Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

 Roger Burton West wrote: (sorry, you'll see this twice)

>Tacoma/C NPV is 93, not 91. CPV 73.

 Do'h! Corrected.

 [ Mosquito and screens moved to another message ]

>Fury NPV is correct, CPV is 193. I think I'd want more PDS to justify
>the ADFC, but tastes vary.

 Like just about everyone else the OC don't think the Furious
 cuts it as an escort. The Fury is mostly a fast cruiser, and
 occasionally useful as an escort. Or, it was too hard to take
 the ADFC out :-)

>Invincible CPV is 190. I think the armament is possibly a bit low - is
>it really going to be able to stay away from enemy ships with thrust 4?

 The background section on tactics/doctrine was for the 'quicks'
 only. The slower guys defend places, or convoys, and don't run
 away. If the enemy send in a big fleet, they expect to be
 warned in time to jump out. No doubt this leads to some heroic
 and futile last stands...

>A thrust-6 version (lose the screens and all but one box of armour: NPV
>264, CPV 186) might be worth considering.

 Rewritten to include the long running debate: "we need a fast
 carrier!" "Sending two squadrons along won't really help" "Yes
 it would, besides we could hot-rod a light carrier and get
 four" ... Currently on hold since against the Kra'Vak fighters
 don't work terribly well :-(

>Vandenburg/AT: a torpedo escort cruiser would probably be a /TE
variant.
>CPV 256. Do you really need both FCSs? Maybe a second ADFC? Maybe
>downrate one of the B2s to paired B1s to provide extra PD firepower?

 "A" is used for Tacoma and Minerva variants. Ack-Ack?

>Excalibur/M: CPV 528. I don't think a single-arc pulse torpedo on a
>thrust-4 ship is a good idea if you're flying in cinematic,
particularly
>against K'V or S'V.

 Agreed, particularly not against Kra'Vak! Like most of these
 designs it's from before the Xeno War. No doubt there are new
 NAC ships being produced, but I assume Core/Defence would grab
 them first.

>Wasp: CPV 288. Same comments as the Invincible really.

 I was thinking quick and cheap to build. There might be an
 export market.

>Essex: CPV 428. Again, I'd be inclined to cut back on the defences and
>add some more weaponry.

 It's a speculative design. Yes, it's tempting to instead strip
 half the protection from an Ark Royal and fit some heavy guns
 on. Maybe the Essex will never get built...

>
>variants. I suspect that a group called "Outworlds" would have supply
>problems sufficient to make missiles a relatively bad idea except in
>special cases...

 Agreed. The number of missile cruisers is too high, it's
 really a specialist/experimental design.

>The "SSD sheets" link returns a 403.

 Do'h! Forgot to upload. Has been fixed. Not terribly exciting
 though, just links to a couple of PDFs with ship record sheets.

 Thank you, and to everyone who replied.

	Hugh