Makeover for On Basilisk Station

Dauntless wrote:been a while but wasn't CL fearless ECM and PD 30/40% better then predicted? and Fearless was OLD, though just out of refit so ECM etc might have been updated to top of the line though I don't remember that being explicitly stated.

just some thoughts, most of which we have no way to verify but it does provide something of an explanation of the lower build numbers.

Considering where Fearless was supposed to go after the war games, I don't expect they updated much of the hardware. Just the bare minimum to make her fight-worthy in the games.

Then again, it might have been enough for that edge over Sirius.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Dauntless wrote:been a while but wasn't CL fearless ECM and PD 30/40% better then predicted? and Fearless was OLD, though just out of refit so ECM etc might have been updated to top of the line though I don't remember that being explicitly stated.

just some thoughts, most of which we have no way to verify but it does provide something of an explanation of the lower build numbers.

Considering where Fearless was supposed to go after the war games, I don't expect they updated much of the hardware. Just the bare minimum to make her fight-worthy in the games.

Then again, it might have been enough for that edge over Sirius.

Besides, RMN ships are usually kept fairly up to date tech wise - that's their big advantage over everyone else. CL Fearless had just come from an operational cruise prior to being selected for the experiment, so was still in operational shape, even if she didn't have this month's hardware updates. I believe we can assume that virtually nothing was as-built spec, having been through multiple mid-life upgrades for her major systems. And as Haven accidently found during the first few months of the war - everything the RMN fielded was qualitatively far superior to similar platforms which they fielded. So a CL with last quarter's upgrades should still be superior to Haven's expectations.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Dauntless wrote:been a while but wasn't CL fearless ECM and PD 30/40% better then predicted? and Fearless was OLD, though just out of refit so ECM etc might have been updated to top of the line though I don't remember that being explicitly stated.

just some thoughts, most of which we have no way to verify but it does provide something of an explanation of the lower build numbers.

Considering where Fearless was supposed to go after the war games, I don't expect they updated much of the hardware. Just the bare minimum to make her fight-worthy in the games.

Then again, it might have been enough for that edge over Sirius.

OTOH ECM/Stealth could have a real bearing on the outcome of the games -- so shortchanging her there might unfairly skew the results against the concept.

Point defense you can just 'pretend' was improved for the purpose of the games, and her missiles suite wasn't expected to be a factor so that could also have been left alone. But when you're trialing a weapon that requires you get get in very close, against very big very dangerous targets, your ability to hide from, or spoof, them seems like it'd be a major factor in your possible effectiveness (and thus something you'd want to get live test data on).

So even a minimal refit for the games could very well have involved bringing her ECM systems up to fully modern spec.



(And we know they did more than the bare minimum for game testing; since in the games her GL was dial down enough that it wouldn't actually drop a sidewall - and her energy torps were similarly firing at very low power. If all they wanted was a unit to simulate a GL + ET combatant they wouldn't have needed to gut a ship to actually install real (and big and expensive) GL and all those ETs. They could have just waved a magic wand and put in simulation rules that if she uses low powered lasers on you from within 'X' range simulate a GL + ET hit)

Jonathan_S wrote:<snip>

(And we know they did more than the bare minimum for game testing; since in the games her GL was dial down enough that it wouldn't actually drop a sidewall - and her energy torps were similarly firing at very low power. If all they wanted was a unit to simulate a GL + ET combatant they wouldn't have needed to gut a ship to actually install real (and big and expensive) GL and all those ETs. They could have just waved a magic wand and put in simulation rules that if she uses low powered lasers on you from within 'X' range simulate a GL + ET hit)

That is very interesting... if they were interested in just demoing the tactic, all they would have had to do is task a Star Knight and give it some software mods - it would have best replicated a next gen CA in every way shape and form (as compared to any other unit in service, that is).

No, they were also demonstrating that it actually was possible to fit all the necessary mods into a ship and still leave it capable of fighting - which it was... poorly. And since the role of said ship was a close range attack, ensuring such a ship could carry the essential massive ECM suite to ensure survival would be paramount. Sadly, they proved that while the installation concept was feasible, it left the small ship at deficiency against other small ships - And most importantly, proved the tactic was a 1 trick pony.