The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate. The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.
One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds. The only difference between them is the armour.
Example 1 class Tin Can 582 tons 20 Crew 72.2 BP TCS 12 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-6 Shields 0-0 HTK 5 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 11 PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years MSP 77 AFR 3% IFR 0.0% 1YR 0 5YR 5 Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range N/A
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Example 2 class Tin Can 3,272,493,938 tons 20 Crew 392,699,274.9 BP TCS 65,449,879 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 2000-196349 Shields 0-0 HTK 5 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 11 PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years MSP 75 AFR 85673732567223% IFR 1189912952322.5% 1YR 9,495,505,359,534 5YR 142,432,580,393,008 Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range N/A
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point. Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?