Steamrunners, what do we actually know about them?

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-05-31 05:21pm

I think the title says it all, "Steamrunners, what do we actually know about them?"
I read the DITL but G.K seems to think they were built before the Glaxay/Nebula period and as we first seem them is "First Contact" this seems unlikely to me.

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2003-05-31 05:38pm

I disagree with that too. I think the plan for Steamrunners came somewhere after the disastrous battle of Wolf 359. When the battle lasted for only 10 minutes I think starfleet needed to rethink the combat strategies and add a lot more powerful ships to the fleet then just explores and science vessels with old weapons.
6 years from Best of Both Worlds to First Contact is plenty of time to add new warships. FC showed mostly new ships designed for combat, even though few Mirandas were seen too. Starfleet needed new destroyers and Steamrunners serves that role good.

Rhadamanthus · Post by **Rhadamanthus** » 2003-05-31 07:41pm

It would also explain the trend toward smaller ships (Akira, Defiant, Steamrunner, Sabre, Norway) Fast production, and significant firepower, exactly what you need if you want a platform for battling the Borg rather than deep space exploration etc.

Kerneth · Post by **Kerneth** » 2003-05-31 10:54pm

Man, I wish there was real in-depth technical info on all these ships available, such as weapons placement/capacity, etc. Oh well.

I can't decide if I like the looks of the Steamrunner design or not.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-06-01 04:27pm

I personally want to see a real honest to God battleship that the Federation actually uses and that has no other purpose other than to fight. I am sick and tired of the Defiant class. In other words:

I WANT TO SEE A BIG BATTLESHIP FOR ONCE!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-06-01 05:04pm

I actualy perfer the Steamrunner above other TNG ships. She seems to represent Star Fleets acceptance that their fleet needed some serious upgrading rather than continuing with their refitting older ships.

[my opinon]

It seems that Star Fleet has mostly used older designs and refitted them or upgraded them to extend their service life. Some designs sneaked through but mostly 'explorer' type ships like the Galaxy. Noteable exceptions would be the Nebula, but the back bone of the fleet is still 100 year old ships like the Excelcior and Miranda's.

Persumabley after the battle of Wolf 359, Star Fleet woke the fuck up or was able to wake up the politicians and say-"hey, we need new ships". For the interests of time expediencey, they probably dusted off old structual designs from a decade or more ago, and updated them with current tech and weapons. Stick in a ship yard, stir, and wha-la!

[/my opinion]

Back to the original point though, the Steamrunner seems well suited for its fast attack role. Varry manuvable and significant forward weapons loadout, to qualify for a destroyer. It has a compact shape and vital systems are not hanging out on nacells (minus the deflector).

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-06-01 07:17pm

What we know:

It is a destroyer.

It weaker than the Akira, but stronger than the Miranda

It can make warp 9 or better

It is more of a warship than anything

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-01 07:20pm

So, the dedicated combat fleet of the Federation essentially consists of Steamrunners, Sovies, Defiants, Akiras and modified Galaxies?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-06-01 07:38pm

You forgot Laytoas.

I still don't get why they named a heavy crusier after the screwed up Jackson child.

Rhadamanthus · Post by **Rhadamanthus** » 2003-06-01 07:49pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:You forgot Laytoas.

I still don't get why they named a heavy crusier after the screwed up Jackson child.

.....Laytoas?????

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-06-01 07:53pm

Rhadamanthus wrote:
Admiral Johnason wrote:You forgot Laytoas.

I still don't get why they named a heavy crusier after the screwed up Jackson child.
.....Laytoas?????

They were an Excelisor upgrade. They are the ones using the quantom torps.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2003-06-01 07:57pm

Not a SF name expert, but isn't that LaKota?

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-06-01 08:34pm

Burak Gazan wrote:Not a SF name expert, but isn't that LaKota?

yes, it was Lakota.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-06-01 09:35pm

Death from the Sea wrote:
Burak Gazan wrote:Not a SF name expert, but isn't that LaKota?
yes, it was Lakota.

Then sorry.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-06-02 07:06am

Admiral Johnason wrote:What we know:

It is a destroyer.

It weaker than the Akira, but stronger than the Miranda

It can make warp 9 or better

It is more of a warship than anything

The steamrunner is an artilery ship specializing in long range bombardments with tricobalt torpedoes in star trek:armada. However since I am not sure whether armada is considered to be canon it may not be correct.

From the little that is known steamrunners are fast, agile destroyers. Their hull structure features a twin tail boom design similar to one used in the akira class. Though the steamrunner's hull looks different from an akira they may share design similarities. The steamrunner may have been designed as a fast attack ship intened to complment the heavier akira class. Their firepower is primarily based on their torpedoes like the akira. And like the larger ship they are highly agile. It is possible that the steamrunner is a smaller counterpart to the akira class the same way mirands were to constitution or nebulas complement the galaxy class.

However this is all purely speculation. Perhaps in the future star trek shows or movies we will learn more about them.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-02 07:25am

Nothing, apart from the fact the name sucks big donkey balls.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-06-02 07:34am

Vympel wrote:Nothing, apart from the fact the name sucks big donkey balls.

Trek writers are terrible at naming ships. They have ships called reliant ambassador and lakota whereas star wars ships have names like avenger, executer and vengeance. Clearly there is a lack of grey matter at paramount.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-02 07:49am

evilcat4000 wrote: Trek writers are terrible at naming ships. They have ships called reliant ambassador and lakota whereas star wars ships have names like avenger, executer and vengeance. Clearly there is a lack of grey matter at paramount.

I don't really mind Defiant, Reliant, Enterprise, Excelsior, Galaxy, Nebula, Nova, Sovereign, Intrepid, Phoenix, Zhukov, Hood and the like.

But Steamrunner? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It runs on steam? Runs away from steam? Runs into steam? Ambassador? What kind of mamby-pamby ponce name for a ship is that? It's not even commanding of respect. And then of course there's inexplicables like Oberth.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-06-02 07:59am

Vympel wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote: But Steamrunner? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It runs on steam? Runs away from steam? Runs into steam? Ambassador? What kind of mamby-pamby ponce name for a ship is that? It's not even commanding of respect. And then of course there's inexplicables like Oberth.

That was really funny.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2003-06-02 08:15am

The Feddies are not looking for respect, all they want is friendship and gaseous anomalies (aka God's farts)

Patrick Ogaard · Post by **Patrick Ogaard** » 2003-06-02 09:04am

Vympel wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote: Trek writers are terrible at naming ships. They have ships called reliant ambassador and lakota whereas star wars ships have names like avenger, executer and vengeance. Clearly there is a lack of grey matter at paramount.
I don't really mind Defiant, Reliant, Enterprise, Excelsior, Galaxy, Nebula, Nova, Sovereign, Intrepid, Phoenix, Zhukov, Hood and the like.

But Steamrunner? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It runs on steam? Runs away from steam? Runs into steam? Ambassador? What kind of mamby-pamby ponce name for a ship is that? It's not even commanding of respect. And then of course there's inexplicables like Oberth.

Steamrunner as a name is a bit obscure, if it's even a reference to anything. Considering the Trek folks, it's probably an American Indian reference so obscure as to be meaningless.

As for Ambassador, Lakota and Oberth, those actually make a certain amount of sense.

Ambasssador makes sense if the first ship of the class was intended to be what the Enterprise-D tried to be: a diplomatic cruiser preserving peace throughout the Federation and beyond its borders. It's just a very unwarlike name.

Lakota is an easy one, but still pretty obscure. Basically, Lakota is one of the names of the Sioux nation. It's even better than some of the alternatives, since the other common names are: Sioux, Dakota, Nakota, and Otchente Chakowin.

The naming of Lakota would have been really clever in retrospect if any more of those upgraded Excelsiors had shown up. There would have been plenty of additional ship names to choose from among the Sioux tribes:
Santee
M'dewakanton
Sisseton
Wahpekute
Wahpeton
Yankton
Yanktonai
Blackfoot Sioux
Brule (I can't quite manage the accent mark over the e)
Hunkpapa
Miuneconjou
Oglala
Sans Arc (No Bows)
Teton
Two Kettle

There are enough assorted names available for a good twenty ships, and then there's always the option of using the names of famous tribal leaders, like Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, Big Foot, Crow King, etc.

As for Oberth, that's the perfect name for a spacegoing science vessel class. Hermann Oberth (1894-1989), known as the father of spaceflight.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-02 09:32am

Patrick Ogaard wrote: As for Oberth, that's the perfect name for a spacegoing science vessel class. Hermann Oberth (1894-1989), known as the father of spaceflight.

WTF did he live long enough ... ?

95 years old.

Damn.

I can't countenance space ships being given the names of ... peaceful people

Patrick Ogaard · Post by **Patrick Ogaard** » 2003-06-02 09:36am

Vympel wrote:
Patrick Ogaard wrote: As for Oberth, that's the perfect name for a spacegoing science vessel class. Hermann Oberth (1894-1989), known as the father of spaceflight.
WTF did he live long enough ... ?

95 years old.

Damn.

I can't countenance space ships being given the names of ... peaceful people

Well...

...the only way you could hurt another starship by using an Oberth-class ship would be if you had a friendly ISD grab the Oberth with a powerful tractor beam and then threw the little crossbreed of outrigger canoe and frisbee at the target really hard. Of course, that requires a crossover scenario...

HappyTarget · Post by **HappyTarget** » 2003-06-02 10:13am

Trek writers are terrible at naming ships. They have ships called reliant ambassador and lakota whereas star wars ships have names like avenger, executer and vengeance. Clearly there is a lack of grey matter at paramount.

Nope. Why would one name primarily SCIENCE vessels like you suggest? They would be the laughing stock of sci-fi.

Just imagine ST: III with the USS Oberth's name being replaced with USS Avenger. OHHH! I'm scared! Quite comi... er... intimidating, no?

They DO name their primarily WARSHIP vessels appropriately IMHO though.

Defiant
Prometheus
Sovereign
Constitution (

)

Ya gotta look at what is being named, otherwise, your just gonna be making an ass out of your self.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-02 10:14am

Vympel wrote:
I can't countenance space ships being given the names of ... peaceful people

*Hands Vympel a list of British destroyer names*

Feel better?