dreamrider wrote:Don't know if this has been mentioned, since I sorta skipped through the thread, BUT...
A DN(P) is an inherently inefficient design.
Why?
Because of the (P).
Same reason that the BC(P) are a somewhat inefficient design, however in their case, there were/are greater offsetting factors, since their role was never to be substitute ships-of-the-wall.
dreamrider
I wouldn't call it inefficient, but rather transitory. As long as no bad guy does have a SD(P) or comparable design by himself (and as far as the GA knows, that's true at the moment; after all, they don't know yet about the Detweiler-class - the Sharks used for Oyster-Bay were more in the range of a BC(P), and I think, the careful analysis of the hyper-footprints will show, that it couldn't be anything bigger than that), a DN(P) could be useful at least in war theaters the Admirality considers as 2nd rate. To calm systems the GA has allied to and need to protect, without to much ... distraction of their main forces.
DN(P)s could even be used as testbed for new technologies, like ... Warships under remote control? Simply to limit the manpower requirements you need to operate them. And if a DN(P) can suddenly accelerate with ... 2,000 or 3,000g or even higher (because no living soul is actually on-board), wouldn't that be a nice surprise for the first MAN commander who comes calling?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a082/9a0828ea8c52fe169ee01ff1bfdcd5babd98ebc0" alt="Wink ;)"