OUDF design Qs, was Re: DS/FT/SG: Tuffleyverse Cannon ...

> Alan Brain wrote:

[snip long description of how the BORON designs were created]

> From a Minimax viewpoint (ie how effective they are in a 1-off battle

The Tuwalu block Is do this individually, if they fill both module slots

with Standard or Gunpack modules. The others are a bit more arguable though
- they don't really have any more firepower per mass of ship than the
published FB1 ships. What they do have in spades is survivability, but that's
something else.

> At 24" their increased toughness and increased numbers (they're about

Um, Alan? The only way you'll ever get the BORON designs 10% cheaper per

Mass than the FB1 ships is by installing Cargo or Survey modules (not
Secure Cargo, mind you - they're too expensive!) in every module slot on

the Numbats and Tuvalu block Is, and none at all in the other ships. And if
you do *that*, "slightly inferior firepower" is an extreme understatement
even for someone brought up in Britain :-/ (...why am I reminded of NZ
defence policies while writing this...?)

1-3% cheaper per MASS is more accurate for combat-equipped BORON ships,
though of course it depends on exactly which FB1 ship you're comparing to. You
can push it as high as 6.6% by choosing the "norm" ship carefully...

OTOH the NAC Vandenburg costs less per Mass than any fully armed BORON
ship :-/

> Their unusually wide firing arcs makes them more likely to be within

Um, Alan? I've meant to ask you this for over a year, but... which FB1 ships
are you looking at when you call the BORON firing arcs "unusually wide"?

A Tuvalu armed with Standard modules does have wider firing arcs than the
FB1 pure-beam FB1 CHs, but its distributions of beams over the various
arcs is pretty similar to eg. NSL and NAC BCs (and heavier). If the Tuvalus
use
Gunpack modules instead - and that's what you describe as standard -
their beam distribution closely matches those of many FB1 CLs and lighter.

A Numbat/Gunpack has exactly the same beam armament as an NSL Radetzky
(which is IMO forward-heavy). The Numbat still has an edge over the Rad
in
dogfights, but that edge is due to its more powerful engines - not to
its
beam layout. A Numbat/Standard is similar to an ESU Beijing/B.

A River/Standard has 1 B1-6 more than the standard FB1 DD armament,
upping its broadside firepower to 71% of the frontal firepower vs 67% for the
stock DDs, but the ESU Volga beat them all by adding a B*2*-6 to the
stock
DD armament. A River/Gunpack has exactly the same beam armament as the
NSL Krprz Wilhelm and NAC Huron CLs (though the Huron is more maneuverable
than the River).

A Snake has exactly the same beam armament as the (slightly cheaper and less
protected) ESU Novgorod class, and the NAC Tacoma has a significantly
heavier and wider-arced armament (outgunning the Snake by 2 to 1 in the
AP
and AS arcs, by 3 to 2 in a head-on pass, and equals it elsewhere). The
Snake's thrust-7 engines don't give any significant maneuverability
advantage in dogfights compared to the thrust-6 engines of the Novgorod
and
Tacoma - they're all restricted to 3-pt turns.

> They'd be overly effective if it wasn't for the fact that most fleets

> fight quite well at ranges over 24", and that they are subject to

This is exactly the same problem as Phalons with all Pulsers tuned to
"C"
suffer, too <g>

> I also had a look at hulls that might well be made in a hurry

> screens removed and 360-arc Class 2s fitted, just to deal with the KV.

Why don't they just build anti-KV beam modules, with 2xB2-6 + 2xB1-6 (or

1xB1-6 + 1xPDS)? That'd make the Rivers and Tuvalus quite respectable
anti-KV units too... and it'd be a LOT faster than refitting the
non-modular parts of the hulls.

Finally, should the Waikato cost 312? I get the NPV to 314 (ie. 322, less 8
for the not-installed structure of the module).

Later,