RE: [FT] Efficient Designs (PDS vs C-1)

That was what I was looking for.  3-2-1 ratio there between
PDS/C-1/ADFC.

Your comments on the fighter bay mass and cost are also well heeded. 
With 6 
endurence only, fighters also are more expensive in longer operations in

that they don't have 100% operational life of the battle.

High priority vessels should have 6 PDS, and escorts should have similar

numbers plus an ADFC.

I am reminded of a naval game I once played in which I played the Soviet

Union (Nasty 1985 version, not nice 1995 version) and my friend, a naval

officer played the US.	The game was in the med.  On turn one my friend 
decided to get aggressive and used his aircraft off of the Nimitz to
spend 
most of their time on strike missions.	With a weakened CAP I was able
to 
launch Bear (I think) out of Sevastopol, got within 300 miles of the
group 
and put a Kingfisher ASM into the Nimitz.  She became so disabled there
was 
not hope of recovery during the game.  He conceded right there!

The point is that defense against magic bullets like fighters and
missiles 
is key which is why I was interested in this.

>From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
>Personally, if I was applying 12 mass to active defences, I'd fit 6
PDS, 4 
>C-1 & an ADFC.  This balances your offensive and defensive
>requirements.

_________________________________________________________________