PDAF and ADAF's

Do most people out there fit ADAF's or PDAF's as standard equipment on cruiser
or capital ships? or do you opt for "Aegis" destryoers and cruisers loaded to
the gills with ADAF's?

My problem with the "Aegis" idea, is that it usually becomes obvious fairly
quick that that is what the ship is, and then depending on the tactical
situation, they are either totally ignored or quickly destroyed.

Much better to spread the defence capabilities around so that no single ship
is either useless (with nothing to shoot at) or critical (the majority of
*DAF).

IMHO.

Out here.

        -monty

> cruiser or capital ships? or do you opt for "Aegis" destryoers and

I have a question on a simular line.  What stats/rules are people using
for "Aegis" systems. I remember seeing a few posts a ways back (months) but
con't remember what they were. I'm trying to come up with my own variant that
I like.
                 +++++++++++++++
    +------------+             +----------------+

> My problem with the "Aegis" idea, is that it usually becomes

Note that this is EXACTLY what happens in wargames with AWACS. (The real ones
for training, not tabletop wargames). If the UK are the 'bad guys', the AWACS
is usualy the primary target. In one excercise (operation Mapel Leaf) the RAF
took something like 50% losses just to scare the AWACS out of range. The
squadron leader commented that if it were not an excersise, they would have
gone supersonic and blown it away, even though the tornado that would do this
would not have enough fuel to return. The result of loosing the AWACS for the
'good guys' (US, Canada, Germany) was devastating.

> Much better to spread the defence capabilities around so that

I have found that specialist ships do have their advantages. eg Maulers with
nothing but AA and Screens, with low thrust, mixed with Aegis type ships you
mention with high thrust. Again, loosing a specialist ship can be a blow, so
defend them.

In any fleet comprising 4 or more vessels, I find that ADAF on cruisers are
more effective than PDAF on the defending ship. The standard cruisers are good
designs simply because they fit ADAF.

> Do most people out there fit ADAF's or PDAF's as standard equipment on

> cruiser or capital ships? or do you opt for "Aegis" destryoers and

> --Binhan Lin

I fit most ships with at least one ADAF. I can then maul most fighter groups
that get within 6". Only Destroyers and smaller fit PDAF only, and then some
'escort' ships are armed primeraly with ADAF. My fleets tend to be very
fighter 'unfreindly'.

> Do most people out there fit ADAF's or PDAF's as standard equipment

> a.delafield@bolton.ac.uk

A passing thought:  as most of us probably use the C-battery against
fighters/missiles idea, how about letting an ADAF add C-batteries, if
the
ship has them, to it's supporting anti-fighter fire.  Say, up to 2
C-batteries per ADAF, at double points but no extra mass for the
batteries.
That would permit WW2 style "heavy dual-purpose" secondary batteries on
heavy units, and CLAAs like the RN Dido or US Atlanta classes.

Just a notion! Rob

> Do most people out there fit ADAF's or PDAF's as standard equipment on

Generally my capitals and cruisers will be armed with PDAF's as a standard
peice of equiptment, and if I am expecting heavy fighter opposition then I
bring my escort cruisers that carry 3 to 4 ADAF's apeice and more fighters of
my own to take theirs out.

> Rob Paul wrote:

Interesting, but typically like weapons will share a fire control and the
C-batts are somewhat different than the ADAF or PDAF systems.  One way
to
think of it is the C-batts work like dual purpose 5" guns and the ADAF
and PDAF resemble 40mm AA systems. Both systems have different rates of fire,
ranges, etc. that a fire control system would need to coordinate without being
overly complex and costly.

It might be appropriate to use an all new fire control system that is designed
to link different weapon types. The new firecon would have increased mass and
cost to reflect its design. I think there was something like this in
Traveller:2300 called UTES or "Unified Target Engagement System". I personally
like this designation better than Aegis, which makes me think of 20th century
technology aside from just being used way too often in like games.

Proposed system:

UTES
Cost: 20 + 5 per additional weapon type.
Mass: 5 Desc: Works as a firecon allowing two or more different weapon types
to share a targeting solution. Base UTES will operate two different weapon
systems.

What do you think?

> Mike Miserendino wrote:

I don't know about you, but if I mount 2 of these on a ship, I'll keep
thinking of 'My Cousin Vinny'.

You see your honor, these 2 UTES...

> Stuart Ford writes:

> I don't know about you, but if I mount 2 of these on a ship, I'll

<groan!>  How DO you live with yourself?   <g>