I keep meaning to re-work the RCN Destroyers using FFS2's extreme needle configuration (10:1 L/W ratio) and see if a nice tonnage arises out of the experiment. I'm with you on the easy on PPT stuff - but at least you have a resonable list in the US, in the UK/Commonwealth ours is much shorter: TSR-2, HS1154, HS681, Arrow. Come to think of it, our forces are 'shorter' now too ;)
Eamon
________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012, 0:28
Subject: Re: Ships that don't work (was Re: [Traveller_TNE] Clippers and Tigresses and spheres, oh my!)
Yeah, the idea was that some parts of ship fabrication were more tightly
constrained than others ("A starport" stuff), and that was the base spine
for the Clippers. The building out from there could be more widely farmed
out ("B starport" stuff). But never as easy as on the PPT slides when they
came up with the idea. JSF. FCS. ALMS. Crusader. MBT-70. LCS.
> Reminds me of the the streamlined Fusilier and Lancer Classes from PoT -
> designer time (in game terms) saved by basing them on the Aurora Clipper
> spine, but massive engineering redesigns needed because the streamlined
> configurations necessitated a tripling of tonnage.
>
> It's kind of like the Ticonderoga Cruisers, which were based on the
> Sprucans (~8000 tons), coming out at 24,000 tons instead of the approx
> 10,000 tons they actually did.
>
> I also reckoned, that once the Solee War got going, certain Centrists
> would get panned for limiting these RCN Destroyers to J-2 - making for an
> arduous trip to the frontlines from Aubaine.
>
> Eamon
>