Re: PDAF and ADAF's

> My problem with the "Aegis" idea, is that it usually becomes 
> obvious fairly quick that that is what the ship is, and then
> depending on the tactical situation, they are either totally ignored
> or quickly destroyed.

Note that this is EXACTLY what happens in wargames with AWACS.
(The real ones for training, not tabletop wargames). If the UK are 
the 'bad guys', the AWACS is usualy the primary target. In one
excercise (operation Mapel Leaf) the RAF took something like
50% losses just to scare the AWACS out of range. The squadron
leader commented that if it were not an excersise, they would have 
gone supersonic and blown it away, even though the tornado that would
do this would not have enough fuel to return. The result of loosing 
the AWACS for the 'good guys' (US, Canada, Germany) was devastating.
 
> Much better to spread the defence capabilities around so that
> no single ship is either useless (with nothing to shoot at) or
> critical (the majority of *DAF).

I have found that specialist ships do have their advantages. eg
Maulers with nothing but AA and Screens, with low thrust, mixed
with Aegis type ships you mention with high thrust. Again, loosing a
specialist ship can be a blow, so defend them.

In any fleet comprising 4 or more vessels, I find that ADAF on
cruisers are more effective than PDAF on the defending ship.
The standard cruisers are good designs simply because they fit ADAF.
--
"I'm hunting Wabbits."
a.delafield@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk
<http://basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk/~ad4/sfsfw/sfsfw.html>