Battleship and Battlerider

[McPerth]

Is there a TL progression? Before TL X, PAs and big ships with lots of armor are a better buy and more effective than MGs, but afterwards it's time to transition to BRs and more meson tubes?

What does it look like at each TL when you have, say, 100-200BCr to build up a fleet and how does the fleet makeup change at each TL as new systems and tech come on line.

I think a true breakthrough in this way is done at TL 13.

Before that, BR/BT are not practical, mainly for two reasons:

- At TL 12-, meson guns (and I think for now we all agree they are the main ship killers) are too large, if you want them really powerful, to fit on a ship on the 30-50k dton, and so on BRs

- Maximum computer in TL 12 is 6. This allows you, at most, R sized ships (100k dton), And that is quite less than what you need for a BT (mostly if you consider what I said above)

At TL 13, you can have an E rated MG for 1000 dton, allowing you to have a weapon that kills any ship more that 50% of the hits on a ship small enough to be carried

Also, at TL 13, computer 7 allows you to have ships up to Y size (1M dton), more than enough to carry the BRs

 

[McPerth]

You are forgetting the TL limit on armor; you can't add more armor to a ship than the TL of the ship's construction (HG2, page 29).

Using planetoid hulls, you can reach armor-20 or higher at TL-15, that's true but it costs you a lot more tonnage.

This is one reason why I hate planetoid hulls.

You're right for CT (not so in MT). My fault. Sorry about that.

Then my theory is only true (in CT) for buffered planetoids. Even so, the extra tonnage allocated may still be worth (IMO) in a monitor/BR (after all the 35% for being a bufferes planetoid plus the 15% for armor 14, and so attaining armor 20, is 50% of the ship tonnage, the same an Azhanti uses for fuel, and you still have the tonnae it would use for jump drives to better arm you ship)

 

[AndreaV]

I think a true breakthrough in this way is done at TL 13.

Before that, BR/BT are not practical, mainly for two reasons:

- At TL 12-, meson guns (and I think for now we all agree they are the main ship killers) are too large, if you want them really powerful, to fit on a ship on the 30-50k dton, and so on BRs

- Maximum computer in TL 12 is 6. This allows you, at most, R sized ships (100k dton), And that is quite less than what you need for a BT (mostly if you consider what I said above)

Err I think you've misread the rule, size R (100,000 Td) requires a minimum of computer/6, thus TL12 is the earliest you can build to this size. Size Y (1,000,000 Td) requires a minimum of computer/7 (TL13), thus this is the upper size at TL12. Thus a BR is a viable option here, vis:

Ship: CI0
Class: CI0
Type: Battlerider
Architect: Andrew Vallance
Tech Level: 12

USP
BR-P1069F3-B91106-888K9-0 MCr 84,220.841 54 KTons
Bat Bear R 1 11119 Crew: 588
Bat Z 1 1111B TL: 12

Cargo: 58 Fuel: 4,860 EP: 4,860 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 54
Craft: 4 x 30T Boats
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Substitutions: Z = 31

Architects Fee: MCr 842.208 Cost in Quantity: MCr 67,376.673


Detailed Description
(High Guard Design)

HULL
54,000.000 tons standard, 756,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
58 Officers, 530 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-9, 4,860.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 13 100-ton bays, 330 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-K), 1 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bay (Factor-8), 11 100-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 10 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-8), 10 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-8)

DEFENCES
1 100-ton Repulsor Bay (Factor-6), 310 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 31 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-1), Meson Screen (Factor-1), Armoured Hull (Factor-11)

CRAFT
4 30.000 ton Boats (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
4,860 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
296.5 Staterooms, 58 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 85,063.049 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 842.208), MCr 67,376.673 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
189 Weeks Singly, 151 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

Ship: CV3
Class: CV3
Type: Fleet Tender
Architect: Andrew Vallance
Tech Level: 12

USP
AF-R7313F3-091100-88002-0 MCr 60,028.490 113.8 KTons
Bat Bear X 11 6 Crew: 714
Bat Y 11 8 TL: 12

Cargo: 40 Fuel: 37,554 EP: 3,414 Agility: 1 Shipboard Security Detail: 114
Craft: 1 x 54000T Rider, 4 x 30T Boats
Substitutions: X = 78 Y = 111 Z = 31

Architects Fee: MCr 600.285 Cost in Quantity: MCr 48,022.792


Detailed Description
(High Guard Design)

HULL
113,800.000 tons standard, 1,593,200.000 cubic meters, Dispersed Structure Configuration

CREW
62 Officers, 652 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-3, 1G Manuever, Power plant-3, 3,414.000 EP, Agility 1

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
1138 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
8 Triple Missile Turrets organised into 8 Batteries (Factor-2), 10 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-8), 10 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-8)

DEFENCES
1110 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 111 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-1), Meson Screen (Factor-1)

CRAFT
1 54,000.000 ton Rider (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 0.000), 4 30.000 ton Boats (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
37,554 Tons Fuel (3 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
359.5 Staterooms, 40 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 60,628.775 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 600.285), MCr 48,022.792 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
202 Weeks Singly, 162 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

or if you must have the multirider tender (though if you do the sums for the same budget you get 273.242 riders using singlerider tenders or 273.757 riders using multirider tenders; have I mentioned that multirider tenders are pointless?)

Ship: CV3b
Class: CV3b
Type: Fleet Tender
Architect: Andrew Vallance
Tech Level: 12

USP
AF-X7313F4-091100-88002-0 MCr 475,161.990 904.6 KTons
Bat Bear W 11 3 Crew: 5464
Bat X 11 6 TL: 12

Cargo: 32 Fuel: 298,518 EP: 27,138 Agility: 1 Shipboard Security Detail: 905
Craft: 8 x 54000T Riders, 4 x 30T Boats
Substitutions: W = 451 X = 902 Y = 248 Z = 450

Architects Fee: MCr 4,751.620 Cost in Quantity: MCr 380,129.592


Detailed Description
(High Guard Design)

HULL
904,600.000 tons standard, 12,664,400.000 cubic meters, Dispersed Structure Configuration

CREW
456 Officers, 5008 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-3, 1G Manuever, Power plant-3, 27,138.000 EP, Agility 1

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
9046 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
6 Triple Missile Turrets organised into 6 Batteries (Factor-2), 10 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-8), 10 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-8)

DEFENCES
9020 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 902 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-1), Meson Screen (Factor-1)

CRAFT
8 54,000.000 ton Riders (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 0.000), 4 30.000 ton Boats (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
298,518 Tons Fuel (3 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
2,734.5 Staterooms, 32 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 479,913.610 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 4,751.620), MCr 380,129.592 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
238 Weeks Singly, 191 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

 

[AndreaV]

You're right for CT (not so in MT). My fault. Sorry about that.

Then my theory is only true (in CT) for buffered planetoids. Even so, the extra tonnage allocated may still be worth (IMO) in a monitor/BR (after all the 35% for being a bufferes planetoid plus the 15% for armor 14, and so attaining armor 20, is 50% of the ship tonnage, the same an Azhanti uses for fuel, and you still have the tonnae it would use for jump drives to better arm you ship)

The uber-rock.
Vulnerable only to factor C meson guns and above (and even a T only has an 21.219% of hitting and getting through). Sure all it can do is sandpaper, but it does that damn well.

Ship: Basalt
Class: Schist
Type: Missile Boat
Architect: Andrew Vallance
Tech Level: 15

USP
MB-A9058J2-L09000-00009-0 MCr 747.750 1 KTons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 17
Bat 1 TL: 15

Cargo: 28 Fuel: 80 EP: 80 Agility: 5

Architects Fee: MCr 7.478 Cost in Quantity: MCr 598.200


Detailed Description
(High Guard Design)

HULL
1,000.000 tons standard, 14,000.000 cubic meters, Buffered Planetoid Configuration

CREW
Pilot, Navigator, 7 Engineers, Medic, 6 Gunners

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 5G Manuever, Power plant-8, 80.000 EP, Agility 5

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 50-ton bay

ARMAMENT
1 50-ton Missile Bay (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
Meson Screen (Factor-9), Armoured Hull (Factor-20)

CRAFT
None

FUEL
80 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
9 Staterooms, 28 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 755.228 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 7.478), MCr 598.200 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
120 Weeks Singly, 96 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

 

[Hal]

Yes, but High Guard states that "...alternatively, a planetary navy may construct ships on its planet, using local resources, even if a shipyard is not present." (emphasis mine).

Presumably, the rule in TCS is a simplification based on the assumption that there is a strong correlation between worlds having civilian starship construction facilities and having military starship construction facilities. But such a correlation is not absolute.


Hans

Actually - neither rule precludes the other when you get right down to it. The rule about being able to build warships without a shipyard means what - that ships cost the same to build with a shipyard as without a shipyard? As is usually the case, when a rule is introduced in a later edition of rule supplements, it is usally supplementry to the original rule, or in addition to it.

All that is being said here, is that Jump drive repairs take longer at a Class B starport than they normally take at a class A starport. There is an advantage to repairing a non-jump ship at a class B starport as compared against repairing a Starshp at a class B starport.

If the battle rider's transport is undamaged when it comes to jump drives, and the only repairs neccessary are for the battle riders themselves, then it doesn't much matter whether the repairs are done at a class A or B starport. For a Starship however, it does matter - repairs take longer and cost more.

 

[McPerth]

Err I think you've misread the rule, size R (100,000 Td) requires a minimum of computer/6, thus TL12 is the earliest you can build to this size. Size Y (1,000,000 Td) requires a minimum of computer/7 (TL13), thus this is the upper size at TL12. Thus a BR is a viable option here, vis:

I see your point. I understood the table as maximum hull this computer would support. Now I'm not sure if a size code that is between two of the marked on the computers table needs the inferior or the supperior...

If your interpretation is the correct, then the limit would be at TL 11 (for tenders to be practical).

I never said it was not possible to design it, just not practical. One tender per reach raider, I don't see as practical.

Anyway the restriction I foresaw for BRs was not computer, but meson gun size, that would force you to make it underarmed or bigger. Computer restriction was for the tender's size, and that forces your design to carry only one BR. I guess less than 3 BRs per tender are not too practical.

My calculations were (and are in this post too) purely intuitive, but I see you had to go up the 30-50k dton range to build your BR, as I said, and total cost is about MCr 115400.

I guess (intuitively again, not checked numbers) that you can build some cruisers for this cost that would defeat this BT/BR combo without too much a problem.

PS: in MT, there's no minimum computer for ship size, but the limit of CP that any computer may contro puts this limit too, and at TL 12 practical limit is about 100-200k dton, unless you strip your ship of many other elements that consume CP (I found this limit some years ago, and I'm speaking of memory, don't have hard numbers here). Perhaps that helped me to interpret the computer table that way...

 

[McPerth]

Yes, but High Guard states that "...alternatively, a planetary navy may construct ships on its planet, using local resources, even if a shipyard is not present." (emphasis mine).

Hans

I've always interpreted that as ships may be produced this way on the planet, not in orbit (that needs shipyards).

If so, ships so built should be able to land on the planet, and so there's a size limit (IIRC 1000 or 5000 dton, I'm not sure and cannot check it now).

That would allow the planetary navy to build some ships, but not to repair capital ships without a shipyard.

Of course, all that is if I interpreted the rules as the writer meant to be...

 

[pendragonman]

I kinda have to agree that one BR/Tender as not really cost effective. Truly, if you are only using one BR/Tender what you have is a jump-shuttle for the BR and not really a tender. In fact, we already have a canonical example of a jump shuttle for the 400 dton Dragon-Class SDB (Which is what BRs are really, oversized SDBs).

A true tender should be able to carry at least 4 or 5 BR, IMHO.

 

[rancke]

I've always interpreted that as ships may be produced this way on the planet, not in orbit (that needs shipyards).

I would have expected the author to mention such a limit if that was the case. But as you say, it's an interpretation.

My interpretation of 'shipyard' isn't a physical spacedock where the ships are built. Rather, it is an existing and active infrastructure dedicated to building and repairing ships; the mines that dig out the ore, the smelters that refine it, the companies that make the subcomponents, the shuttles that ferry the component into orbit, and the skilled workforce that fits the parts together. If you have those, you have a shipyard. If you don't have them, a steel framework floating in orbit won't help you. (Which, incidentally, is why I feel that an unmanned Class A starport is a contradiction in terms).


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

I've always interpreted that as ships may be produced this way on the planet, not in orbit (that needs shipyards).

If so, ships so built should be able to land on the planet, and so there's a size limit (IIRC 1000 or 5000 dton, I'm not sure and cannot check it now).

That would allow the planetary navy to build some ships, but not to repair capital ships without a shipyard.

Of course, all that is if I interpreted the rules as the writer meant to be...

Don't recall a tonnage limit on surface construction, rather a need for streamlining to get them off planet.

 

[McPerth]

I would have expected the author to mention such a limit if that was the case. But as you say, it's an interpretation.

My interpretation of 'shipyard' isn't a physical spacedock where the ships are built. Rather, it is an existing and active infrastructure dedicated to building and repairing ships; the mines that dig out the ore, the smelters that refine it, the companies that make the subcomponents, the shuttles that ferry the component into orbit, and the skilled workforce that fits the parts together. If you have those, you have a shipyard. If you don't have them, a steel framework floating in orbit won't help you. (Which, incidentally, is why I feel that an unmanned Class A starport is a contradiction in terms).
Hans

I agree (that's new among us:rofl all of this is necessary, except perhaps ore mines, as ore can be imported, but you won't have the skilled personnel if you don't have a physical place where they use to build ships.

I don't think most starships can be only constructed by established shipyards, and they are at once civilian and military, as most shipyards are on our TL7-8 Earth.

I've allways interpreted that an A starport means all this infrastructure is present, as is the physical place to build starships (probably on orbit).

I also agree with you (twice in a day, waw :rofl that a starport A (and so shipyards) on a planet without populatioin to sustain it is contradictory (unless it's assumed the workers are not residents, but even so it must lack infrastructure, those workers won't be able to go home for weekend, so to say).

As an aside, using the hull capability by population that TCS says, theese shipyards whould not be of much use...

 

[McPerth]

Don't recall a tonnage limit on surface construction, rather a need for streamlining to get them off planet.

I think to recall somewhere there is writen a limit for ships to land on a planet, but I cannot find it now.

I promise you to search for it and post it here if/when I find it.

Note: if anyone finds it before me and posts it here, I won't be offended. I'll even be grateful.

 

[rancke]

I think to recall somewhere there is writen a limit for ships to land on a planet, but I cannot find it now.

I think it's a fanon explanation for the difference between Book 2 hulls (max 5000T) and HG hulls. I.e. hulls up to 5000T can be built on the surface, bigger ships must be constructed in orbit. But I won't swear to it.

It's even possible that it started as fanon and was used in an official design system later.


Hans

 

[AndreaV]

I see your point. I understood the table as maximum hull this computer would support. Now I'm not sure if a size code that is between two of the marked on the computers table needs the inferior or the supperior...

If your interpretation is the correct, then the limit would be at TL 11 (for tenders to be practical).

I never said it was not possible to design it, just not practical. One tender per reach raider, I don't see as practical.

I used to think this too, right up until I did the detailed analysis. At all TLs and all jump capacity, the multirider tender never gets above a 2% advantage and most of the time is around the 0.5% advantage. These numbers are just not big enough to offset their strategic disadvantages. The reality is the cost/size of a tender is virtually a simple liner progression based on the number of riders it carries. ie a tender carrying eight riders is almost exactly eight times the size and cost of a tender carrying one rider.

Anyway the restriction I foresaw for BRs was not computer, but meson gun size, that would force you to make it underarmed or bigger. Computer restriction was for the tender's size, and that forces your design to carry only one BR. I guess less than 3 BRs per tender are not too practical.

Yes you can build a multirider tender (if you look a little further in the post you'll find the one carrying eight). Just I don't as there's no advantage in it

My calculations were (and are in this post too) purely intuitive, but I see you had to go up the 30-50k dton range to build your BR, as I said, and total cost is about MCr 115400.

I guess (intuitively again, not checked numbers) that you can build some cruisers for this cost that would defeat this BT/BR combo without too much a problem.

The problem with this is that you can just as easily design a smaller rider carrying a smaller spinal that will defeat the cruisers. In a pure tactical sense the rider always beats the ship because it doesn't have to provide armour or M-drives for its jump fuel. The disadvantages of the rider are all strategic, which brings us back to the futility of the multirider tender as it makes those disadvantages worse

PS: in MT, there's no minimum computer for ship size, but the limit of CP that any computer may contro puts this limit too, and at TL 12 practical limit is about 100-200k dton, unless you strip your ship of many other elements that consume CP (I found this limit some years ago, and I'm speaking of memory, don't have hard numbers here). Perhaps that helped me to interpret the computer table that way...

My analysis has always been based on HG I've not had the time to look into MT, TNE, T4, or GURPS. But I get the feeling you'll find a similar overall trend. If you don't have to armour or move your jump fuel (a huge mass and weight for any ship) you have a significant advantage.

 

[AndreaV]

I kinda have to agree that one BR/Tender as not really cost effective. Truly, if you are only using one BR/Tender what you have is a jump-shuttle for the BR and not really a tender. In fact, we already have a canonical example of a jump shuttle for the 400 dton Dragon-Class SDB (Which is what BRs are really, oversized SDBs).

A true tender should be able to carry at least 4 or 5 BR, IMHO.

Sadly the single rider tender (or jump shuttle if you prefer) IS cost effective. I did a fairly detailed analysis (designed a one, four and eight rider tender for each TL between 10 and 15 and each jump number at each TL) and the fact is the cost/size of a tender is almost a perfect liner progression based on the number of riders it carries.

At any given TL, with any given jump capability and any given size of rider; a tender carrying four to eight riders will be almost exactly four to eight times the size and cost of a tender carrying one. The biggest difference I found was less than 2%, and that was rare. Usually if was around the 0.5% mark. And for smaller budgets (eg an individual world) the single rider tender even comes out ahead because of the higher startup costs of the multirider tender .

I know canon says the rider concept uses a multirider tender, its just there is no *design* reason for this, and considerable strategic disadvantages in it

 

[dean]

Sadly the single rider tender (or jump shuttle if you prefer) IS cost effective. I did a fairly detailed analysis (designed a one, four and eight rider tender for each TL between 10 and 15 and each jump number at each TL) and the fact is the cost/size of a tender is almost a perfect liner progression based on the number of riders it carries.

At any given TL, with any given jump capability and any given size of rider; a tender carrying four to eight riders will be almost exactly four to eight times the size and cost of a tender carrying one. The biggest difference I found was less than 2%, and that was rare. Usually if was around the 0.5% mark. And for smaller budgets (eg an individual world) the single rider tender even comes out ahead because of the higher startup costs of the multirider tender .

I know canon says the rider concept uses a multirider tender, its just there is no *design* reason for this, and considerable strategic disadvantages in it

Would Crew needs and Tech Level Disparities come into consideration? Just throwing it out there.

 

[McPerth]

Sadly the single rider tender (or jump shuttle if you prefer) IS cost effective. I did a fairly detailed analysis (designed a one, four and eight rider tender for each TL between 10 and 15 and each jump number at each TL) and the fact is the cost/size of a tender is almost a perfect liner progression based on the number of riders it carries.

Can you please tell me how did you design an eight rider tender at TL 10?

The maximum computer at TL 10, IIRC, is 4, and that doesn't support a hull so large as to hold eight BRs (I don't have the books here now to check exact numbers, but IIRC not even four BRs)

And same happens at TL 11, and barely at TL 12 (depending on the interpretation of the tables)

 

[pendragonman]

I would have to disagree. The idea of the BT/BR set up is that the tender does not leave the reserve portion of your fleet. You arrive, the dispersed structure BT launches its weight and begins refueling ops to prepare for departure. All line of battle ships arrived at the same time in the same place and can continue operations in proper position.

Using HG rules, with the BT in reserve, it cannot be destroyed until everything in front of it is gone, and by that time my tenders are gone. Further, I have brought a meson tube in for every rider I have arrived with. Looking at the cost, of the BT and as many as 8 BRs, how many BBs can you bring to the dance (and thus how many meson tubes?)

With your premise of the BR/oversized jump shuttle, to get 8 BRs to the fight I have 8 different arrival times to contend with, allowing the potential for my BRs to be defeated piecemeal. While the jump arrival variability is glossed over in TCS, this may not seem a big deal to you. There are campaign systems out there that move time in a more realistic manner.

Lastly, there is the point that a dispersed structure tender is not restricted to carrying just those BRs that are designed for it. It could just as easily carry that dtonnage as fighter craft, assault landing craft, passenger modules and/or cargo vessels/modules or even bulk ore. Or any combo of the above. If your oversized jump shuttle carries anything other than a BR of the same tonnage, it can no longer carry the BR too.

 

[AndreaV]

Would Crew needs and Tech Level Disparities come into consideration? Just throwing it out there.

Same general trend. Assuming you are building to the same TL and jump specifications, the progression is linear. Crew, cost and size are all simply dependent on the number of riders carried, to the extent that you can almost exactly predict the cost/size/crew of the multirider tender based on the single rider one.

I was kind of stunned when I found this myself. I went over it several times and tried to find some reason why every navy in Traveller canon uses multirider tenders. I can't find it, the "best" bet is jump synchronization. But even that falls down as soon as you add escorts or more than one tender to the mix.

My explanation is the "rum, sodomy and the lash" syndrome. All the naval commands look at the single rider tender idea and go (like people here) "that can't be right, we've always done it this way and damned if we're going to change now" I've even incorporated it into a couple of games with the radical black sheep admiral who wants to build one

 

[pendragonman]

Can you please tell me how did you design an eight rider tender at TL 10?

The maximum computer at TL 10, IIRC, is 4, and that doesn't support a hull so large as to hold eight BRs (I don't have the books here now to check exact numbers, but IIRC not even four BRs)

And same happens at TL 11, and barely at TL 12 (depending on the interpretation of the tables)

Depends on your definition of BR. Could just as easily be 10 400 dton SDBs.