Re: Far Stars Union--web site for FT

Hofrichter, Robert W. wrote:

Taking the summary first:

>To sort of sum this up-the designs presented were not intended to be
>the most efficient nor necessarily the best for use in tactical
>situations-like most real-world vessels, their designs are based upon
>national production capabilities, the changing whims of Admiralty,
>strategic as well as tactical considerations, and just plain silliness
(in a >few instances). 

Good reasons :-) The background description suggested it, which is why
I only found them "a bit surprising". I was mainly curious if they were
weak by intent or by accident; now I know it was intentional <G>

A few comments to the comments:

> RE general vessel design philosophy (weak hulls, lack of armor, use
>of screens on light units):

> As for the Virginia-that one was modified so extensively from its
>original configuration that I figured the hull would be substantially
weaker
>than when originally built.  In each of these cases, the vessel was a
>carrier, and so, based upon the fighter theories espoused by the USN,
>shouldn't actually be placed in the line of battle.

She has a pretty powerful beam armaments for a ship not supposed to be
in the line of battle, though. While this makes her able to defend
herself when attacked, it'll make it very tempting for the admiral to
use
her as a reserve - a role her hull doesn't really allow her to play :-(

(Says the one who regularly uses beam-heavy, extremely fast,
weak-hulled ships... I know from first-hand experience how fast they
can go BOOM if they stray too close to the enemy :-/ )

>As for the Echo/Foxtrot designs and the use of screens instead of
>armor-while the nation started out as a breakaway from the NSL, most
>of the Navy folks are Anglian-descended, and tend to think more like
>the NAC Admiralty than the NSL.  The reasons screens were used on the
>escorts are:
> 
>1.	because of the "big ship" thinking of the Brass runs up against
the
>limited shipyard capability that the nation has.  In other words, it's
>a prestige thing-vessels with screens are OBVIOUSLY more important
>than those without ;-) 

<argh> Typical RN thinking, yes :-( I've recently aired my opinions on
the
NAC design doctrines; I'm not going to do it again...

>2.	armor wasn't used extensively because armor has to be repaired
>between battles-which could take yard time, while screens (unless they
>are knocked out) continue to function.

OTOH, armour is more likely to allow the ship to limp home for repairs
at all. Strategically, it is much easier to repair a damaged ship than
it is to replace a destroyed one  :-)

> 3.	the point defense capability of the FSU fleet is pretty good
(much
>better than standard designs as most vessels have more PD than
>equivalent FB units and many have ADFC, contributing to the protection
>of their squadron-mates, not to mention the fighters), passive
>defenses are seen as the primary method for protecting against beams,
>while PD handles the missiles.

ADFC is powerful, but not nearly as reliable as armour. It only takes
one missile on target to really ruin a Foxtrot, and, well... The local
standard SM tactics is to shoot up any small-to-medium-sized unit which
looks like having an ADFC or looks like a Banzai Jammer, and *then*
launch missiles to mop up what's left :-/

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