Brigade's SemFed designs

No, not even commercial companies get away from my scrutiny <g>

First off, the "clock direction" system is somewhat difficult to read.
Tony, may I suggest that you use the fire arc codes on p.4 in FB
instead?

CAPITAL SHIPS							

Ben Gurion Class SDN is NPV 611, not 610.

Ramat David Class DN is NPV 511, not 499. It is equipped with 2
"Class-2 (11-1)" (ie, (F)-arc only) batteries, but but C2 batteries
come with 3 arcs as minimum.

CARRIERS

Dayan Class CVA: Design is OK, but to me "Hangar Space-72" means one
single huge hangar with space for 72 Mass of small craft rather than a
hangar with space for 48 Mass (8 fighter squadrons) or 8 separate
fighter bays. Not sure which of the latter two you mean, but some of my
Needle-armed ships would love a single huge hangar <g>

Gavish Class CVL: Uses only 91 Mass. It looks as if it is supposed to
have a Level-1 Screen; this would give the correct TMF and NPV but is
missing on the web page. Same problem with the hangars as the Dayan -
it only has space for 24 Mass of small craft/fighters (ie, 4
squadrons), not 36.

Ben Avis Class CVE: OK. Well, apart from the hangars :-/

Tolkovsky Class Very Light Carrier: Same as Ben Avis.
 
CRUISERS							

Meir Class CH: OK. It carries 4 Class-2: 2 x 9-3 (FP/F/FS) and 2 x 
7-1 (AP/FP/F), ie Alarishi-style offset batteries - but only for the
light guns, since the C3 batteries are mounted symmetrically. Is this
intentional?

Sharon Class CL: This ship can't fit 3 3-arc Class-3 batteries; they
should be C2s to fit the TMF and NPV.

Soltam Class CA: Shouldn't this ship have some FCs? <G> (Judging from
the TMF and NPV specified, it should have 3 of them but they're not
listed on the web page.)

ESCORT VESSELS							

Reshef Class CT: This ship is either TMF 14, NPV 47 or TMF 15, NPV 50,
but *NOT* TMF 15, NPV 47... apart from that it's OK <g>

David Class DDH: OK, but I was a little surprised not to find a note
about it being a system defence boat (after seeing the Tal class, at
least :-) )

ASSAULT SHIPS		
					
Merkava Class Assault Ship: Only uses 152 Mass. Screen-1 missing?
" Hanger Space-32; 2 x fighters groups plus 2 x TMF 10 shuttles"

This is the biggest reason I complained about all those carriers above;
here you suddenly state the total capacity of the hangar instead of its
total size instead of the other way around :-/ I much prefer this
notation to the one used for the other carriers, though.

Shafrir Class Assault Lander: If this is a *lander*, I'd probably want
some streamlining as well :-/

MERCHANTS AND FREIGHTERS

Negev Class Heavy Freighter: OK, but... screens on a Fragile hull looks
like a waste of money since they only give about half the protection
the same Mass of armour would (if they protect at all, which they only
do against beams and EMP missiles at the moment), and they cost more
than the armour would :-(.

Golan Class Container Ship: OK, but see Negev comment about screens.

Golan Class Merchant Fighter Carrier: Judging from the TMF and NPV of
this ship, the External Fighter Rack is Mass 10, Cost 30 - ie larger
and more expensive than a standard fighter bay. If that is true, what's
the point with using the external rack (except that the model looks
cool)?

Sinai Class Light Merchant Cruiser: 3 Mass are unused. Should it be
Thrust-4 instead?

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry