Centauri Class Cruiser

We actually have "dreadnoughts" in the PCG smaller than this ship, the term all together is something of a misonmer throughout the lab and here that basically is used to describe a powerful ship. wrote:

Actually, Trek (and more specifically EU Trek) get's this wrong too, calling everything from refitted Galaxy class heavy exploration ships dreadnoughts, to self guided anti planetary missiles only a couple hundred meters long dreadnoughts.

if the missiles tear a decent enough hole in a ship, everything/everybody inside would be sucked out. wrote:

"In the event of an outer hull breach, emergency force fields were automatically deployed to protect the damaged part from the influences of space; at the same time they prevented decompression of the entire deck by keeping the atmosphere in. During critical situations, such as ship-to-ship battles, if the main defensive force field was ruptured and a section of the ship was destroyed, it took longer for the computer to re-establish the structural integrity field than usual because of the large energy demands already placed on the vessel. In this short space of time, sections of a vessel could indeed be exposed to the vacuum of space." ___ Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki

I don't know why dreadnought classification is such a crazy issue. Personally, I visualize the scale as something like this, going from smallest-sized ships to the largest ones:

Corvette>Frigate>Destroyer/Cruiser>Battlecruiser>Battleship>Titan/Dreadnought

This should be the main tier-system we use.

@kojan: Corvettes really can be just fast cruisers, or fast frigates. Destroyers also are smaller than Frigates (have you never played battleship?!?  )  And you completely forgot supercruisers! The most important class of all! They'remore of come after the dreadnought on your scale.

That's our next project it seems, we've been meaning to make a comprehensive classification system for a while. Or maybe we should just have each group make their own. (As I know mine is based on size and role, and those look more like they're based on size/general power)

@Mightyman: Balanced? Pfft, who cares about balance? obviously you are some sort of jedi, whereas we sith don't care about Honestly, I don't think balance should be placed quite as high as you are compared to realism. Also, photon torpedoes with anti-matter warheads wouldn't come close to destroying a continent.

Also, about mass produced = less quality, I have only a few words: Cruise missiles, nukes, AK-47s, B-17s, P-51s, Apache Gunships, Hellfire missiles, F-16s, Android Phones, Honda Accords, Ford 150s, Dodge Chargers, blueberries, cookies, Gerber Knives, 550 paracord, ball-point pens (certain ones), certain guitars, and pianos, the list goes on.

Excuse me, Mr. Admins, this conversation is officially off-topic. I am hereby arresting all three of us for disorderly, off-topic conduct.

.....You(r avie) grew a beard.......

Time to move it to the comlink center

And here's me being a bad example.

To be fair, two of my posts above I was still on topic, I edited it to include stuff about the ship's missiles.

@Mightyman: IDK, maybe dedicated, but it doesn't seem OP enough for me. I find the KMR-17s practical, but if you insist, I'll change it.
@Dino: Well, the missile itself, combined with internal explosions would cause damage anyway.
@Kojan: I failed that scale already.
@Ant: My point exactly, for simplicty, just put anything made for the US military.

@PXR: eeehhh, I wouldn't go that far, there's been atleast just as much junk as there has been amazing.

And I wouldn't change the missiles, besides, it's only a general guideline, really it varies ship to ship. I would give it a better change of destroying the the Argo than the Empress, both are big powerful ships, but the Empress (I believe) has better shields, and more armor/more size. But both are "dreadnoughts".

@Ant: Ok.

Wow, this thing is considered "popular"?

You're welcome

Seriously, though-

Ant- I believe you misunderstand. Why does the navy use destroyers as pickets for carrier groups instead of destroyers? Sure they're more powerful than destroyers, but you can't pump'em out quickly or cheaply enough to be cost-effective. Now, obviously in the PCG-verse, we pretty much have bottomless coffers, so balance needs to step in; hence why we don't have corvettes running around with capital-ship-destroying superweapons (also, it would make our precious supercruisers obsolete. You know why the US navy doesn't use battleships at all now? All that steel is no match for one or two MiG-launched Exocet missiles- or one of China's carrier-killers).

And on the point of torpedoes- a matter/antimatter reaction has a mass-to-energy conversion rate of ~99%. Nukes, for reference, have rates closer to 1%, so it's fair to say that an antimatter warhead has the explosive power of roughly 100 time that of a similarly-sized nuke warhead. Now, if I remember correctly (which I probably don't, but whatever ) the ST technical guide stated that the torpedoes of Kirks era -400 years before the PCG-verse- had a warhead size of several kilos; given the advances in technology, the warhead size would now probably be much larger. So you're right, it probably wouldn't take out a continent, but it would be pretty devastating.

All this said, we should probably move this to the off-topic section.

@Mightyman: In modern naval warfare (as in today not 2500 or whatever ), battleships are obsolete because of what you said, but carriers can project fighter forces over long distances, which would easily destroy a normal ship. And missiles are my exact point: if a long-range missile can take out a battleship, it's practical, instead of wasting lives by using other ships to take them out at close-range engagement. Fighters can do the job, but in space naval warfare, it takes a lot more fighters and costs more lives to destroy. On the other hand, several KMR-17s can take out the enemy vessel before it can hit it and it's fleet, minimizing friendly casualties. Of course, missiles have their drawbacks; expensive, need to reload, etc. But in war, these missiles could make the difference between victory and defeat by taking out the largest, deadliest ships. Thirty ships lost or none lost. Thousands of casualties or almost none. It's these factors that make the cruiser practical and necessary for the PXE's Navy and its survival.

That's my point- Why have these massive battleships and supercruisers if they can just be crippled/destroyed without the chance of retaliation? If typical run-of-the-mill cruisers can take them out without even a chance of counterattack, then our vaunted supercruisers are huge wastes of money- and deathtraps for their (rather elite) crew. And since money isn't an obstacle, these cruisers effectively render all larger vessels completely obsolete. See my point? Yes, I agree that based on their size, they should be able to devastate battleships; but for the purposes of balance, they shouldn't.

Ah, but there are Battleships, and there are BATTLESHIPS. The Yamota and the Bismarck for example were battleships, but unlike anything we'd ever seen... and they were HARD to destroy.

Also, I see no reason why giant (35+ meter long) missiles wouldn't be just as destructive as waves of tiny (2 meter long) torpedoes. If our super ships are too easily taken out by realistic tech, then it's our ships that need to change, not the tech.

That said, I think that it should take several, say, dozen hits, to an un shielded/weakened shielded super battleship, hitting critical areas, to severely damage it, much less destroy it. Also, in Trek, photon torpedoes are weak against shields, but strong against armor, perhaps these missiles are similar?

@Mightyman: Well, the US is wealthy enough to purchase cruise missiles for every destroyer and SLBMs for all their subs...
@Dino: Ok, I can agree with that. Yeah, since normal projectiles are mostly obsolete against shields, which is the purpose of the ShockERs. So Superbattleship as in the St. George or so? Although the St. George would take a lot of missiles...

No, the St. George is what is known as a Supercruiser.

And the U.S. thinks that it's wealthy enough to purchase cruise missiles for every destroyer and SLBMs for all their subs and welfare for the rest. Big difference.

Exactly, The St. G, the Empress, the Patriarch, the giant ships that dwarf all others (well, that'd be most Borg cubes too... )

The borg know where it's at.

@Ant: Lol.
@Dino: And the Spectres. Can you give an example of a Superbattleship?

The st. George, the Empress, the Patriarch, those are the 3 that come to mind.

@dino: I was under the impression that those where supercruisers not superbattleships, actually, I've never really seen a ship made that we called a superbattleship, I've seen destoryers, frigates, cruisers, battleships, and supercruisers. And a handful of corvettes, usually meant to denote something faster, not necessarily size related.

@Dino: Okay, thanks.
@Ant: I called my Orion from the LUCL a Superbattleship.

Supercruisers are tricky... we never really HAD designated battleships, much less super battleships. supercruisers was just more fun to say than "battleships." I think that "supercruiser" could be interchangeable with "battleship" with the one key difference perhaps, that the supercruiser is faster at sublight.

@Dino: Okay, but I think battleship is runner to say than supercruiser. During the planetary Alliance times, before PXE, supercruisers (for me at least) were larger and more powerful than average battleships (i.e Capricorn Class Battleship) with about the same armor, speed, and fighter complement. Superbattleships (i.e Orion Class Superbattleship) were larger than supercruisers (i.e Polaris a lass Supercruiser) with even more firepower and armor, but less speed. Supercarriers (I.e the Aquila Class Supercarrier) had much larger complement than a normal carrier and could possibly carry other capital ships.

@dino: As I understood it, our supercruisers included our massive projects, including the St. George, Empress, Patriarch, and Argo, with battleships just being rather large ships, but not quite as big as a supercruiser. I also understodd them to be faster than a supercruiser due to the sheer size of a supercruiser. I'ld say a battleship was anything about 2/3 to 1/2 the size of the St. George or the Patriarch, I can think of a few ships that would fall in that category but I can't remember their names and I'm too lazy to go look them up.