Argonaut Class (Oversized) Heavy Cruiser

[BwenGun (OP)]

So been tinkering around with the new release having not played in over a decade, and as an experiment decided to try and put together a version of one of the ships I've used in my writing. And then because I'm nothing if not overly ambitious I decided it was the perfect excuse to draw a pixelart profile of the ship, which ended up being far more time consuming than I anticipated but pretty satisfying now its done.


Click the image for the full resolution image.

Argonaut class Heavy Cruiser      114,497 tons       2,442 Crew       20,259.4 BP       TCS 2,290    TH 1,750    EM 0
2183 km/s      Armour 16-210       Shields 0-0       HTK 743      Sensors 110/55/0/0      DCR 30-2      PPV 475
Maint Life 2.26 Years     MSP 91,105    AFR 10488%    IFR 145.7%    1YR 24,008    5YR 360,125    Max Repair 1093.7500 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Magazine 8,874 / 0   
Commodore    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 5    Morale Check Required   
11x Suárez Industrias de Hipermateriales OF-Drive Ring - DH93-5   

Calasso Aerospace MGT-VT-1875-3582 'Roheryn' Fusion Drive Engine (4)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 151.79%    Signature 437.5000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 22,000,000 Litres    Range 22.8 billion km (120 days at full power)

Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal Spinal C4-111K-NU 37.50cm Laser (1)    Range 384,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 37-4     RM 30,000 km    ROF 50       
Twin Sons of Wayland Precision Arms C4-48K-NU 25.0cm Laser Turret (2x2)    Range 384,000km     TS: 3500 km/s     Power 32-8     RM 30,000 km    ROF 20       
Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal Spinal V40/C4 20cm Railgun (3x4)    Range 160,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 12-4     RM 40,000 km    ROF 15       
Quad Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal GR30-17-57D  'Cyclone' Gauss Cannon Turret (10x12)    Range 30,000km     TS: 23900 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
CIWS-160 (20x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Suzuki-Tisdell Technologies PDF-B-R64 'Khetaka' Fire Control Computer (4)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s    ECCM-1     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Lightfoot & Massare Technical LRL-38K-R4 Fire Control Computer (3)     Max Range: 384,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s    ECCM-1     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Avalon Orbital Industries Mark 12 MMD Fusion Reactor (5)     Total Power Output 200    Exp 5%

Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal ASM-8C 'Arbalest' (36)     Missile Size: 8    Rate of Fire 25
Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal AMM-1B 'Atlatl' (36)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Barry-Sonnenkind Netzelektro ASM-R507 Anti-Ship Missile Fire Control Computer (4)     Range 89.4m km    Resolution 50   ECCM-1
Suzuki-Tisdell AM-R50B Anti Missile Fire Control Computer (6)     Range 24.3m km    Resolution 1   ECCM-1
SASM-8 Mark 4 'Akondio' Anti-Ship Missile (709)    Speed: 21,100 km/s    End: 45.2m     Range: 57.3m km    WH: 6.25    Size: 8    TH: 70/42/21
LASM-8 Mark 4 'Velos' Anti-Ship Laser-Warhead Missile (200)    Speed: 21,100 km/s    End: 45.2m     Range: 57.3m km    WH: 5    Size: 8    TH: 70/42/21
SAMM-1 Mark 2 'Kopis' Anti-Missile Missile (1600)    Speed: 31,800 km/s    End: 1.1m     Range: 2.2m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 106/63/31

Barry-Sonnenkind Netzelektro AS167-R60 (50%) 'Argus' Primary Active Search Sensor (1)     GPS 31500     Range 167.8m km    Resolution 60
Barry-Sonnenkind Netzelektro AS88-R100 (50%) 'Talos' Secondary Active Search Sensor  (1)     GPS 10500     Range 89m km    Resolution 100
Thales-Rieger Electronic Systems AMDS-22-R1 'Dubán' Missile Defence Sensor (2)     GPS 147     Range 22.7m km    MCR 2m km    Resolution 1
Thales-Rieger Electronic Systems PTH10B-110 Thermal Sensor  (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km
Thales-Rieger Electronic Systems PEM5D-55 EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  58.6m km

Electronic Warfare Jammers:   Sensor 2    Fire Control 2    Missile 2   

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Warship for auto-assignment purposes

Aurora isn't really kind to multipurpose ships or those with lots of redundant systems as they increase the weight and cost very quickly. On the other hand the process of building out the ship and actually seeing it all logically ordered out has been really useful in terms of its capabilities and it made we re-think a few of the weapon choices.

One thing to note is that I added OF-Drive Rings as a misc component at 750 tons apiece, but balanced it out by doubling fuel and maintenance storage. Basic idea is they're the key behind non-newtonian spaceflight. The rings contain a top and bottom ring segment made of non-newtonian materials with the rest of the ring composed of superconductors, capacitors and power management systems. When power gets passed through them it creates a pair of oval bubble where newtonian physics is somewhat shifted, specifically thrust passed through the confluence where the two bubbles intersect enables the generation of instantaneous sustained velocity. In the story the rings also generate a simulated gravity in proportion to the power passed through them, which also has an effect on how fast the ship goes (so the faster the ship goes the higher the simulated gravity pulling down on the non-newtonian ring segment).

In terms of tech it uses a renamed Ion Engine and Magnetic Mirror Fusion reactors, though again I went with way more than needed for the design because in my head the reactors are not just powering the weapons here, but also the OF-Drive Rings which are quite power hungry.

I'd be really interested to hear peoples opinions/critiques of the design as the whole design process has been satisfyingly crunch so far but I am very rusty when it comes to Aurora.

[Steve Zax]

BwenGun! I remember that name from one (several?) of Blue Emu's AARs on Paradox forum. You were at Wolf 294? in Ad Astra?

[Ulzgoroth]

Your 25 cm laser turret has a lower tracking speed than your base tech, that seems like it might be counterproductive...though it might wind up being ignored? I'm not sure. The gauss turrets having higher tracking speed than your BFCs can support is also not currently useful, though it might facilitate a future refit with improved point defense BFC.

Is the Lightfoot & Massare Technical LRL-38K-R4 Fire Control Computer a single-weapon BFC? It seems like it could be, at one each for the spinal gun and laser turrets.

You might want to look at new mechanics relevant to your AMMs, if the SAMM-1 Mark 2 'Kopis' Anti-Missile Missile has the large unitary warhead that the stat-line suggests. As presented, it's going to go against peer ASMs with a <15% hit rate, which is not promising at your balance between offensive and defensive launchers.

Given their size I'm guessing there are some tricks under the hood in your ASMs that don't display in the stat line?


Overall I'd call this ship very slow for a warship of its tech level, especially one that wants to use beam weapons.

[Ultimoos]

And here I am, desperately trying to fit 20 size 6 missile launchers in a 10,000t hull...

Now, the question is. Can I take it down with a force 1/3 it's size and 1 tech level below it? Off to a drawing board...

[BwenGun (OP)]

BwenGun! I remember that name from one (several?) of Blue Emu's AARs on Paradox forum. You were at Wolf 294? in Ad Astra?

Wow, thats a blast from the past! Yeah that was me, I was hanging around the first couple of Aurora AARs that Blue Emu ran over there and its what first introduced me to the game, and a great deal of time well spent trying to do complex (for me) math on how to optimise stuff.

Your 25 cm laser turret has a lower tracking speed than your base tech, that seems like it might be counterproductive...though it might wind up being ignored? I'm not sure. The gauss turrets having higher tracking speed than your BFCs can support is also not currently useful, though it might facilitate a future refit with improved point defense BFC.

Future refit it very much in mind with the Gauss Weapons, in universe the reason is that the design board wanted PD Turret rated to target the navy's own missiles at 20k+ km/s, but delays with the fire control system development led to an aspirational tracking speed on the Gauss turrets.

Is the Lightfoot & Massare Technical LRL-38K-R4 Fire Control Computer a single-weapon BFC? It seems like it could be, at one each for the spinal gun and laser turrets.

It's a multi-system fire control, but for fluff reasons I wanted to have each turret have its own fire control, along with the spinal weapons, with the idea being that if one or two fire controls are damaged/destroyed remaining can take over.

You might want to look at new mechanics relevant to your AMMs, if the SAMM-1 Mark 2 'Kopis' Anti-Missile Missile has the large unitary warhead that the stat-line suggests. As presented, it's going to go against peer ASMs with a <15% hit rate, which is not promising at your balance between offensive and defensive launchers.

I'll definitely have another look at the AMMs, thank you! Missiles are one of the things that have had the biggest change since I last messed around with the game so I've very much been feeling my way in the dark.

Given their size I'm guessing there are some tricks under the hood in your ASMs that don't display in the stat line?

They've got 2 Decoys each which I don't think shows on the stat-line?

Overall I'd call this ship very slow for a warship of its tech level, especially one that wants to use beam weapons.

That's fair, part of that is a side effect of having so many systems and the additional weight of RP components which is kinda integral to the whole design ethos. I think if I was making a similar ship purely for a playthrough (and without the RP components and excessive system redundance) I'd cut back on missiles and magazine space and then increase the engine size.

Thank you for the input, very useful!

And here I am, desperately trying to fit 20 size 6 missile launchers in a 10,000t hull...

Now, the question is. Can I take it down with a force 1/3 it's size and 1 tech level below it? Off to a drawing board...

Haha! Half the fun of doing RP heavy ship designing is that its really easy to justify cramming ever more stuff onto it. As to taking it down, I suspect as long as you're got the speed to stay out of laser range you'll have a good shot, but the relatively heavy armour belt and system redundancy should at least make it a drawn-out engagement.

[Ulzgoroth]

Given their size I'm guessing there are some tricks under the hood in your ASMs that don't display in the stat line?

They've got 2 Decoys each which I don't think shows on the stat-line?

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of.

I'd also note that the fractional warhead value isn't great for an ASM. The fractional will only be used when striking shields, it's ignored for both armor and internal damage. (It's also used against non-ship targets, but they're labeled as ASM not bombardment missiles.)

And here I am, desperately trying to fit 20 size 6 missile launchers in a 10,000t hull...

Now, the question is. Can I take it down with a force 1/3 it's size and 1 tech level below it? Off to a drawing board...

Haha! Half the fun of doing RP heavy ship designing is that its really easy to justify cramming ever more stuff onto it. As to taking it down, I suspect as long as you're got the speed to stay out of laser range you'll have a good shot, but the relatively heavy armour belt and system redundancy should at least make it a drawn-out engagement.

Well, one of these could at least drive off every armed ship in my current empire right now. I don't think I've got more than 20k tons combined, armed with a mix of 10cm railguns and lasers. So to attack they'd have to not only survive your missiles but come deep into your beam range, and while you'd have accuracy problems against their speed those wouldn't be nearly enough to keep ships alive long enough to put a dent in all that armor.

Tangential note, the range on your missile defense sensor is kind of short, it won't see smaller missiles until they're inside of your AMM max range I think?

[nuclearslurpee]

Tangential note, the range on your missile defense sensor is kind of short, it won't see smaller missiles until they're inside of your AMM max range I think?

2m km is actually decent for a missile warning sensor at this tech level. It is size 7 which is a fairly large sensor, albeit maybe not as much so on a >100 kiloton warship.

Remember that missiles smaller than size 6 will still be detected as by active sensors if they were size 6 and this is what the MCR range indicates, which is why historically the general advice (and, I believe, NPR blueprint parameters) held that missiles should not be larger than size 6 as only then will they be detected at longer ranges.

[nuclearslurpee]

pretty picture

This is indeed very pretty, clearly much effort was made and attention to detail given. I regret that I have but one "Thanks" to give. If I had a complaint it would be the paucity of big guns but that is a consequence of the design, not the art work.

With that, on to the design itself:

2183 km/s

This is abysmal. An MP Drive ship should be making at least 4,500 km/s and that is still quite low, typical range would probably be 4,800 to 6,400 km/s. I wonder if this slow speed is a holdover from the VB6 days when ship speeds were generally much lower?

Maint Life 2.26 Years
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months

This is uncomfortably close to me, and if you actually deploy for 24 months you risk having a critical failure near the end of your tour of duty which could be crippling or catastrophic. I'd probably either drop the deployment time to 12 months, maybe 18, or improve the maintenance life to 3 years or so.

Calasso Aerospace MGT-VT-1875-3582 'Roheryn' Fusion Drive Engine (4)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 151.79%    Signature 437.5000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 22,000,000 Litres    Range 22.8 billion km (120 days at full power)

A few issues with the engine design here:

• Too small an engine block. Nominally, in most cases engines should make up roughly 30-40% of a ship's total displacement. You can go less with a large boost as done here (but see below), but by my calculation you've got less than a 10% engine fraction which is just not enough to accomplish anything useful.
• You have 200 HS of engines, by my calculation, but 440 HS of fuel. This is very, very bad. See thread here: there is a solid mathematically-proven rule in Aurora that a 3:1 ratio of engine mass to fuel mass will give the most tonnage-efficient propulsion section for a given speed and range. Usually, it is better to have a larger ratio, like 10:1 or 15:1, to save fuel and in some cases keep down build/research costs. Having a higher ratio of fuel, like 2:1 or in this case more like 1:2, is strictly bad with no benefits - you do not save anything on the cost of engines, while consuming even more fuel, and taking up more space than optimal.
• You are using thermal signature reduction tech here. Why? It makes your engines 75% more expensive at this tech level, but your ship is so huge that its thermal signature will be detected from quite far away very easily even with the thermal reduction. Better to save the gallicite and use thermal reduction engines on smaller craft designed for stealth.

Quad Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal GR30-17-57D  'Cyclone' Gauss Cannon Turret (10x12)    Range 30,000km     TS: 23900 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
CIWS-160 (20x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16,000 km/s     ROF 5       

There isn't any really good reason to have so much CIWS. A few modules are good to mop up leakers with the new 2.2+ point defense mechanics, but 20 is overkill and that is a lot of tonnage that could be used for many other things. Since CIWS cannot be used to defend other ships in a fleet, I would use more Gauss turrets in place of CIWS if nothing else.

Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal ASM-8C 'Arbalest' (36)     Missile Size: 8    Rate of Fire 25
Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal AMM-1B 'Atlatl' (36)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10

Even for a multi-role ship I think this is a rather weak loadout. Even with the 2.2 changes salvo size is still the key to effective missile warfare, so having only 36 ASM launchers on such a huge ship is not at all a daunting volume of fire. I usually prefer 30% size launchers for reloadability, but even if you are going to stick with full-size launchers you need more of your primary weapon system to be effective in combat.

[BwenGun (OP)]

pretty picture

This is indeed very pretty, clearly much effort was made and attention to detail given. I regret that I have but one "Thanks" to give. If I had a complaint it would be the paucity of big guns but that is a consequence of the design, not the art work.

Thank you! One of the things I did enjoy was trying to match the things I was putting into the design on the drawing and vice-versa. Next ship I'm tinkering with in Aurora is a beam focused battlecruiser design, and triple mount 30cm laser turrets are BIG, so you may get to see what happens when the ghost of Jackie Fisher possesses the design board and starts adding 0s next to everything! 

With that, on to the design itself:

2183 km/s

This is abysmal. An MP Drive ship should be making at least 4,500 km/s and that is still quite low, typical range would probably be 4,800 to 6,400 km/s. I wonder if this slow speed is a holdover from the VB6 days when ship speeds were generally much lower?

Quite possibly yeah, in my head I was aiming for around 2,500 km/s, but I suspect I should have doubled it. When I get a chance tonight I'll probably make a few revisions to the Aurora design.

Maint Life 2.26 Years
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months

This is uncomfortably close to me, and if you actually deploy for 24 months you risk having a critical failure near the end of your tour of duty which could be crippling or catastrophic. I'd probably either drop the deployment time to 12 months, maybe 18, or improve the maintenance life to 3 years or so.

Calasso Aerospace MGT-VT-1875-3582 'Roheryn' Fusion Drive Engine (4)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 151.79%    Signature 437.5000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 22,000,000 Litres    Range 22.8 billion km (120 days at full power)

A few issues with the engine design here:

• Too small an engine block. Nominally, in most cases engines should make up roughly 30-40% of a ship's total displacement. You can go less with a large boost as done here (but see below), but by my calculation you've got less than a 10% engine fraction which is just not enough to accomplish anything useful.
• You have 200 HS of engines, by my calculation, but 440 HS of fuel. This is very, very bad. See thread here: there is a solid mathematically-proven rule in Aurora that a 3:1 ratio of engine mass to fuel mass will give the most tonnage-efficient propulsion section for a given speed and range. Usually, it is better to have a larger ratio, like 10:1 or 15:1, to save fuel and in some cases keep down build/research costs. Having a higher ratio of fuel, like 2:1 or in this case more like 1:2, is strictly bad with no benefits - you do not save anything on the cost of engines, while consuming even more fuel, and taking up more space than optimal.
• You are using thermal signature reduction tech here. Why? It makes your engines 75% more expensive at this tech level, but your ship is so huge that its thermal signature will be detected from quite far away very easily even with the thermal reduction. Better to save the gallicite and use thermal reduction engines on smaller craft designed for stealth.

Thank you for all the brilliant advice and tips! Hopefully after work today I'll have some time to tinker with the design and do a v2 with a revised engine/fuel layout.

Quad Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal GR30-17-57D  'Cyclone' Gauss Cannon Turret (10x12)    Range 30,000km     TS: 23900 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
CIWS-160 (20x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16,000 km/s     ROF 5       

There isn't any really good reason to have so much CIWS. A few modules are good to mop up leakers with the new 2.2+ point defense mechanics, but 20 is overkill and that is a lot of tonnage that could be used for many other things. Since CIWS cannot be used to defend other ships in a fleet, I would use more Gauss turrets in place of CIWS if nothing else.

I'll admit that part of the CIWS is 'big number make brain happy', though the other part is that the universe the story this ship is based on exists in kinetic weapons do dual purpose as PDS' and as long range area denial weaponry to reduce oncoming enemy ships manoeuvring options in order to make them easier to hit for missiles and beam weaponry. When I do the v2 design I think I'll go for a pure Aurora build to see how it performs.

Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal ASM-8C 'Arbalest' (36)     Missile Size: 8    Rate of Fire 25
Alexandria Consolidated Arsenal AMM-1B 'Atlatl' (36)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10

Even for a multi-role ship I think this is a rather weak loadout. Even with the 2.2 changes salvo size is still the key to effective missile warfare, so having only 36 ASM launchers on such a huge ship is not at all a daunting volume of fire. I usually prefer 30% size launchers for reloadability, but even if you are going to stick with full-size launchers you need more of your primary weapon system to be effective in combat.

[/quote]

This one was down to me tweaking the art as I worked and reducing the number of launchers. With the other changes I'll look at upping the number of launchers a bit.

Thank you for all the great feedback, incredibly useful!

Given their size I'm guessing there are some tricks under the hood in your ASMs that don't display in the stat line?

They've got 2 Decoys each which I don't think shows on the stat-line?

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of.

I'd also note that the fractional warhead value isn't great for an ASM. The fractional will only be used when striking shields, it's ignored for both armor and internal damage. (It's also used against non-ship targets, but they're labeled as ASM not bombardment missiles.)

Very good to know, I'll have a tinker with the missiles to get them doing whole numbers, thank you!

[Ultimoos]

Given their size I'm guessing there are some tricks under the hood in your ASMs that don't display in the stat line?

They've got 2 Decoys each which I don't think shows on the stat-line?

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of.

I'd also note that the fractional warhead value isn't great for an ASM. The fractional will only be used when striking shields, it's ignored for both armor and internal damage. (It's also used against non-ship targets, but they're labeled as ASM not bombardment missiles.)

Very good to know, I'll have a tinker with the missiles to get them doing whole numbers, thank you!
[/quote]

Now, that I think about it. Fractional warhead should still damage armor and systems if it's damage value is at least 1. Need to clarify. On the other note, I really like it how there is no absolute defense from missiles. 1 PD can only shoot at 1 target. With 2 decoys per missile, you need at least 3 PD to have a good chance of intercepting 1 missile. You can spray incoming enemy salvo with very smal fractional warheads, to clear those decoys and leave real missiles for PD. Those possibilities and changes to NPR's were the features I most looked forward to in v2.2.

[Ulzgoroth]

Now, that I think about it. Fractional warhead should still damage armor and systems if it's damage value is at least 1. Need to clarify. On the other note, I really like it how there is no absolute defense from missiles. 1 PD can only shoot at 1 target. With 2 decoys per missile, you need at least 3 PD to have a good chance of intercepting 1 missile. You can spray incoming enemy salvo with very smal fractional warheads, to clear those decoys and leave real missiles for PD. Those possibilities and changes to NPR's were the features I most looked forward to in v2.2.

Having a fractional part doesn't make the whole warhead useless, it means that the 6.5 point warhead is functionally the same as a 6.0 point warhead for causing damage to a ship.

[Ulzgoroth]

Tangential note, the range on your missile defense sensor is kind of short, it won't see smaller missiles until they're inside of your AMM max range I think?

2m km is actually decent for a missile warning sensor at this tech level. It is size 7 which is a fairly large sensor, albeit maybe not as much so on a >100 kiloton warship.

Remember that missiles smaller than size 6 will still be detected as by active sensors if they were size 6 and this is what the MCR range indicates, which is why historically the general advice (and, I believe, NPR blueprint parameters) held that missiles should not be larger than size 6 as only then will they be detected at longer ranges.

Is there any point in having the AMM have 2.2 mkm given that sensor range limit, though?

7 is big by my standards, but a ship this big definitely could have a bigger antimissile sensor. Or failing that the AMM design could trade a bit of fuel for engine/use a little more engine boost.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Tangential note, the range on your missile defense sensor is kind of short, it won't see smaller missiles until they're inside of your AMM max range I think?

2m km is actually decent for a missile warning sensor at this tech level. It is size 7 which is a fairly large sensor, albeit maybe not as much so on a >100 kiloton warship.

Remember that missiles smaller than size 6 will still be detected as by active sensors if they were size 6 and this is what the MCR range indicates, which is why historically the general advice (and, I believe, NPR blueprint parameters) held that missiles should not be larger than size 6 as only then will they be detected at longer ranges.

Is there any point in having the AMM have 2.2 mkm given that sensor range limit, though?

7 is big by my standards, but a ship this big definitely could have a bigger antimissile sensor. Or failing that the AMM design could trade a bit of fuel for engine/use a little more engine boost.

It is pretty easy to have AMM sensor coverage through escort crafts. In fact, it is very cheap way to utilize small crafts to increase your AMM sensor ranges many times without the need of a single large AMM on any of your ships. So, having for example a range of 5mkm to detect incoming missiles is easily achieved even at lower technology if you like. You just need to use the escort mechanic of the game to the best of your ability.

[Neophyte]

Also I know giant ships have a very high failure rate, but isn't it still a bit high on this design?  How many engineering spaces do you have?  I'd try to make some space to add more, otherwise you're really burning through your maintenance supplies long before you start any shooting.

[nuclearslurpee]

Also I know giant ships have a very high failure rate, but isn't it still a bit high on this design?  How many engineering spaces do you have?  I'd try to make some space to add more, otherwise you're really burning through your maintenance supplies long before you start any shooting.

It is pretty typical failure rate for such a large ship. At such large sizes, it is a valid strategy to ignore the failure rate, assume something will break at every construction increment, and just use MSP to fix it, since it is very difficult to get the IFR under 100% without dedicating a large amount of space to engineering.

That being said, there are only 30 engineering spaces on this ship which is kind of low, proportionally, so it would be very possible to push that number up to, like, 100 or something and bring the IFR down to something more fractional.