By LBB2 RAW (both 77 and 81), the only crew required for a Scout/Courier is a pilot.
- Pilot: Required.
- Navigator: Only required on ships over 200 tons.
- Engineer: Only required on ships 200+ tons. 15/35=0.428571428571429 so only "43% of a position required" which rounds down to zero needed even if ignoring the "only required at 200+ tons" minimum threshold.
- Steward: Only needed for high passengers.
- Medic: Only needed on ships 200+ tons OR if the ship is selling passenger ticket services (low, middle, high).
- Gunner: Only needed if the turret has weapons installed (which by default it does not).
So an unarmed Scout/Courier that isn't selling passenger ticket services can be a literal "one man scout ship" crewed by a single pilot.
Scout/Couriers do not have weaponry installed by default, however weaponry may be added.
A slightly different emphasis than what you were saying.
The ship has a vehicle berth for a single air/raft
Problem here is that the 4 ton berth for the air/raft (starboard) is exactly the same size as the 3 ton cargo hold (port) on the deck plans @ 3x4 squares. Yes, yes, I see the "1 ton for ship's locker" (15) being taken out of the space for (13), but it still leaves the wrong impression.
A 4 ton vehicle berth ought to be 4*14/1.5/1.5/3=8.3 =
8 deck squares in size
A 3 ton cargo bay ought to be 3*14/1.5/1.5/3=6.2 =
6 deck squares in size
The 3x4 form factor you've put both of these features into is either 150% too big or 200% too big.
CT Errata, p7 includes a correction to the price of the Scout/Courier as being MCr29.43 after the LBB2 10% discount for volume production.
In a LBB5.80 combat context, where EP and Agility become important considerations, the Scout/Courier really can't afford energy weapons. The computer (model/1bis) is so anemic that the ship is barely effective as a combatant.
Taken in that broader context, the "best" weapon mix for a Scout/Courier is actually a TL=10 sandcaster/missile combination, which leaves all of the EP generated by the power plant available for Agility (to avoid getting hit). The (code: 3) sandcaster will have 3 canisters loaded into the launcher and the (code: 1) missile launcher will likewise have 3 missiles. The turret will accommodate an additional 12 reloads to be split between the sandcaster and missile launcher (I would expect 6+6 to be the typical loadout for a total of 9 sand shots and 9 missile shots before exhausting supplies, with most ship to ship battles being decided in less than 9 exchanges of fire). Against "opportunistic" (amateur) adversaries, this may be sufficient to fend off unwanted advances. Against "professional" (and thus well equipped) adversaries, these weapons are going to be little more than speed bumps (mainly due to the computer differential).
If you're sticking with LBB2.81 computer programming rules, in combat you need for your model/1bis (4 CPU / 0 Storage) to be running:
- Target (1 space)
- Launch (1 space)
- Maneuver (1 space)
Leaving you with only 1 space remaining for another computer program during the combat round. That doesn't leave a whole lot of options.
Worse, the Target and Launch programs exceed the value of the basic software package for a model/1bis (being MCr1 and 2 respectively) where you're going to need to spend for Maneuver, Jump-1, Jump-2 and Navigation programs, which add up to a cost of MCr0.9, leaving only MCr0.1 remaining to buy any other programs as part of the basic software package (which is enough to buy Anti-Hijack).
I'm personally convinced that this is the reason why LBB2 Scout/Couriers are detailed as having a turret with no weapons in them. Adding a sandcaster and a missile rack will cost 0.25+0.75=MCr1 for the weapons themselves, but also another MCr3 for the Target and Launch programs to enable those weapons to function under the LBB2.81 programming rules.
Did I ever mention that I never really cared for the LBB2 ship computer programming rules?
Starship value at resale tends to depreciate at 1% per year after construction delivery, so a 40 year old ship will retain 60% of its construction cost value.
1-(18/27.63) = ~ 65%
1-(15/27.63) = ~ 54%
Mind you, if you correct the construction cost to be MCr29.43 instead (or just scratch build using LBB2.81 to verify and make doubly sure) these surplus prices will probably change (probably...).
Obviously, there are plenty of other factors that can influence surplus and resale prices ...
... but the 1% per year benchmark gives Referees something to work with as a starting point.