Ambassador class weapons

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by kent, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. kent

    kent Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Okay, so the Constitution refit had port, starboard, fore, and aft phasers on the saucer, aft phasers above the aft shuttlebay, and ventral phasers on the ventral secondary hull. It also had a foward torpedo assembly.

    the E-B had the same, except an additional phaser on top of the hub where the pylons extend outwards and in between the dorsal impulse engines. It too had ventral phasers. The Excelsior was also starfleet's biggest ship so it had foward and aft torpedo assembly's as well.

    The Galaxy class had, as everyone knows, phasers up the ass, and foward and aft torpedo coverage.

    The E-E, we all saw what she could do.

    But the Ambassador class?

    Because it was "on screen" (a HANDFUL of times), it's considered to not have any secondary hull aft phasers OR a ventral secondary hull phaser strip.

    YET....

    It is assumed that it has a foward torpedo launcher in the lower neck, even though the FX team forgot to put it on.

    It is silly to have a capitol ship without aft and ventral phaser coverage, especially for a ship that is 30-33 decks. That would create HUGE blindspots. It is also silly to assume no aft torpedo coverage. Keep in mind the E-B had aft and ventral phasers, so did the Constitution refit, and so did the galaxy class after the Ambassador class. And considering the E-B had aft torpedo launchers, and the galaxy did too, it's silly to assume the Ambassador didn't.

    I mean what is this class of ship? If the E-B and E-D were human's, with the E-B being the grandmother, the mother of the E-D would be genetically defficient.

    Thoughts?

    Discuss....
     
  2. JNG

    JNG Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    In "Yesterday's Enterprise," Tasha says "Let's take a look at the torpedo launchers" and Garrett says "load torpedo bays." The neck location is up for debate (though it seems this was the intention and there's a bit with a light shining there), but the presence of torpedo launchers is not an assumption.

    Silly might be a bit harsh, but it's certainly logical to figure that one of the multiple torpedo launchers mentioned in dialogue would be so placed. Haven't most fans gone ahead and done so?

    There was no phaser strip on the belly of the model, but the removable thingy for the mounting hardware clouds the issue a bit. There certainly doesn't *need* to be one there, and the idea that the absence of such phasers would make the ship equivalent to a genetically deficient family member seems a little bit of a leap to me. I guess ERTL thought it was too painful to bear, though.
     
  3. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    The nonexistent torpedo launcher must be assumed because dialogue established that the E-C could fire torps at evil Romulans. The nonexistent secondary hull ventral phasers won't have to be assumed under that sort of logic...

    One might invent a little story that mirrors the real history of the E-C photographic model. Say, perhaps there was an intention of mounting a ventral strip on the secondary hull, the way the E-D and E-E have one across the tummy. But perhaps the engineers couldn't create a convex-curved strip phaser at the time; perhaps only flat strips were technologically feasible. So the ventral weapon was left out, with the intention of installing it at some later date.

    The phasers on the engine pylons do offer some coverage. And note how the underside of the fantail changes when the model is altered from E-C to Yamaguchi et al. - a prominent secondary shuttlebay or cargo hold is installed in that location, where many other ship types tend to mount short aft/ventral phaser strips. Perhaps the E-C style ships had strips there, removed in the upgrade that finally installed the ventral strip?

    We may take delight in the fact that the underside of the upgraded model is never shown on screen - so the Yamaguchi could indeed have had the ventral strip added.

    As for the locations of the torpedo launchers, I'd indeed argue for both forward and aft mounts. And since the forward ones are invisible/covered, the aft ones are probably that as well.

    In DS9 "Emissary", we see an Ambassador fire forward torpedoes, plus a forward phaser that seems to come from the underside of the secondary hull. TrekCore has a screencap from roughly the right moment - anybody have better 'caps?

    http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x01/emissary016.jpg

    I'd argue for a single forward torpedo tube at the usual bottom-of-neck location, covered with plates in usual operations. It'd be more modern and more capable than the comparable launchers on Excelsiors, hence the halving of muzzle numbers. On that basis, I'd also argue for just a single aft tube somewhere. There's a curious little round hatch just above the impulse engine that could well serve the purpose - but it's gone in the Yamaguchi revamp.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  4. Vanyel

    Vanyel The Imperious Leader Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2001
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Couldn't the Ambassador Class use old style phaser mountings, like the Excelsior Class' main phasers for underbelly coverage? It doesn't have to have all phaser strips.
     
  5. Unwrapped

    Unwrapped Continuity Spackle Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Location:
    Unicron (The Pyxis Unity)
    IIRC, the Micro Machines model of the C has two small phasers on the aft saucer, akin to those on the Galaxy's aft saucer. I'd have to look at screencaps over at Trekcore though to see if those were actually on the original model.
     
  6. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Nope - the E-C had a boxy structure there, with potentially one little pimple that could be interpreted as a point-emitter phaser. The model was then pulled apart, perhaps for storage, and reassembled differently for a DS9 appearance as USS Yamaguchi of Wolf 359 fame, at which point an upside-down Excelsior shuttlebay was glued under the fantail. A keen eye might spot this bay in a frame or two of DS9 "Emissary", but we don't really see the underside of the vessel in this episode so we can't tell whether there would be ventral phasers in other locations.

    Some pictures and analysis here:

    http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ambassador.htm

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  7. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    FWIW, the AMT model kit which allowed you to make either version, had a 'tummy' strip, as well as the optional fantail underside bay. It also had two torpedo bumps at the base of the neck evocative of the placement of the refit/Enterprise-A but shaped not unlike those of the Excelsior. I like your explanations here, Timo.

    This works for me, even if we didn't 'see' them.
     
  8. EmperorTiberius

    EmperorTiberius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Never understood how the fx and model builders forget something so basic, I mean, it must be in the specifications/drawings right? So they forgot a bunch of phasers and two torpedo tubes?

    Do they get their pay docked?
     
  9. EmperorTiberius

    EmperorTiberius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009

    speaking of that episode, not to go off topic too much, but they were ridiculously maneuverable in that episode, especially the Ambassador class.
     
  10. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    Ridiculously maneuverable? A starship capable of accelerating to a fraction of the speed of light in a matter of seconds is "ridiculously maneuverable" for racing towards a Borg cube at four hundred miles per hour?

    Actually, I'm inclined to interpret that scene with the usual "objects in space are farther than they appear" claus, that the ships are actually several hundred thousand miles apart and that both would appear as mere spec against the background of space.
     
  11. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    To not even begin to address the issue of where rest of the fleet was... ;)
     
  12. Unwrapped

    Unwrapped Continuity Spackle Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Location:
    Unicron (The Pyxis Unity)
    Well, the two structures I'm describing are visible on both the C model and the later modification used for the Zhukov and Yamaguchi. It's not very visible in "Yesterday's Enterprise," but is visible on the Zhukov in "Data's Day." You can see such a screencap on the Memory Alpha page (second from top).
     
  13. EmperorTiberius

    EmperorTiberius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009

    I'm not talking about acceleration, I'm talking about maneuverability. They turn pretty fast compared to other ships in the series except Defiant
     
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Damn, my mistake - the two short strips on top of the saucer, yeah. Those would offer some additional aft coverage, although there'd still be a proximity shadow just below and to the aft where neither the saucer nor the pylon phasers could reach. It wouldn't be more than a few hundred meters long, though - and the tiniest roll maneuver would expose a ship trying to make use of the shadow.

    Personally, I'm happy with the E-C being somewhat half-finished, without a ventral transverse strip, while I assume all the later Ambassadors had this in the Trek reality (since we see it firing in "Emissary") even though it ain't there in studio reality. And I think the forward torpedo position at the base of the neck is also a foregone conclusion, again supported by "Emissary" IIRC.

    The one detail I'm not decided on is where the aft torp tube might go. I'd be happy with just one big mother, but perhaps that sort of advanced tech is reserved for forward arcs at that time? The best place might be somewhere in the curve of the fantail, where there are small greeblies plus a row of square plates.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  15. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    But not compared to the Enterprise-D in the FIRST EPISODE of the series, to say nothing of the similar maneuver--at WARP NINE--by the battle section alone. That high-speed banking maneuver around the Q-forcefield is repeated dozens of times in stock footage and still represents a pretty nimble vessel. The Nebula and Ambassador classes aren't even that large.

    Besides, didn't we see an old Miranda class ship doing slalom turns back and forth in "What You Leave Behind" to try and dodge Breen weapons? I think it's safe to say most Starships are exactly as maneuverable as their helmsman's fingers.
     
  16. USS KG5

    USS KG5 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    England's green and pleasant land.
    No reason to believe otherwise either, after all manoeuverability is only dependant on two things.

    1. The power of the ships engines to fight inertia and provide acceleration.
    2. The ability of the ship and those in it to survive the stresses inflicted by the aforementioned engines.

    Seeing as in Trek we can assume massively powerful engines and incredible hull strength augmented by structural integrity fields and inertial dampers, I see no particular reason why even the largest starships cannot throw themselves around.

    If anything the scenes in Nemesis are probably more realistic than those in TWOK by these standards, though of course the TWOK shots are more graceful. In reality it is easy to explain the discrepancy though, we never see undamaged ships engaging heavily in open space in TWOK.
     
  17. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    I tend to agree. The whole point of TWoK was that Meyer wanted very much to recreate a Hornblower in space atmosphere and they created situations to mimic this.

    One might suppose, VFX limitations aside, that all Starfleet ships were always as relatively agile and maneuverable as seen in 'Nemesis.' Older ships would presumably be somewhat less maneuverable but I don't see why there would be a huge disparity in ability. Even our big modern naval ships are capable of some pretty quick maneuvers.
     
  18. Mister_Atoz

    Mister_Atoz Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    One could even find on-screen justification for the apparent differences in maneuverability. Khan's sneak attack on the Enterprise wouldn't have been as effective if the the relative started conspicuously banking and turning like a fighter. Conversely, Khan's already inexperienced crew were unprepared for Enterprise's counter attack, the escape maneuver Joachim pulled is probably the best he could do in the time he had with Khan shouting at him to return fire.

    The second battle in the nebula didn't see much maneuvering either, but then again both ships were stumbling around in there half blind so there was really no need for it, it may even have been dangerous to do so.
     
  19. JNG

    JNG Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    I remember Geordi opining (in TNG "Relics") that Jenolan could probably have run rings around the Enterprise at impulse, and that impulse engine design hadn't changed much in 200 years.
     
  20. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    The Jenolan was also rather tiny and appeared to have a huge impulse engine, FWIW.