(Frigate) Resolute Class Light Combat Frigate

Download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/28s9mdliqe08zh4/Resolute%20Class%20Light%20Combat%20Frigate.lxf

Introduced as a replacement to the outdated Republic Class Frigate, the Resolute Class fulfills the need for a cheap, mass-produced frigate that bridges the gap between a corvette and a destroyer or heavy cruiser. Developed with the objective of being fast, easy, and inexpensive to manufacture, the Resolute can be manufactured on virtually any world that has an industrial capacity, and makes just as good of a militia/planetary defense vessel as it does as an offensive vessel in Imperial Battle Fleets. A variety of weapon types make it a capable ship, but it is best utilized in formations of more than ten vessels of the same time or in larger Battle Fleets. Weak individual firepower and protection mean that most any ship of a heavier class is able to destroy it with ease. In some sectors, casualty rates for the Resolute run as high as 33%, earning it the nickname, "The Metal Coffin". Despite this, the Resolute class has proven itself invaluable on the battlefield, and is slated to serve the Empire for many decades to come.

Crew: 520

Length: 435m

Weapons:
12x AFAC-1a/c Guns
2x IPC-3a Platforms
2x HQAC-1a Guns
2x HAC-17 Guns

Sensors:
RSSA-14 Sensor System

Communications:
GalComm SCS-15 Ship-Board Communication System

Shields:
Plasma Shielding

Shield Generators:
5x FVS Mk. I Light Shield Generators

Armor:
0.45-0.65m thick Titanium-Yakaium Grade A Armor

Powerplant:
6x Fusion Reactors

Engines:
4x RSE-Mk. II Sub-Light Drive
3x EDE-Mk IV Phase Drive

Spoiler:

Interesting design. I really like the sloped triangular pieces, though I must confess that it doesn't really feel "light frigate"-y to me- more of a Kodiak than a Cobalt, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I understand that, but I usually classify them by their size. Here's the (really) rough scale that I tend to go by:

Corvettes: 0-300m
Frigates: 301-600m
Destroyers: 601-800m
Cruisers: 801-1000m
Capital Ships: 1001-2000m
Titans/Dreadnoughts: 2000m+

Maybe I could rename this a "heavy" frigate? I know it looks pretty bulky and heavily armored, but it really isn't. Four of its six main weapons (excluding the AAA mounted on the sides towards the front) are locked in place and don't rotate, so it is very limited in that regard. I'll see what other people think, and then possibly make some changes.

Kojan- I meant it looked heavier; I sorta just skimmed the stats. I meant that the design seemed more appropriate for a larger vessel- I guess I'm used to seeing lighter ships seem sleeker than their larger counterparts or something.

I do feel I should mention, now that I've had a better look at said stats, that 1,145 crewmembers for a light frigate seems almost-ludicrously high. 200-something would be a better number IMO.

I agree with Migtyman, it just doesn't LOOK like a light frigate, maybe a medium frigate? And the crew count is HIGH.

That said, I LOVE this ship... it's so beautiful...and yet rugged and utilitarian. NICE work!

Well done, Kojan! Love the detail, color scheme, and design of this thing. From the side, it seems a bit too straight--I think maybe sloping the rear up a bit would help it look less ruler-like--but other than that, this ship is practically perfect!

I'd just like to point out that, with our scaling system that is used for all ships (1 stud=10 meters), this ship is about one and a half times longer than an Iowa Class Battleship, and 100m longer than a Nimitz Class Carrier. If anything, the crew of 1,145 is undermanning it, not over. I can also rely on the typical fall-back argument and say that the ship is hyper-utilitarian, like all Imperial ships, and it's meant to be comfortable like the USS Enterprise.

Kojan- First off aircraft carriers require signifigantly more crew for proper aircraft maintenance, plus all the pilots and whatnot.

Secondly, I must question any argument that bases the stats of a 27th-century spaceship on 20th-century naval vessels.

Seriously, with the massive advances in automation, 230-ish is more that sufficient to run a ship this size- all you really need are some engineering guys, bridge crew, doctors, pilots, maintenance teams, and security... and if the ship's only purpose it war, that's all you need.

Wow, let me just say this, I think this has definitely been one of the best ships I've seen on the forum, TLG, and LUCL combined! I absolutely love the detail! The design is beautiful, and it looks so "professional" (as in MOCish), but not super busy. And I must ask again, how do you get the awesome flak fire effects?

I think 230 is too low, but 1500 or so is too high.

And I still hate you, and like hate your new upright standing centeral hull with sloped sides design, similar to PXR.

And I deffiniflty love hate the photoshoppping, as always.

I'm gona need more practice to top all this.

230 is what I would put it at, but I guess you could make an argument for 300-400ish; depends, really.

I give in; you win.

The crew number has been knocked down from 1,145 to 520.

Wow, you even changed the picture. Impressive.

520 is still a little high IMO, but certainly justifiable (also, I now realize the ship is abit bigger than I thought it was ).

@Mightyman: For every automated thing that replaces a worker, the worker turns into a engineer/mechanic/technician to fix it/operate it/keep it running/monitor it, plain and simple. This is not a perfect 1:1 ratio, but the more I think about it, the more likely it is that kojan's numbers would be better. Especially with higher technology, you need more technicians. At my job, there are roughly as many technicians to fix everything as there are people who just work/make stuff, and the stuff at my job really is pretty basic (believe me). It's not a high-tech metal fabrication job or enginer building job with super complex robots or whatever, and we're certaintly not operating a whole ship. You're going to need more and more technicans the more complicated/technologicall advanced somethign gets, with fewer general laborers. I will tell you that a fully-automated ship (zero crew) is entirely possible, but woudl not be running for very long.

Ant- You underestimate technology.

Most of my numbers were maintenance. Think about it- once you strip it a spacecraft down to a combat-only role? Well, there's engineering (basically maintenance ), other maintenance, bridge crew, marines, medical officers, pilots (if you have smaller craft, which I don't think this ship does)... that's really it. Everything else it automated.

Also, I'd imagine most systems would have at least some sort of self-maintenance, to the point where technicians would basically just be around for the major problems (you know, blackouts, life support failure, that sort of thing).

@Mightyman: No, you overestimated machines. As I said, I've had personal experience in this area, automation does things faster, more accurately, more efficiently, but you still need plenty of workers to maintain it, which is an easier job than them doing it themselves, which is why you have automation. While yes they would have some self-matienence, and all sorts of extra bridge crew never seen/heard in movies but still actually important (lower levels of management, data gathering/analyzing, assitants, matienence for the Marines equipment, and others, you end up with many more people. A single automated machine, depending on it's level of complexity/technological advancement, will evenl need multiple technicians specializing in different things. And then they're going to need special equipment for the maintaining process, so you need technicians for that. Theres just more and more and more.

And you always need janitors.

Have the robots do the maintenance. When they break down, just have others fix those.

On a serious note, what exactly *do* you do, or can you not say? It's hard to argue my point when I don't have a very good idea what your "background" actually is.

I work for a top secret company that makes automated systems for starships to perform most functions that people would usually have to do...It pays really well.

I monitor a production line at a company that makes plastic bottles. I unjam the automated machines whenever they jam, which is all the time, and call for one of teh various technicians whenver getting the machines running again is out of my league. So having seen all the machines there, and how often they break, and how many people are required to maintain them, in addition to talking with others from other jobs and getting the same concept.....yeaaaaaaah, you're going to need an aweful lot of people who straight up just monitor/fix the automated things.

Another good example would be the space-shuttle and the number of people required just to keep something like that maintained, forget fixing major issues (which would have to happen in flight on an interstellar craft). No that's not counting people who simply build it/it's launcher. It can, for a short time, run with just a few people, with an aweful lot of ground support, and it doesn't have nearly the complexity an interstellar warship would. No cannons, extra power systems, shields, sublight and FTL thrusters, crwe quarters of a higher degree, tragetting systems, interstellar navigational systems, etcetera etcetera. You're going to have, on a ship like that, I'ld say between 500-800 people total. Especially considering this is a mass produced ship, as the cost to build it goes down the the number produced quickly goes up, quality, especially in all that automated complicated robot stuff, goes down, and you need more people to watch over it/do some stuff themselves. We could probably build a fully automated Aircraft carrier if we wanted, but we arn't even mass producing aircraft carriers, let alone making one that advanced, so yeah, it's cheaper and easier to replace the machines with people.

First off, I doubt most systems on a ship have as many moving parts to jam as a bottle-making machine (to be perfectly honest, I sorta feel the only real "moving parts" on a ship are the turrets, maybe the thing that launch the shuttles), so that eliminates all but the higher-level technicians right there (well, mostly, anyway).

Secondly, many of the shuttle's ground-support jobs will be taken over by the computer (for example, only one crewmember is required to send the ship into warp, all he/she does is punch in the coordinates. Sure there's engineering, but all they do is stop the warp core from exploding. ) So, between the reduced maintenance and advanced computations/monitoring by the computer, you really don't need that many peeps on board (although they always help against boarders, I suppose ).

Also, I feel we should move this to the off-topic thread now, as this doesn't seem to rally directly affect the ship.

It does, we're discussing crew compliment here.

There will still be plenty of moving parts on a ship, and non moving parts still require a high level of matienence, especially when they're complex and technologically advanced. You're going to need people to fix worn conduits, moniotr said conduits, monitor and calibrate the sensors that the computer uses to go to warp, lots and lots of IT guys for the computers, plenty of peeps for the turrets, it all adds up really quick. Electrical system can have surges that require fixing stuff, theres radiation leakage to check for and fix, theres cooling systems which are going to have moving parts, theres the trubolifts, theres alot of stuff.

And lets not forget that there has to be two people for each job, cause they can't work 24 hours a day, every day, for a three month+ mission.

Who says those need to be moving, or even complex? part of the advance of technology is making things simpler, cheaper, etc.; so what might be prohibitively expensive today, or even in Picard's day, could be cheap and readily available in the PCG-era.

I also suspect you overestimate the number of moving parts; turbolifts, for example, could just be cylinders that are levitated magnetically (there's probably a canon explanation, but in lieu of one, let's just go with that). Computers can do most of the monitoring and just alert maintenance when something comes up, so you probably will rarely have to actually check systems by physically being there. The technology for self-healing computer chips already exists (I remember reading about that in a magazine- Popular Science, I think- several months ago, maybe more), so it stands to reason that the technology would be commonplace by the 27th century; in fact, who's to say that most other things would be able to heal themselves. After all, many jobs currently done by large machines will, by the PCG's time, be accomplished with advanced molecular science (hence my point on non-moving parts). Furthermore, I suspect it would be rather difficult for humans to repair devices the size of molecules.

They'ld have to use machines that did repair mollecular things, and have a dozen intruments to test them, and techicians to repair all that. And even with simple stuff, stuffz doezn't wurk. And again, all those computers are going to need a whole lot of IT, and even they won't always work, you'll need people to make sure they are by physically going around and checking everything by hand, etcetera.

Provided, how many peeps do you need for that on a light frigate? I mean, only a relatively small amount of space would actually be used by all this (molecules are very small, after all. ), and I imagine the maintenance crews would have at least basic repair knowledge of their tools, so you pretty much, so that only leaves the IT guys. Given quantum computing and other such advances in that area, ships wouldn't need very much space at all (I imagine it would all fit in one room), so one shouldn't need that many dudes (unless, by IT, you meant guys who checked software; in this case, I imagine 5-10 guys in a room with PCs would suffice ).

So yes, you'd need a lot of maintenance guys- but going back to one of my earlier points, that's about all you'd need (at least for a bare-bones combat-only ship).

And you're going to need straight manpower for maning/loading guns and making repairs to teh automated repair systems once they all go haywire, which will happen when the first plasma round hits it, forget in the middle of a pitched battle after an hour.

And if the Enterprise was still using humans with welding tourches to build it's hull (short clip from Into Darkness), then we're still at a point where we need lots of people for repair, though granted, not as many. I imagine automated procedures (similar to robots in car factories) could be used with humans monitoring them, but there are times when it's better, again, to have a person than a bunch of advanced tech.

I still think I've made sufficient points for 500-700, not 230.

And you're going to need a ton more IT guys that that, with so much more automation/computer stuff, and just think about how many IT guys it takes for stuff nowadays, you're going to need a ton more. I don't care if all the computers can fit in one room, the guys can't focus on all that infomration, you're going to need alot of people, each one can only handle so much information, and then you need people overthem to take teh most important information and give it to the commanders.
Aka, the guy standing in this picture:

Spoiler:

Oh, n-n-n-no, you're not getting off that easy.

First off, in Star Trek, all guns are loaded/fired automatically, so that eliminates the gunners right there.

Secondly, the Enterprise in Into darkness was from, what, 400 years ago? Hardly a relevant reference. It's probably safe to say we're well advanced from that.

Thirdly, I feel you're (again) underestimating how effective technology in the future is. The computers would be more than capable of sorting through everything going on and only show the important stuff; the IT guys could then directly forward it to the commander if it's deemed important enough.

You're also forgetting that part of advancements in technology is making things simpler and easier to understand/maintain. I think even random crewmembers could do some basic repairs/maintenance.