A destroyer with four of those might be cheaper than a destroyer with one PB-31 or whatever - and the FJ designs would really represent the cream of the cream of the "second rate" combat and exploration fleet.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MantaBase]

I think I posted that before - but maybe not. Nacelles/Warp drives are pricey and secondary hulls are heavy.....It would appear at least. So yeah - I agree.

In SFB - I found a great deal of use for the other designs as I recall.....so they do have a purpose. From memory, if you were in a campaign with economy you could build almost 2 DD's for the cost of a CA (Normal connie) and almost 4 for a dreadnought IIRC. In fact, the dreadnoughts.....I gave up on them. Really pricey, not as maneuverable and the advanced firepower wasn't enough to justify the cost - say similar to a CA+DD - but there you had two ships - even if one was kinda looked upon by me as expendable (Hey - I was young! and it was a paper crew!).

Anyways....now I ramble...

 

[Timo]

Nacelles/Warp drives are pricey and secondary hulls are heavy...

There might be an additional twist to that, though. Backstage and onscreen stuff both suggest that nacelles might be especially heavy. The mystery mass of canonically established heavyweights Enterprise ("Mudd's Women") and Voyager ("Relativity", say) must be put somewhere, and the magical warp engines are a better bet than Kirk's bedroom...

Perhaps a destroyer is better built with just one warp nacelle because that gives her superior impulse agility, then? Warp speed penalty might be minor, even if there might be issues of redundancy/robustness and perhaps maneuverability.

In gaming terms, one nacelle vs. two means less power available, these things being power sources - but there aren't propulsive performance consequences as such, right? A DD is still as fast as a CA in terms of the time it takes to deploy to the theater, or to cross a game grid unopposed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That's right, you'd think that the impulse drive on a destroyer/scout would perform better than on a heavy cruiser, perhaps almost twice as well.

Of course, that's without taking into account any hypothetical dampening of inertial mass that many fans suppose occurs during the normal operation of the impulse drive, an effect incidentally that I think requires the warp nacelle(s) to be in operation to project a low-level warp field around the ship. With that effect in play, impulse performance in the end could be quite similar.