INCOMING TRANSMISISON###

From: Dr.Ing. James Addams

To: Ministry of Defense

Subject: Starship Destroyer design.

Let me go on the record here and say that I completely disagree

with the "latest" modern design of our cruisers. Only utter moron

would design a ship in a way that is seen in popular culture media.

Just because it is "cool" doesn't mean you should compromise

structural integrity by deliberately adding more weakneses. If I

was piloting an enemy ship, and saw one of these "Star destroyers"

as you call them - the fact that they're more of a frigate than

actual destroyer but naval terminology aside - it wouldn't take a

genius to figure out that I should aim for the giant protrusion

that shines like beacon of designer's blind nostalgic idiocy. Those

designs might have made sense on planet's surface were a battle

would take on a same plane/level, NOT in space where you could

approach your target from ANY direction. And don't get me started

on the screaming impracticality - or three in this case - that are

those three massive thrusters mounted in the back - you would spend

half of the journey accellerating facing your destination - that's

fine and all, but then the other half of the journey would be spent

breaking facing in the opposite direction - while all your weapons

face in the opposite direction safe for a couple of turrets.

But the point of this message isn't just to ramble on the

outrageous death-trap that is your fancy ship design. I propose a

few solutions to this design. You can find the full details in the

attacment, but just to summarize here are a few highlights:

1. No windows - seriously you can achieve the same effect by simply

mounting a couple of cameras around the hull, and linking them

to various screens inside WITHOUT COMPROMISING HULL INTEGRITY -

plus it allows for extra layer of protection against UV

radiation - you can merely adjust the filters or simply turn the

screen off.

Which brings me to

2. Move bridge into the center of the hull - the reason behind this

is obvious - Bridge is the most crucial component of the ship,

right after sustainable life-support. It is the heart and the

brain. Without it, all you have is hunk of metal floating

through space. Much like skull protects your brain, the ship's

hull should protect the brige.

3. The ONLY good reason to have something sticking out would be

turret emplacements - if you really want to have a pylon or a

freaking beacon sticking out of your silhouette, it would be so

you can mount turrets at the end of each - this will allow you

to aim in almost any direction without ship's own hull

obstructing the target, and eliminates the problem you would

have with hardpoints pointing towards "the front" of the ship.

4. Ballance the thrust - This is more of an addendum - I think that

the previous point is the cheaper alternative but regardless:

Since you have massive engines mounted on the "back" why not

also put some engines to the "front" to eliminate the need to

turn the ship around in order to perform breaking maneuver?

I hope that this letter will be handed over to someone more

competent than that cretin who greenligted the original desing.

Sincerely,

Dr.Ing. James Addams

END TRANSMISSION###