Re: Brigade's SemFed designs

Tony Francis wrote:

> > > > CAPITAL SHIPS
> > > >
> > > > Ben Gurion Class SDN is NPV 611, not 610.
> > >
> > > Hull mass 176 = 176 pts
> > > Hull Integrity 3 (average) = 53 (52.8) mass = 106 pts
> > > Main Engines 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 36 pts
> > > FTL = 18 (17.6) mass = 36 pts
> > > Armour 9 = 9 mass = 18 pts
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Here's the difference - well, half of it, anyway. It says 8 armour
on
> > the web page (at least it did last when I looked at it two days
ago).
> >
> > > Screens 2 = 18 (17.6) mass = 54 pts
> > > PDS x 4 = 4 mass = 12 pts
> > > FCS x 4 = 4 mass = 16 pts
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > And here's the other half: the web page says 5 FCS. I'm still in
error;
> > the design on the web page should be 612 pts :-/
> 
> Aha, so you are fallible after all ! ;-)

<G> I freely admit that as soon as I realize I've screwed up <G> 
 
> I think I'll go with the 4 FCS / 9 armour version. I like lots of FCS
on
> most ships (no point having loads of weapons if your one-and-only
fire
> control is kaput) but four should be plenty - don't often fire at
more than
> two targets anyway.

OK.

> > It's just that you describe the Mass 48 hangar on the Merkava as a
> > "hangar space-32" :-/
> 
> To be corrected ... I'll use the Merkava convention (ie usable hanger

>  space as opposed to hull space occupied).

Thanks :-)

> > OK. Remove 5 Cargo space for Partial streamlining, cost 126?
> 
> I'd say yes, but I've just read Thomas Barclay's complete redesign of
the
> ship so I might go with that - once you've proof-read the design, of 
> course :-)

It looks fine, yes.

> > Somehow it doesn't feel right to me that commercial shipping lines
-
> > *Jewish* commercial shipping lines, who have an age-old reputation
to
> > live up (down?) to ;-) - would shell out a lot of cash for a system
> > which doesn't provide any real protection, when they could get at
least
> > far better protection for a lower cost... <g>
> 
> Moving dangerously close to stereotyping there ...

That's why I put in the ;-) <g> But I have a healthy respect for the
Israeli defence industry, and I don't think Jewish civilian ship
builders would be that much less thorough in their analyses.
 
> However, consider me convinced.

:-)

> > > Thanks for all that (I think).
> >
> > <g> I did the same for Jon, though in that case it was prior to
> > publishing rather than afterwards  <g>
> 
> Most mistakes were due to errors in typing / copying, rather than
> calculations (although you have helped me knock a couple of bugs out
of > the spreadsheet). What I really need is a facility that guarantees
no 
> errors between spreadsheet design and HTML output ... have to get to 
> grips with Excels HTML exporter.

There's no way to guarantee the absence of transmission errors,
particularly when MS software is involved... Having other people
double-check things is probably the most effective solution, but even
so you always find *something* when you first open the printed
product/watch the web page after it's up :-(

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