"Federation Ark Royal class in Starline 2400 / 2500 scale" Topic

Greetings again, starship fans!

Well, this beastie has been a struggle, but she's finished at last; behold, the flawed giant that is the Ark Royal Space Control Ship!

Nearly 500 metres of Federation budgetary blowout, the Ark Royal class was Starfleet's first attempt to create a dedicated fighter carrier since the Romulan War.

Originally envisioned as an even larger design, the four ships of the Ark Royal class were the product of financial and political compromise. Capable of carrying a full Wing of 72 fighters and strikecraft, Ark Royals were often ships looking for something to do; too large and valuable to risk on long-range missions, or close-in border patrols, they spent much of their careers performing 'show the flag' visits to boost Federation support among neutral nations, and domestic missions.

A proof of concept spaceframe – USS Argus (NX 2000) was never completed to Ark Royal specifications. Years later, it would become the basis for a new experiment in warp technology, and be renamed 'Excelsior'.

Here's Ark Royal in formation with the Fighter Squadrons of her Wing:

This will be a pretty big model. 125mm long in Starline 2500 scale (1/3125)! But then, as you have read in the 'fluff', she is supposed to share the same basic frame as the later Excelsior class, and that is no tiddler either. Have to work out the dimensions for 1/3900.

More to come later, including Federation and Klingon small craft.

- Martin

500 meters in 1/3900 is 5 inches. In 1/3900, all you have to do is move the decimal after 500 two places to the left and you have the dimensions in inches. That was the rational for 1/3900 scale… easy to convert.

Cool ship BTW. If I was not into 1/2500 scale I'd be there.

I have a question for you Martin what about the Napoleon Carrier?

Or how about the Legion?

Have you seen either of these 2 ships?

I remember buying the Napoleon early on for Star Fleet Battles and I still have a couple of them.

There were 3 ships in the class:

USS Napoleon NCC 2200
USS MacArthur NCC 2201
USS Zhukov NCC 2202

I think the term Space Control Ship came later in Starfleet Battles.

Michael

If my grandmother had wheels…

Nice 3D work, though :)

John T

CG: I'm pretty sure the SCS WAS a carrier originally; TFG/ADB renamed it space control, then sculpted a new carrier.

Doug

I think the SFB Federation Space Control Ships were the USS Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great and George Washington.

Doug the Space Control ship came later and I have the miniature as well.

All I'm saying is that the Napoleon did come first before the SCS and granted the Napoleon was a flawed design mainly where the engines were concerned.

Add to that the SCS had 3 engines while the Napoleon had 2 engines.

Generalstoner49 you're correct on the names.

One other thing regarding the Napoleon class are their escorts,it appears that each ship had escorts with names that were French,American and Russian which I thought was interesting there was an issue of NEXUS magazine which mentioned it.

Michael

I look, really want a 2400 one of those. That is beautiful!

I think I need to provide some clarification about the backstory I'm developing here.

I'm working on a set of rules plus campaign histories set firmly in the 'Prime' Star Trek universe. Although I am including elements that are not absolutely canon (like this Ark Royal class) I decided to not directly reference the SFB material. So, no Napoleon class carriers.

(I'm not sure why the Federation would name a ship after an imperialistic military dictator anyway; sorry Nappy fans, but he wasn't exactly a force for peace and liberty, was he?) ;)

I first came upon the term 'Space Control Ship' in a set of plans for the Excelsior class published by Mastercom back in the late 80's. I thought it was an interesting way to describe a very big, multirole combat vessel, so I used it for the Ark Royal class.

I strongly suspect that Starfleet dislikes terms such as 'Battleship' or 'Destroyer'. Call it 'PC' if you wish, but Starfleet's primary mission is not to target strange new worlds and exterminate new life and new civilisations.
The fact that a big, tough, heavily armed combat platform like the Constitution class is inoffensively classified as a Heavy Cruiser is proof of Starfleet's relatively peaceful outlook. To the Klingons, by comparison, Connies are Battle Cruisers (Star Trek III). Its a mark of the differing philosophies of the two nations.

For the record, the Ark Royal family consists of:

USS Argus NX-2000 (testbed, later used as basis for Excelsior class)
USS Ark Royal NCC-2001
USS Kumari NCC-2002
USS Beijing NCC-2003
USS Sh'Raan NCC-2004

(I prefer my Fed fleets to have a healthy dollop of names from extraterrestrial origins.) :)

The rules I'm bashing together are intended for massed fleet actions, rather than the smaller actions SFB handles better. I'm drawing a lot from Matthew Sprange's A Call to Arms system, plus elements of Full Thrust and Firestorm Armada. So far, it's coming along rather well. More on all that later.

Virtual – Ta! Being metrically-minded, that didn't occur to me. You might have spotted my mistake too – the description of 'Nearly 500 metres' is right out, that should have read 400 metres.

Michael – yep, in fact the lack of a SFB Napoleon in the SL2500 range was one of the initial incentives I had for tacking this design. But, it had its own ideas about what it wanted to become!

Come come, Mr Treadaway, young minds, fresh ideas, be tolerant… :D

EB – regarding getting one in SL2400 (1/3900) scale… stay tuned…

Okay, I was just collecting some ships. Now I want to play a game. Your concept sounds great.

MM-

Like the art. I made a TOS-Excelsior a while back on Shapeways. Mine was a little more direct in taking the Excelsior and back-fitting it with TOS tech.

Yours makes for a better pre-cursor design (not the same ship, but in the same lineage).

I enjoyed SFB, but it did tend to take modern wet-navy concepts and apply them a little too literally to Star Trek. DD / FF / DN designations don't make a lot of sense when 90% of the fleet is supposed to be doing scientific research most of the time.

'Sea Control Ships' are a real thing in the modern world, but they are smaller than fleet carriers. Usually they are amphibs with Harriers on board. Your concept is as good an adaptation to Star Trek as any I've seen.

I'm curious as to the scales on offer already, as I understand it ADB offers:

2400 line is 1:3788 scale
2500 line is 1:3125 scale (the same I make for the Axanar Donor's store so that they would already be compatible with an existing line)

So then, my question is who offers the 1:3900 scale line?

EB – thanks! I'll post some stuff about the rules when I've enough to, well, post about…. ;)

Ghost – Thank you! The praise of someone who's more experienced in digital sculpting is surprising, but welcome. I'm sure I have a ways to go to reach your level.

I'm pretty new to 3D digital modelling, but it seems a mis-spent lifetime of plastic sheet, used deodorant bottles and putty translates well into this new medium. :)

'Drew –

I believe 1/3900 was the scale of the old FASA miniatures? Can anyone fact check that for me?

- Martin

Correct, FASA miniatures were 1/3900 . Fairly close to the stated scale for Starline 2400 so people (including myself) have tended to mix and match.

MacrossMartin- Interesting thinking about 'Your Trek' background, I always like seeing the details on how folks work things out. Interested in seeing/hearing more.

-Will

Martin it seems that SFB had some other interesting names:

Hannibal
Genghis
Kublai
Darius
Xerxes
Atilla

So by your thinking Starfleet never should've used these names.

For myself in my Federation Fleet I do have the Napoleon Carrier,heck even in my AERONEF French Fleet I have a ship named Napoleon any good upstanding French Fleet should've a ship named Napoleon:).

Another example I'm a big StarBlazers fan you know the one with the Space Battleship Yamato now for my Earth Fleet my ships are named after:

Military leaders(like Yamamoto,Lutjens,Suffern)
Historical Battles(Tsushima,Sekigahara,Wagram)
Naval Vessels(Akagi,Bearn,Bismarck)
Cities(Berlin,Paris,Settsu)

To me naming ships in your Fleet takes on a personal feeling and that's how I name my Earth ships in whatever Fleet be it Space or Wet Navy so I tend to do the reverse of what you do and I think that naming ships is half the fun of owning your Space Fleet.

stumer to sorta answer your question first off Shapeways makes ships in the FASA scale and other scales as well.

Very nice work.

Incidentally, here's an interesting Federation heavy carrier in more of an ST:TMP style. I really like the shuttle bay hatches along the flanks.

Always thought the SFB names for ships were a little off base.

Canon Star Trek: Discovery, Stargazer, Excelsior

SFB: Julius Caesar, Napolean, etc.

Being an American, I can accept Washington based on him being a statesman as well as a general. I guess deGaulle would be another example.

I'm little less enthused about MacArthur, but that's mostly to do with his personal issues than the fact that he was a military general.

Each to their own… SFB was after all written at the extreme military-end of Trek fiction.

MM – I generally don't go to detailed on my models – you have me beat there. Part of it was the detail was pretty soft at small scale (1/4000 ish), so I didn't get too carried away.

Doug the Space Control ship came later and I have the miniature as well.

Do you have an original TFG carrier and the SCS that followed?

I know the current carrier looks different than the current SCS, just saying I thought the original carrier model I had was just like the current SCS, and different from the current carrier.

Doug

Original carrier was the above SCS without the 3rd engine.

Doug I have both ships in front of me and both original and one is different.

First off the engines for Napoleon are longer than the SCS's 2 lower engines.

The main hulls are mostly identical there's some minor changes on the SCS.

And the Saucers are mostly identical as well with some minor changes on the SCS.

If you like Doug I can take pictures and send them to you of the Napoleon and the Space Control Ship just email me at yamamoto87@hotmail.com and I can send you the pictures.

I prefer to think of the SFU background as the more realistic version of things. The actual Paramount canon is a mess. There's no way the maps work based on things in the different series as I recall. The ship names in TOS were all traditional warship names. It wasn't until TMP and later and especially TNG that things got all preachy false utopian. Even the writers had issues with it. The federation as portrayed in TNG cannot work. It's a false ideal, especially in a galaxy shared with Klingons and Romulans.

Hm. It seems a number of posts have, urm, left through the wormhole… O_o

I hope I have not provoked any animosity between members. This is a thread about a soon-to-be toy spaceship, and certainly shouldn't be taken as anything more serious than that.

I hope everyone's still cool with one another. We don't want to have to break out the fight music from 'Arena'!

Let me be clear – I've no particular bone to pick with the SFU universe. I don't, however, buy the argument that it is 'more realistic'. The whole 'General War' history is a bit much – fifteen-odd years of everyone fighting, and practically nothing changes?!? Even the Federation border remains intact, without a bump or dent upon its perfect sphere. Hmm!

Granted, you need a fair few wars to sell a fair few supplements and miniatures. But it certainly does not align with Roddenberry's vision of the future, TOS or TNG.

But, many gamers enjoy the SFB universe, and more power to them all, say I. It's not my preferred sandbox, that's all. As Ghostrunner correctly stated – To each his own.

Wil – There will be more about the rules and setting soon, actually I was inspired to hit the keys again last night. When they are finished, the rules will specifically cover the Original Series era (I'm bookcasing it as 2230 to 2270), with fleet lists, essays on strategies, tactics and details on technology. I'm looking forward to drawing up some lovely, full-colour 3-views and Osprey-style profiles of a number of ships, to add some colour to things.

There will also be a campaign, a 'what if' scenario that assumes the Klingons ignorantly torched Organia before its super-powered residents could lift a finger!

Michael – I do the same thing. Choosing the names for your own ships adds a splash of personality. I've been working on a RSN fleet for Firestorm Armada recently, with a Gundam theme, and thus a number of ships have Japanese-inspired names.

I'd never dictate to anyone that any fictitious starship must have a particular name. It's purely a personal perspective of mine that some of the names presented in SFB, and some other Trek fiction, seem off-kilter with canon Star Trek.

- Martin

MM-

Deleted posts had to do with an infringement on a specific policy here at TMP.

The posters themselves requested the posts be deleted.

No worries from your side.

I wager 50 quatloos on the newcomer!

Nice design. Carriers are always tricky to do in Star Trek.

-Eli

I've rather enjoyed coming up with carriers for the Trek universe, since there were none in any of the shows or movies, which leaves the field wide open for interpretation.

Here are some I came up with for my Microfleet factions:

TOS-era Feds:

TMP-era Feds:

TNG-era Feds:

not-Klingons:

not-Romulans:

not-Hydrans:

not-Tholians:

not-Gorn:

not-Cardassians:

not-Kzinti:

not-Lyrans:

not-Dominion:

Still have one of the early print SFB Flatbed CV's around here. The original heavy carrier. Then they went and made em modified dreadnaughts for later versions.

I was just having a search back through older threads to see how this ship looked and thought "Hey this thread needs bumped back to the top of the board!" as the ship looks so good!

So, BUMP!

I will admit that ADB had a good reason for going from the two-engine CVA to the 3-engine: parts commonality!

The DN used the same engines/nacelles as the Constitution-class, just 3 instead of 2.

Why build custom engines when you already have a working ship using 3 cruiser engines?

Your point isn't untrue, Lion, although I would argue that nowadays the sheer flexibility and speed of digital sculpting massively lifts the old restrictions on sculpting specific parts for a design, rather than re-using the same things over again.

In the past, however, it was certainly a concern, and a valid way of reducing costs.

I think I can reveal that 'Drew recently sent me pics of the printed Ark Royal master, and it looks very, very nice indeed. :) With luck on our side, I think we'll see her on the Studio Bergstrom site pretty soon.

This looks great. Granted I like the 'Loknar' you have far more. Its more MY ST memories from TOS growing up. TOS never dealt w/ star fighters and such.

stumer
..as I understand it ADB offers:
2400 line is 1:3788 scale
2500 line is 1:3125 scale

I'll be honest. Yrs ago when I first came across ADB & they had a '2400' & later '2500' series.
My first thought was "scale", i.e. 1/2400 or 1/2500. Like the ATM 2500 scale "Cadet series".
Imagine this in 2400 'scale', "a tad on the big size"

(just pondering out loud here)
Ive often wondered: when they were deciding the scale to base the mini's on, 'Why not simply 3800 or 3100?'

On the subject of 'cannon' w/ ST. someone made a great if not true statement some time back.
To paraphrase: "ST cannon is 'firmly' written in jello."

Martin, I wouldn't dream of trying to speak for Lion, but I thought he was speaking of the fluff. Same sized engines follows the Franz Joseph designs, and suggests a rational for Star Fleet, not ADB.

As I've said elsewhere, Gerrold stated that apparently the 'Great Bird' didn't care for three engine designs.

There's always room for jello…

Doug

Yeah, I was speaking fluff-wise, not model-wise.

Standard-sized warp nacelles/engines (in SFB, the nacelles generate power).

"Yeah, I was speaking fluff-wise, not model-wise."

Ah, see what happens when I get locked into 'how do I make this into a practical miniature?' mode? ;)

True, Doug, Andrew Probert has always maintained that Roddenberry stated you need nacelles in pairs to generate a warp field. That's why my Taurus class DN has a 'dual' nacelle extending from the saucer, interacting with the outboard nacelles. My solution to that particular dilemma.

Matt Jefferies, designer of the original Big E, was not at all found of common component 'kitbashes' like the Saladin or the Federation DN. Coming from an aviation background, I can see his angle on this; you might get a heavy fighter by sticking two P-51's together*, but three doesn't make it a bomber.

Likewise, the twin-engined Avro Manchester evolved into the four-engined Lancaster, but both were always strategic bomber designs, not a change in 'class' as it were.

Anyway, to each their own Trek. :)

PTG; actually, that's a good question, but I don't have a sound suggestion…

* The F-82 night fighter. Actually, there wasn't much commonality of parts with the P-51, in spite of appearances.

Hi Martin, thought that I would like to add my 2p, I love your Ark Royal design it would wonderfully with my existing fleets. I ended up adding ST:TMP warp nacels to the Napoleon ti make it fit in with the modern ships.

If the AR ever comes out put me down for one please.

As to the rules, very much interested those too as I have run many campaigns and enjoy running them. Your take would be interesting and was wondering if you intend to have some sort of politics or will it be just moving fleets about to fight.

If you need any playtesting I'd be up for that too. Google Fast Play Fleets:Star Strek… Its my fun little bash for the odd quick evening.

Good Luck and thanks.
Madan

Oh by the way, emckinny

Federation heavy carrier in more of an ST:TMP style is a great looking model and would love that too.

Don't you just love the 3d printing revelution…

Laters
Madan