Klingon D11 Duet .

[MadManMUC]

There could also be a joined D11 with the 'other' side to make a new type of ship.

What's the Klingon name for Voltron?

[Griffworks]

I think the view mentioned previously only appears in the original FASA Klingon Ship Recognition Manual, printed in 1983.

E3E12355-7A6E-456D-9DD2-4E644FE7D266.jpeg

9B7B8A0C-41BE-4E8F-84BB-7C5BE6A8EB22.jpeg

7E02C128-D7D6-49D2-B13D-A2632B91CA98.jpeg

I love the design, tho agree it’s game stat’s present a fairly weak, tho mission specific, ship. So, when I started building my 1/1000 scale model, I upgraded it to have more of a bite, fore and aft. I figure the hole in the commend pod to be a photorp tube, as well as a part of what the underslung superstructure on the ventral surface bring a weapons pod with attached landing bay and hangar space. I also added some more obvious impulse engine vents on the aft surface.

456E6E51-AD2B-405D-9EB4-10D11519F2DB.jpeg

922A2069-EF73-426C-B147-25964EEBF977.jpeg

I added two forward photorp tubes to the larger square superstructure “pod”, and gave him one aft tube, as well. To me, it just makes more sense for a destroyer to have a bit more in the way of weapons. So mine is a later variant with four forward and one aft photorp tube, yet only a total of 4 medium disruptors - two mounted on the command pod “triangle”, one dorsal and one ventral.

If you’re interested in more pics of my 1k build, see this thrrad. I plan to purchase a second D-11 that I’ll upgrade to be more in line, externally, with the TMP K’T’Inga-class.


Anyhow, I look forward to seeing these finished!

[NoKhando]

I can't help noticing in that illustration that the poor old dear is being torn to shreds .

You have a fine looking model there , and it's interesting how some of the details can be interpreted quite differently from the same drawings .
I tried to make the compartment under the wing at least the length given in the side profile . Had I made it square (as in the illustration) it would have extended in front of the wing . So I surmised the front must sweep backward towards end of the wing . The designer of yours has opted to shorten it and make it squarer in line with the picture . It's not a case of right or wrong . Just different . Maybe mine are an earlier mark ?

While I was working on mine I couldn't get this classic out of my head :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CVrJDLie0k

"The left wing is fine . I have nothing against your left wing.."

[Griffworks]

Haha! Love that skit! I’ve never seen it before, so thanks for the laugh.

I had meant to mention earlier, tho got side tracked, that I like your “fix” on the lower superstructure. It flows nicely in an organic fashion. If I do another D-11, I had thought to expand the lower superstructure, tho not nearly as nice and streamlined as you’ve done, and maybe just leave off that lower pod-thing. If I leave off the pod-thing, I planned to work a hangar bay into the superstructure.

Now that I’ve seen your take, I might try borrow your idea and scratchbuild the whole superstructure. I really like how yours looks more organic, less blocky. Excellent work there!

[Greyryder]

There could also be a joined D11 with the 'other' side to make a new type of ship. It would be reminiscent of the Norway with the gap between the rearward sections and maybe a Vor'cha type head.

I was thinking of something like that, but with a single rear section, and two command booms. Maybe, commanded by two siblings who hate each other.

Actually, I could see one of the necks ending with a "warhead." A structure bristling with disrupters and a couple of torp launchers.

[Jason Abbadon]

Looking at the top view, it could be a great destroyer IF they just kept the command pod and a very narrow stick like hull stretching straight back and had the other nacelle on a catamaran style hull with a big empty space between- I'm talking about scrapping 90% of the hull and ending up with something extremely light in tonnage but suprisingly well armed and very fast for it's weight.

That big torpedo magnet would become an open basketball hoop- attracting targeting sensors to what should be the center of mass but isn't....making this a cross between a destroyer and a wire-hangar.


Heck, you could even get fancy and mount the ship's disruptors on the catamaran parts holding the "away" nacelle, so the field of fire is broader.

[NoKhando]

"Captain , there appears to be an enemy vessel up ahead trying to attract our attention ."

"Identify Spock "

"Unknown Captain ...


.... Scans just show a big number Four."

[Griffworks]

Do you have any pics from the bow and stern views, perchance? Looks like you did the same thing I did and added Impulse Engine exhausts. Did you perchance add an aft photorp tube, too?

[NoKhando]

I just snapped this one while I work on it . Sorry about the quality . I need a better camera and the light is terrible atm (rainstorm)



No torps on this one . I read somewhere Klingon ships of the TOS period didn't carry them, as long missions made it difficult to replenish them . Sounds plausible .



Intake as seen on D7s . I don't know what it is , but its probably important .

[Griffworks]

In the FASA system, thats partially true. Up until the Four Years War - which takes place about 10 years before TOS, IIRC - , Klingons aren’t supposed to have had photorp tech. However, they developed it from captured Fed ships and seeing just how effective they could be.

In the Prime Trek Timeline, the Klingons has them before StarFleet, and deployed them in a variety of vessels, to include ships as small as their Early KBoP and Raptor. StarFleet gained knowledge of them in the episode “Sleepong Dogs”, and later integrated them into their ships.

From a practical point of view, it doesn’t matter how many photorps a ships magazine can hold, nor how often they can be resupplied. During WWII, destroyers, cruisers, and PT boats utilized them, and had limited storage space aboard ship for them. They packed a decent bang and didn’t require as much maintenance as the larger guns did.

In Trek terms and technology (i.e. Treknology), both realistic and gaming-wise, they take minimal energy allocation to arm and fire - usually requiring only one energy point to fire. Whereas disruptors and phasers require many times the power to arm and fire - damage output usually is the same amount of damage. Generally speaking, you could fire 5 photorps (we’ll say they do 5 points each) versus one 5 point energy shot. You just need enough tubes to launch them all in one action.

That latter paragraph is a part of my rationale for including them on many of the non-Fed warships I’ve built.

Obviously, that’s my corner of the Trek ‘Verse and you can operate yours how you see fit. There’s more than enough room for that, IMNSHO.

Thanks for the additional pics, regardless.