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
>
BUT, I've always been a big fan of drop tanks. The RC is very
expeditionary-minded, they would work it out.
> 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
>>
>
>
>
I'm a big fan of calibration points as well, having filled RSB with them.
I'm sure Franklin did his homework and came up with a good solution.
Bottom line is everything is always a mix of several complementary
capabilities. Inflight refueling, drop tanks, islands in the middle of the
ocean, carriers as lily-pads.
By the way, Franklin, if you read this, I'll try to remember to go to BARD
and have a look.
Dave
> I think Franklin Cain had an alternate solution at BARD, X-Boat
> Tender-enabled 'calibration points' in the RC, but drop tanks might be
> more economic for getting ships to a permanent station.
>
> Eamon
>
>
>
> ________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012, 0:30
Subject: Re: Ships that don't work (was Re: [Traveller_TNE] Clippers and
> Tigresses and spheres, oh my!)
>
>
> Â
> Forgot to mention this:
>
> BUT, I've always been a big fan of drop tanks. The RC is very
> expeditionary-minded, they would work it out.
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
TSR-2 was one of the sweetest-looking planes ever built. Corgi has an
outstanding 1:72 diecast out. I have one! :-)
Arrow was more in that hulking, F-4 Phantom raw, brute, "I'll fly because
I say so" look. However, we in the US have the Arrow cancellation to thank
for allowing us to make it to the Moon, so you take what you can get.
Actually I think you're missing a few of the UK aborted prototypes, but I
didn't try really hard on my US list, trying to stick with only the
"multi-role, all-things-to-all-people" projects. That's why I left off
F-22, because her faults are not due to that, just basic US over-reach in
general.
> Come to think of it, our forces are 'shorter'
> now too ;)
Yeah, when I heard that they had a 70-some aircraft flypast for ERII, I
thought the RAF must have had to put everything they owned in the air,
plus borrow some from the RN and France.
Dave
> 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
>
I thought so. What did I say? I want to say I remember thinking it was a
good idea and encouraging you, but beyond that...
>> Franklin, is my memory correct that you talked to me
>> about the CPs at one point?
>
> Yep. ;-) I'd called you guys at GDW, worried about the
> impending doom, and had a chance to speak with you about
> that.
>
>
>