GC fighters of the same build cost would overwhelm the CLE in short order. The CLE is limited to 3 fire controls thus only 3 targets per 5 sec cycle.
The designed CLE is only death to 3 missile salvos per 5 sec cycle. Easily overwhelmed with multiple small salvos.
I think I'd be willing to pit 2 of these 7500ton ships in a BPV battle. Point blank. (missile load cost 466.56)
Victory class Destroyer 7500 tons 789 Crew 1039.4 BP TCS 150 TH 900 EM 0
6000 km/s Armour 1-34 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 2 PPV 30
Annual Failure Rate: 225% IFR: 3.1% Maintenance Capacity 173 MSP Max Repair 30 MSP
Magazine 480
Ion Engine E6 (15) Power 60 Efficiency 0.60 Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 60.0 billion km (115 days at full power)
Size 1 Missile Launcher (30) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC10.5-R100 (10) Range 31.5m km Resolution 100
SS-1-2 (480) Speed: 28,300 km/s End: 1.8m Range: 3m km WH: 2 Size: 1 TH: 94 / 56 / 28
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
20 salvos of 3 every 10 seconds against 3 fire controls. Unless I've been playing the fire controls wrong, the CLE will stop 9 missiles only. Fire control saturation is the issue. Ignore the incoming and get hammered, each missile that hits does internals.
Only chance is to disable both ships before their system come alive. Which is why these should be brought in by a jumpship with at least a jump distance of 100 or better if a GC CLE is expected.
Worse 3 of these for the same BPV
Agincourt class Cruiser 7450 tons 727 Crew 1073 BP TCS 149 TH 600 EM 0
4026 km/s Armour 6-33 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 36
Annual Failure Rate: 111% IFR: 1.5% Maintenance Capacity 360 MSP Max Repair 154 MSP
Ion Engine E6 (10) Power 60 Efficiency 0.60 Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 100.7 billion km (289 days at full power)
Quad 12cm C4 Infrared Laser Turret (2x4) Range 40,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 16-16 RM 1 ROF 5 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S08 64-16000 (1) Max Range: 128,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 92 84 77 69 61 53 45 37 30 22
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-1 (8) Total Power Output 36 Armour 1 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor S10.5-R100 (1) GPS 1050 Range 10.5m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
As I said, the smaller GC is not that overwhelming. Armor is cheap. Before the CLE can peel one of these enough to do internals it's taking internals. Close and every hit starts punching through (lasers don't scour, they penetrate). Keep the range open and this ship can step outside the GC range and still hit. Scenarios can be gamed.
Gunboats are worse still.
Ark Royal class Gunboat 1000 tons 75 Crew 150.4 BP TCS 20 TH 120 EM 0
6000 km/s Armour 3-8 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 8% IFR: 0.1% Maintenance Capacity 94 MSP Max Repair 30 MSP
Magazine 92
GB Ion Engine E60 (1) Power 120 Efficiency 6.00 Signature 120 Armour 0 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 15.0 billion km (28 days at full power)
Size 1 Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC10.5-R100 (1) Range 31.5m km Resolution 100
SS-1-2 (94) Speed: 28,300 km/s End: 1.8m Range: 3m km WH: 2 Size: 1 TH: 94 / 56 / 28
Active Search Sensor S10.5-R100 (1) GPS 1050 Range 10.5m km Resolution 100
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
13 of these (missile cost 91.368 each) will quickly overwhelm the lone CLE with salvos.
Yes, these are very beardy designs. So is the CLE. But they do demonstrate that the reduced scale GC is not overwhelming at point blank ranges against exist weapons systems. And existing systems are actually cheaper for the slugging ranges than GC's.
Steve has made clear reasons for not adopting my suggestions. As I said earlier, I can live with that.
This was only intended to demonstrate that some of the objections did not take several things into consideration. Part of the difference is that I've been playing with these changes for several months. At first I thought as well that the reduced size coupled with the faster turrets was death on missiles. The fire control is the primary fail point for that though. Mass for mass and cost for cost missiles can overwhelm GC only defenses. Used in conjunction with counter-missiles and then you start to really need beam sluggers. If anything, the reduced size GC reduces the missiles dominance outside of nebulas.