CLASS NAME: Akira
CLASS TYPE: Battlecruiser
GOVERNMENT: United Federation of Planets

Port
view

IMAGE SOURCE: www.neutralzone.de
Dorsal
view

IMAGE SOURCE: www.neutralzone.de
Bow
view

IMAGE SOURCE: www.neutralzone.de

BRAD'S COMMENTS:  Of all the CGI ships to have emerged from the ST:DS9 TV series and the Next Generation movies, none have received more fan scrutiny than the Akira Class.  Is it a cruiser?  A frigate?  How big is this thing?  By some accounts it is smaller than an Excelsior Class.  By other accounts it is as wide or wider than the Sovereign and perhaps half to two-thirds as long.  Based on the comments of the ship's original creator, Alex Jaeger, the class is intended as a heavy weapons platform with an obscene number of torpedoes (15?) and lots of phasers.  There is also some indication that the Akira has limited through-deck carrier capability for shuttlecraft, though I have not confirmed this.  So, how to approach adapting this class for the STSTCS?  I guess the safest thing to say is that I know going in that not all fans will be happy with my adaptation.  Some will find my adaptation too strong, others will find it too weak.  My apologies in advance if I didn't seem to get it quite right.  However, there are three different models of varying potency, so if you are using this ship for a simulation I hope you can find at least one model that suits your purposes.
        Of course, no discussion of the Akira can be complete without also discussing the NX-01 Enterprise.  When UPN launched its new "retro" Trek series, even the most retarded person could tell that the NX design was a thinly-veiled ripoff of the Akira.  I myself have been struck by the similarities that both the Akira and the NX have to the FASA Loknar design, which predates both the NX and the Akira by a number of years.  If I could get in a time machine and go back a year or two to when they were ramping up pre-production for the ST:ENT, I'd hold a gun to somebody's head until they came up with a truly original design for the NX class.  Ripping off the Akira for the design of a ship that predates the Akira by over two hundred years is just plain lazy.  I have read the arguments that try to explain or support the Akira/NX connection, but I just don't buy it.  The ST:ENT staff had all the time and the money in the world to devise a truly original ship (as happened with ST:VOY, and ST:TNG) and instead they handed us a warmed-over retread.

Three different designs from three different periods, both real and fictional; yet all three bear a striking resemblance to eachother. Coincidence?

Construction Data:
     Model Numbers-
     Ship Class-
     Date Entering Service-
     Number Constructed
MK I *
XV
2357 A.D.
classified
MK II *
XV
2364 A.D.
classified
MK III *
XV
2373 A.D.
classified
Hull Data:
     Superstructure Points-
     Damage Chart-
     Size
         Length-
         Width-
         Height-
         Weight-
     Cargo
         Cargo Units-
         Cargo Capacity-
     Landing Capability-
70
C

443 meters
304 meters
79 meters
270,600 tons
  
200 units
10,000 tons
None
78
C

443 meters
304 meters
79 meters
285,200 tons
  
200 units
10,000 tons
None
86
C

443 meters
304 meters
79 meters
297,000 tons
  
200 units
10,000 tons
None
Equipment Data:
     Control Computer Type-
     Transporters-
         Standard 6-person-
         Emergency 22-person-
         cargo-		   
MBT-10
  
7
5
2		   
MBT-10
  
7
5
2		   
MBT-10
  
7
5
2
Other Data:
     Crew-
     Passengers-
     Shuttlecraft-		   
520
50
12		   
505
60
14		   
490
60
15
Engines and Power Data:
     Total Power Units Available-
     Movement Point Ratio-
     Warp Engine Type-
         Number-
         Power Units Available-
         Stress Charts-
         Maximum Safe Cruising Speed-
         Emergency Speed-
     Impulse Engine Type-
         Power Units Available-		     
138
6/1
FNWD-5A
2
54
F/K
Warp 8
Warp 9.9
FNIS-220
30		     
150
6/1
FNWD-5B
2
60
F/K
Warp 8
Warp 9.9
FNIS-220
30		     
162
6/1
FNWD-5C
2
66
F/K
Warp 8
Warp 9.9
FNIS-220
30
Weapons and Firing Data:
     Beam Weapon Type-
         Number-
         Firing Arcs-
         Firing Chart-
         Maximum Power-
         Damage Modifiers
               +3
               +2
               +1
     Missile Weapon Type-
         Number-
         Firing Arcs-
         Firing Chart-
         Power To Arm-
         Damage-
     Missile Weapon Type-
         Number-
         Firing Arcs-
         Firing Chart-
         Power To Arm-
         Damage-
FAHW-24
12 in four banks
4f/p, 4f/s, 2a/p, 2a/s
V
16

(1 - 8)
(9 - 15)
(16 - 21)
FQT-4
5
3f, 2a
Y
4
26
LYFP-AX1
10
4f, 2p, 2s, 2a/p, 2a/s
U
1
12
FAHW-25
12 in four banks
4f/p, 4f/s, 2a/p, 2a/s
V
17

(1 - 8)
(9 - 15)
(16 - 21)
FQT-5
5
3f, 2a
Y
5
28
LYFP-AX1
10
4f, 2p, 2s, 2a/p, 2a/s
U
1
12
FAHW-26
12 in four banks
4f/p, 4f/s, 2a/p, 2a/s
W
18

(1 - 9)
(10 - 16)
(17 - 20)
FQT-6
5
3f, 2a
Y
5
30
LYFP-AX2
10
4f, 2p, 2s, 2a/p, 2a/s
V
1
14
Shields Data:
     Deflector Shield Type-
         Shield Point Ratio-
         Maximum Shield Power-		   
NGSS-I
1/3
30		   
NGSS-J
1/3
33		   
NGSS-M
1/4
36
Defense Factor-
Weapon Damage Factor-		 241.1 **
344.1 **		 264.5 **
362.2 **		 320.4 **
415.3 **

* Denotes completely hypothetical model number and stats, devised by Brad R. Torgersen.
** D and WDF numbers provided by Bryan Jecko.  Thanks Bryan!

<<<< GO BACK