Proposal for R12/SSJ:

In Y165 with the failure of the FH the Kzintis looked to an improved verison of the unpopular destroyer to fill the gap between the FF and CL.

The result was the Heavy Destroyer HDD. This design was the first Kzinti ship to use the "Saddle Bag" concept later seen on the DNM & DNW.

Added in the left "saddle bag":

1 P1-LS
1 Drn-A
2 APR
2 C Hull

Added in the right "saddle bag":

1 P1-RS
1 Drn-A
2 Btty
2 C Hull

One P-3 was also added to the left and right side weapons booms.

Total DD (w/o warp): 44
Total HDD (w/o warp): 58

The warp engines used were a new design that was later used on the CM. (3x8 box)

MC .667
TM C
BPV ~ 110
SC 4

Only one ship was converted as a prototype, the Kzintis found the design to be unsatisfactory, though they did not convert the ship back to a DD. It is thought that the ship was lost defending the homeworld.

The failure of this design led that Kzinti to introduce the FFK and later the DW to fill the gap between the frigates and the cruisers.

Comments?

JBP

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 11:29 am: Edit

Slight flaw.

The Kzinti Destroyer was not an "unpopular" design. It was an "expensive" design. When it first appeared it was better armed than the Light Cruiser (same number of weapons, but the Destroyer had four phaser-1s and two phaser-3s to the Light Cruiser's two phaser-1s and four phaser-3s). The Destroyer also had slightly more shields than the Light Cruiser. The Comprensive Refit added two disruptors to the Light Cruiser, which gave it better weapons (overall), but it was compared to the Destroyer severely underpowered.

Then, as history notes, the Medium Cruiser came on the scene. Slightly better armed (an extra disruptor and two ADD racks), with more power and better shielding, and . . . well the cost of the Destroyer could not be justified.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Yah--the DD is a fantastic ship for its cost and for its time frame (i.e. the late 160's). The reason the DD didn't go real far is that, as noted, the CM was developed right at the start of the war, and from a strategic standpoint, the CM was cheaper to build and more effective than the DD (in F+E, the DD has 6 attack factors and costs 6 to build; the CM has 7 attack factors and costs 5 to build).

Thus, money was funneled into CMs as quickly as possible and DDs got quickly phased out. The FF/FH/FK all kept getting built as they were comparatively cheap (2.5-3.5 EP per ship, again, using F+E as the economic model), and eventually, cheap DWs (at 4 EPs for a 6 attack factors) filled in the gap.

-Peter

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:09 pm: Edit

SPP, your statement, "Then, as history notes, the Medium Cruiser came on the scene. Slightly better armed (an extra disruptor and two ADD racks), with more power and better shielding, and . . . well the cost of the Destroyer could not be justified." confuses me (and I am honestly confused by this).
If that is the case, why then would the Kzin build their DW 4 years after the advent of the CM that is comparable in expense (84 vs 90), firepower (1 P-1 less), and capabilities (nearly the same systems, adding an ADD on the DW for 2 APR on the DD)? Would it not make sense to keep making the DD?

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Unfortunately I believe he was talking about the Economic Point Value not the BPV. It's a lot cheaper to build the DW in F+E than it is to buy it with BPV in SFB. In F+E the DW costs 2/3 of what the DD costs: 4 vs. 6.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Yeesh, 4 vs. 6? That's a pretty decent difference for a comparable ship alright (as I don't play F&E, I didn't know that).

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:46 pm: Edit

Not a problem. Just so you know, if you want to find out what the costs of the ships in F+E, they have the costs for all (okay, most) of the ships in the F+E section under: MASTER SIT UPDATES. Even if you don't play F+E they are kind of interesting to look through.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Tim wrote:
>>If that is the case, why then would the Kzin build their DW 4 years after the advent of the CM that is comparable in expense (84 vs 90), firepower (1 P-1 less), and capabilities (nearly the same systems, adding an ADD on the DW for 2 APR on the DD)? Would it not make sense to keep making the DD?>>

As noted, on a strategic level, the CM costs 5 money for 7 combat ability, the DW costs 4 money for 6 combat ability, while the DD costs 6 money for 6 combat ability ("War" hulls like CW, DW, and NCA are built significantly cheaper than non "war" hulls like regular CA, CL, DD). That, and for whatever reason, it was necessary to have small, cheap hulls for carrier groups (i.e. by doctrine, most carrier groups are required to have a "small" escort, which is generally an FFE or DWE)--the Kzinti DW spent most of its life replacing silly little EFs in carrier groups.

So while the Kzinti kept on building FFs for FF variants (FFs always get a building discount like "war" hull ships--the Kzinti FF is 2.5 money for 4 combat ability), they used the DW to replace FF variants (like escorts, scouts, etc), as they were only marginally more expensive yet considerably more surviable.

The DD (which, being a non "war" hull, was expensive compared to both the CM and the DW) only entered production in y160 (give or take) and only remained in production till about y169, when the CM started rolling off the line. Historically, the Kzinti only ever built about 6-9 plain DDs before the CM replaced them on the production schedule.

-Peter

By Bennett Eugene Snyder (Planner) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 10:44 pm: Edit

And then the DD was turned into the PFT.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Thanks for the clarification, guys.