CT Only: Fleet Scout (Type SF) 199.5Td, J4/4G

[Spinward Flow]

This is meant to be attached during wartime to Imperial battle fleets with similar jump ranges.

Well that's a Bad Plan™ ... for the IISS.
It's really something that ought to be organic to the IN, not something farmed out to the IISS.

Also, if you want to be doing that kind of recon (and survive encountering any opposition during a shooting war!) you really want to be sending Destroyer Escorts to do the job, not some underpowered/underarmed scout ship that is utterly defenseless if anything Serious™ feels like it's time for Target Practice.

In peacetime, they can use the flex-passenger capacity to shuttle personnel along the XBoat network (or diplomats and VIPs if they're ok with the austere living arrangements).

So ... build something that is completely redundant (at great expense) because the XBoat Network is already capable of doing this role natively?

Yeah, sorry ... still not seeing the mission role demand for this capability as you've described it.

 

[Grav_Moped]

So ... build something that is completely redundant (at great expense) because the XBoat Network is already capable of doing this role natively?

IMTU, XBoats do not have any passenger capability. (No room" -- but I suppose you could use the flex-tank trick to make space for a stateroom equivalent if the message data banks come out of bridge tonnage).
‐-----------
* they're LBB2'81, with a PP-B and 51Td fuel (J4, 7.7 days power plant fuel). Pilot is in a half-stateroom, there are 1Td of data banks.
ETA: specs from memory, need to verify. Might not have any space at all.
ETA2: with half-SR, 1Td left for data after the 10%-above-a-week allocation of PP fuel (11 vs 10 tons). So, to use that 1Td for the flex life support, data storage has to come out of the bridge. Or just say 7 days power plant fuel is enough even if the jump runs to the maximum 10% overtime.

 

[Spinward Flow]

IMTU, XBoats do not have any passenger capability.

LBB S7, p10 (bold added for obviousness to bring home the point):

Express Boat (Type X): Constructed using the type 100 hull, the express boat is fitted with drives producing jump-4, and nothing else. There is no power plant or maneuver drive installation. Fuel tankage is forty tons, enough for one jump. The standard bridge is complemented by a Model/4 computer, massive communicators, and message data banks. The ship has two staterooms; one is necessary for the single crew member, while the other can carry a passenger. More often, the pilot uses the second room for additional living space. There is a one ton cargo bay which is occasionally used to carry vital cargo such as vaccines or sophisticated repair parts.

LBB S7, p46:

LBB S9, p12 also includes the Passengers=1 (possible) notation in the USP.

Even the Travellerwiki page for the Xavier XBoat includes mention of the capacity to carry 1 passenger.

I doubt that's all just a coincidence ...

IMTU, XBoats do not have any passenger capability.

Try again.

 

[Grav_Moped]

LBB S7, p10 (bold added for obviousness to bring home the point):


LBB S7, p46:

LBB S9, p12 also includes the Passengers=1 (possible) notation in the USP.

Even the Travellerwiki page for the Xavier XBoat includes mention of the capacity to carry 1 passenger.

I doubt that's all just a coincidence ...

Try again.

See above (both edits). The '81 rules broke the '77 XBoat.

One of the following is thus true:
- it's a HG build at TL-13
- It's LBB2'81 as I described it
- it does something almost unique: jumps without the power plant that LBB2'81 mandated.

I marked it as a bad post because I specifically stated that I was talking about an IMTU version.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I marked it as a bad post because I specifically stated that I was talking about an IMTU version

Repeating this bit I added before seeing the retaliatory down-ding.

 

[Spinward Flow]

* they're LBB2'81

See above (both edits). The '81 rules broke the '77 XBoat.

Wrong on both counts.

The canonical XBoat is a LBB2.77 design that was never updated to LBB2.81.
Yes, that is "permitted" and can be done.

This means there are some incidental bits of weirdness when using LBB2.77 standard drives ... such as the jump drives not having a Jump Governor (created in LBB5.79 and backported into LBB2.81 with all the other updates and changes). This means that the canonical XBoats will ALWAYS consume 40 tons of fuel per jump regardless of how many parsecs are being jumped (which is something the Jump Governor of LBB5.79 "fixed" and got incorporated into LBB2.81 drives by default so as to make the Jump Governor workaround obsolete).

Repeating this bit I added before seeing the retaliatory down-ding.

The down ding was for posting obviously misleading information that directly contradicts FOUR DISTINCT AND SEPARATE SOURCES (3 published in CT, 1 on the Travellerwiki) that were given to you in good faith, complete with citations, which you then promptly ignored and blew off as irrelevant.

If you want to say "IMTU don't rely on anything repeatedly published in CT" ... that's fine ... but you're going to have to actually provide DETAILS for how the replacements "work" and are built IYTU then, rather than just handwaving away the common point of reference that we all have access to (and rely upon) as the starting point of reference.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Wrong on both counts.

The canonical XBoat is a LBB2.77 design that was never updated to LBB2.81.
Yes, that is "permitted" and can be done.

This means there are some incidental bits of weirdness when using LBB2.77 standard drives ... such as the jump drives not having a Jump Governor (created in LBB5.79 and backported into LBB2.81 with all the other updates and changes). This means that the canonical XBoats will ALWAYS consume 40 tons of fuel per jump regardless of how many parsecs are being jumped (which is something the Jump Governor of LBB5.79 "fixed" and got incorporated into LBB2.81 drives by default so as to make the Jump Governor workaround obsolete).

The down ding was for posting obviously misleading information that directly contradicts FOUR DISTINCT AND SEPARATE SOURCES (3 published in CT, 1 on the Travellerwiki) that were given to you in good faith, complete with citations, which you then promptly ignored and blew off as irrelevant.

If you want to say "IMTU don't rely on anything repeatedly published in CT" ... that's fine ... but you're going to have to actually provide DETAILS for how the replacements "work" and are built IYTU then, rather than just handwaving away the common point of reference that we all have access to (and rely upon) as the starting point of reference.

Nope.

As I noted, one of those three statements is true.

You assume it is the third one.

The first can be true without severe disruption to the OTU.

The second is the only way to be mechanically consistent with changes explicitly made in '81 (computer=Jn, Pn=Jn) while keeping it a LBB2 build (and thus TL-10). While it still breaks the "must have 4 weeks power plant fuel" rule, there is no game-mechanical reason it cannot work as designed under '81 rules because it has enough fuel for its designed mission (1J4 with tender support at both departure and arrival).

The third directly contradicts the changes LBB2'81 made to the '77 rules. Allowing that enables breaking the '81 Pn=Jn rule elsewhere, as the lack of explanation extends to an absence of limits to the exception made in this case.

 

[Grav_Moped]

And again, if you absolutely need to have LBB2'81 xboats with passenger capability, you can declare that since Jump takes 1 week, only 1 week of power plant fuel (10Td) is needed, disregarding the +/-10% variation for the purposes of this calculation. Store the message data in bridge tonnage (at the very least, you get the 1/2Td that usually goes to the co-pilot/navgator seat, and there's less need for a comprehensive ship's locker...)

If you don't have to account for either Jumps going into overtime, or data banks, the pilot can have a full 4Td stateroom -- which can then be used at double-occupancy to carry a single passenger.

IMO, the extra ton of fuel is there to ward off objections to cutting the power plant fuel to the bare minimum necessary to finish a single J-4. The 1Td data banks are there as a nod to the "extensive data banks" from the original (It had data banks? Ok, here's your data bank -- that's all that fits, deal with it).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Or you could take those two tons and use them with the flex-fuel trick (a house rule) to support up to 4 passengers in double occupancy in the powerplant fuel space.

But that requires stacking three house rules (ok to have only the necessary powerplant fuel, powerplant fuel use during jump is invariant despite duration variance, and not all powerplant fuel must be in permanent tanks). Unless all three are accepted, it's unworkable.

ETA: it also requires collapsible tanks from HG...

ETA2: These are also the case when giving the pilot a full stateroom (to enable double occupancy), except for the flex-fuel stateroom trick.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As noted above, it looks a lot more reasonable when you've used artistic license to double your available living space...

Think how happy you are going to be when you get out of the ship after a week in jump...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Think how happy you are going to be when you get out of the ship after a week in jump...

Think about all the task rolls you'll fail because someone bumps into you while you're working....

 

[Spinward Flow]

Nope.
As I noted, one of those three statements is true.
You assume it is the third one.
The first can be true without severe disruption to the OTU.
The second is the only way to be mechanically consistent with changes explicitly made in '81
The third directly contradicts the changes LBB2'81 made to the '77 rules.

"He is said to be the best swordsman in France!"
"Yes. But fortunately, we are in England. May I?"

There is a misunderstanding SO FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC going on here that it is exceptionally easy to ignore it and jump to (the wrong) conclusions with confidence.

Expand vs Overwrite.

My posture is that LBB2.81 "expands" on the previous version (LBB2.77) in order to make some corrections and editorial/layout improvements in the information provided.

Your posture is that LBB2.81 "overwrites" the previous version (LBB2.77) out of existence, invalidating anything and everything written in LBB2.77. This view is consistent with what current day social media meme types (derisively) call "The One True Narrative" ... in the dogmatically fundamentalist sense of the term. Anything which does not conform to and with "The One True Narrative" is reflexively shunned as Wrongthink™ so as to sustain Purity Of Thought™.

The fundamental(ist) difference between the approaches of Expand vs Overwrite is that the Expand Option permits legacy context to remain viable, working and available. The legacy material "may be disfavored in preference to the new" ... but it doesn't vanish down the Memory Hole as something to never be spoken of (or thought about, let alone USED!) ever again. By contrast, the Overwrite Option demands(!) that all legacy context be delegitimized and erased from existence, so as to prevent it from ever being used ever again.



I can even give examples that are analogous to this kind of thing happening in the "tech tree of real life" pulled from real world history.

Radial piston engines ... vs ... block piston engines ... vs jet engines.

For some applications, arranging the pistons in a circular arrangement around a crankshaft was a superior way of doing the engineering ... while for other applications, arranging the pistons into a single engine block (in a variety of configurations, such as single line, V, 180º opposing, etc.) was the preferred choice.

Does the development and use of one type of power plant "invalidate" the other?
No. They can exist side by side on parallel technology tracks producing similar outputs by alternative means.

Did the introduction of the jet engine mean that all piston power plants in the world "stopped working" in aviation?
No. The jet engine (turbojet, turbofan, turboprop, etc.) simply became the preferred power plant for high subsonic speed civilian air transport.

To broaden things out ... just because electric ground cars now exist, does that mean that all the internal combustion ground cars "stop working" because they're "invalidated" by the updates and revisions in the new manufacturing paradigm?
No. The older vehicles do not "stop working" or otherwise being valid just because something "better" came along.



The point that I'm at pains to make here is that there is a difference between taking the position that LBB2.77 is DISFAVORED in preference for LBB2.81, which is the position that I hold ... versus the alternative of taking the position that LBB2.77 is DISALLOWED and effectively delegitimized in order to make LBB2.81 the exclusive ONLY option available, because LBB2.77 "doesn't exist anymore" as a valid option.

I'm perfectly fine with taking the view that LBB2.77 may be disfavored in preference for the (in many ways, but not in all ways) "superior" option of LBB2.81 ... such that LBB2.77 remains an available option IF you're willing to accept and work within the limitations of the LBB2.77 design paradigm space. Obviously, it is better Good Design Taste™ to remain internally consistent when taking this route, so going "all or nothing" on 77 vs 81 standard drives is the superior/cleaner choice to make.

This kind of thing would be easier to detail at a glance if we were more descriptive about our choice of sources for use of drives in CT starship designs. For example:

• XBoat mounts: Jump-B.77 / Maneuver-none / Power Plant-none
• Scout/Courier mounts: Jump-A.81 / Maneuver-A.81 / Power Plant-A.81
• Custom HG.79 design mounts: Jump-4.79 / Maneuver-6.79 / Power Plant-6.79
• Custom HG.80 design mounts: Jump-4.80 / Maneuver-6.80 / Power Plant-9.80

Except ... no one is in the habit of going into THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL for starship designs when it comes to sourcing of rules systems (mainly because we haven't "needed" to).

That's because LBB2.81 and LBB5.80 are preferred (and thus default assumed) over the alternative options of LBB2.77 and LBB5.79.



So in summary, I'm perfectly fine with LBB2.77 being disfavored in preference for LBB2.81.
However, I object to the notion that LBB2.77 is invalidated and disallowed simply because LBB2.81 exists, "overwriting" and sending LBB2.77 down the memory hole.

Expand vs Overwrite

Expand is more backwards compatible.
Overwrite is ... "quicker, easier, more seductive" ... but also more limiting.



Note that the same point of Expand vs Overwrite applies to the different versions of Traveller.
CT vs Megatraveller (and all the later versions that came after) ... for example.

Does the existence of Megatraveller "overwrite and invalidate" the existence of CT?
My position would be ... no ... because Megatraveller "expands" Traveller into a new iteration and paradigm, without "overwriting" the previous generation of releases made during CT.

I personally disfavor Megatraveller (because I think it took the game in a "wrong direction"), but that doesn't mean that I (personally) invalidate Megatraveller in a fundamentalist kind of way so as to remain "pure in my faith " to CT. Megatraveller just happens to be a neighboring sandbox that I prefer not to play in, rather than some kind of "heresy" that must be stamped out so that CT has neither possible nor potential rivals.



To bring this back around to the topic of IYTU XBoats and their mission capabilities ... it's perfectly fine to say that you disfavor LBB2.77 enough to want to REPLACE the LBB2.77 XBoat design with something compatible with LBB2.81 instead ... but since that isn't the default CT reference point we all have access to from CT publications, if you're going to take that position then you're going to need to design and detail a replacement LBB2.81 compliant XBoat and post/publish that design so that we can all refer to THAT design instead of using the common reference point of the LBB2.77 compliant XBoat from CT.

In other words, if you're going to say something as definitive as "IMTU XBoats have zero passenger capacity" in contradiction to multiple CT published sources (and the Travellerwiki page on the subject) ... you're going to have to SHOW YOUR WORK to back up your claim.



Expand vs Overwrite

Choose wisely ... because there are implications that flow from that choice.

 

[Grav_Moped]

As noted, I disagree.
HG 79 provided an alternative, parallel set of rules to LBB2 77 (and added jump governors to LBB2'77).
HG 80 overwrote HG 79 where they conflict
LBB2 81 overwrote LBB2 77 where they conflict.

HG 80 and LBB2 81 were second editions, not expansions.

It can be productive to reach back to '77 or '79 to understand where concepts originated in order to interpret rules and the ideas underpinning them, but under rules as written the earlier editions are at least partially superseded by the later ones.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Choose wisely ... because there are implications that flow from that choice.

There are implications for an xboat that (without explanation) does not need a power plant, too.

How far does this exception to LBB2'81 extend?
- Size B jump drives only?
- 100 ton hulls only?
- only ships without maneuver drives?
- or, maybe the entire Pn=Jn requirement added in '81 is void?

In canon, it has to be one of the most common ships in existence, after the Type S. And it (in OTU canon) works in a manner that is (since '81) impossible for any other ship except for one solitary ship whose crew is dead and whose civilization is not described in detail*.

I mean, it does work in LBB5 at TL-13. But that mandates use of LBB5.

-------------
*it too was written up when LBB2'77 was the controlling rule set, and isn't too far out there in that context.

 

[McPerth]

The point that I'm at pains to make here is that there is a difference between taking the position that LBB2.77 is DISFAVORED in preference for LBB2.81, which is the position that I hold ... versus the alternative of taking the position that LBB2.77 is DISALLOWED and effectively delegitimized in order to make LBB2.81 the exclusive ONLY option available, because LBB2.77 "doesn't exist anymore" as a valid option.

So, in your opinion, even while using LBB2/5.81, you can build J6/m1 ship with only PP1 by claiming LBB2/5.77 allowed it?

Of course it would not be a combat ship, as they need power, but a scout or freighter would be glad not to have to devote tonnage to PP and fuel...

BTW, I don't know well the combat system of LBB5.77, but I've heard it was quite different. Will you also use the most convenient at each combat, following the same reasoning?

I'm afraid LBB2/5.81 superceded LBB2/5.77 where they disagree, and expanded in other aspects.

Of course, there's no wrong in using LBB2/5.77 if you so want (the fun `police is an urban legend, not real), but most people will use latter versions that superceded it, and if you use LBB2/5.77 then you should give up any expansion from LBB2/5.81, or use it as a house rule, but as common reference will not work.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It can be productive to reach back to '77 or '79 to understand where concepts originated in order to interpret rules and the ideas underpinning them, but under rules as written the earlier editions are at least partially superseded by the later ones.

Agreed.
There are times when I find myself reaching for LBB5.79 to go look up the Magazine/Bombardment rules (LBB5.79, p32) in cases where I would want to design a "deep magazine" endurance for a missile armed craft. LBB5.79, p32 also contains interesting details with regards to L-Hyd Drop Tanks (setting a TL=12 minimum threshold) and of course the Jump Governor (TL=10) so that LBB2.77 jump drives do not have to consume maximum fuel regardless of parsecs jumped. Most of the other optional items on that page carry over largely unchanged into LBB5.80, but not everything does, so it's interesting to have those resources available for reference.

There are implications for an xboat that (without explanation) does not need a power plant, too.

How far does this exception to LBB2'81 extend?

Short answer ... IT DOESN'T ... if that makes sense.
Or better yet, IT DOESN'T in the way that you're trying to make it in order to reconcile things.

The fundamental fallacy trap that you're falling into is that XBoats "worked just fine" while they were built with LBB2.77 (because they obeyed all the design rules and principles as stated and stipulated, etc.). The discontinuity point that is tripping you up is assuming that once LBB2.81 was published ... somehow ... ipso facto retcon ackshually ... all of those LBB2.77 XBoats that had been in service and working "just fine, thank you" for years somehow magically retconned themselves into having been LBB2.81 all along the entire time and then suddenly stopped working (because they're not "LBB2.81 compliant/legal" anymore) with absolutely no one noticing (or caring, really) at any point or at any time.

Yes, the paradigm for building NEW starships improved (in a lot of ways), but that paradigm shift did not "invalidate" everything that had gone on before that paradigm shift came along.

Perhaps a better way to think of it would be like this:

• XBoats built to LBB2.77 standards and regulations worked then (and still work now!)
• XBoats built to LBB2.81 standards and regulations won't work (like, at all) unless you resort to using L-Hyd Drop Tanks

Under those conditions, most engineers would look at the problem and ask a very fundamental basic question.

• What's more important to you?
• Something that works but is (now) out of date ... or something that doesn't work when it is brought up to date with "modern standards"?

For any program manager that wants to Get Stuff Done™ ... when the choice is between "works vs doesn't work" ... the typical response is going to be "stick with what works and don't change anything" rather than angling for "it won't work, but I like that more than the alternative" as the answer to that particular choice.

In other words, so long as the IISS kept the XBoat design "frozen" in the LBB2.77 paradigm ... even after LBB2.81 became available as an option (so to speak) ... then the XBoats continue working "just fine, thank you" with no problems so long as they do not "upgrade" to meet the new paradigm requirements. Sure, they're a "legacy" design that would "never get approved today" kind of deal, but the LBB2.77 XBoats are for all intents and purposes "grandfathered" into the OTU as legitimately functioning craft. They don't "translate" into LBB2.81 ... so they don't even try to update into the new paradigm.



Ever heard the phrase, "ain't broke, don't fix it" before?
This would be a poster child case of that kind of thing in action.

LBB2.77 XBoats "weren't broken" under LBB2.77 ... so there's no need to "fix them" using LBB2.81.
My in-universe rationale for such a decision would be as simple as "obsolete but still works beats modern but can't work every time you need to jump" ... especially if you've got a mission role tasking as important as the Express Network to get on with and maintain every day of every year.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So, in your opinion, even while using LBB2.81, you can build J6/m1 ship with only PP1 by claiming LBB2.77 allowed it?

Definitively, NO ... but perhaps not for the reason that you are imputing here.

If I'm using LBB2.81 drives ... then I'm using LBB2.81 drives ... and what LBB2.77 has to say on the matter IS NOT RELEVANT.
If I'm using LBB2.77 drives ... then I'm using LBB2.77 drives ... and what LBB2.81 has to say on the matter IS NOT RELEVANT.

The important point is to be CONSISTENT ... so no mixing and matching of 77 drives with 81 drives (for example).
I also carry this point to the extent of not mixing and matching LBB2 standard drives with LBB5 custom drives, for what amounts to the same principle.

This is why when you're designing starships it is important to clearly state and specify WHICH set of rules you are using to avoid this potential point of confusion.

Of course it would not be a combat ship, as they need power, but a scout or freighter would be glad not to have to devote tonnage to PP and fuel...

The only way you could make that work would be with something analogous to the Express Network, where you "outsource" the need for a maneuver drive to some kind of Tender operation to enable recovery, refueling, refurbishment and relaunch. For "lightweight" cargoes on the order of mere Data Transmissions you can get away with that kind of "outsourcing" of maneuver capacity ... but for "heavier stuff" such as passengers and freight ... not so much.

BTW, I don't know well the combat system of LBB2.77, but I've heard it was quite different. Will you also use the most convenient at each combat, following the same reasoning?

People ALREADY do this.

Some people want to use LBB2 starship combat (complete with vector movement on maps and computer programming rules).
Some people want to use Mayday combat rules instead, eschewing both LBB2 and LBB5 alternatives.
Some people want to use LBB5 starship combat rules (abstracted and mapless).

Speaking just for myself, I vastly prefer to use LBB5 starship combat under all conditions. A ship doesn't have to be LBB5 designed either to make use of LBB5 starship combat. So long as a craft's construction details can be condensed down into a USP (which isn't that hard to do), you can put it through LBB5 starship combat rules regardless of which CT design paradigm it was built under.

Of course, there's no wrong in using LBB2.77 if you so want (the fun `police is an urban legend, not real), but most people will use latter versions that superceded it, and if you use LBB2.77 then you should give up any expansion from LBB2.81, or use it as a house rule, but as common reference will not work.

Actually, the Fun Police™ have been very active over the last day or so in this thread, but if you'd prefer to think of them as being "just a starport rumor" that's fine, I suppose.

As for typically wanting to use the later versions, I completely understand and support that view.
I actually share the opinion that LBB2.81 is "superior" to LBB2.77 and likewise believe that LBB2.81 ought to be favored over LBB2.77 whenever it makes sense to do so.

However, there are going to be edge cases ... such as the LBB2.77 XBoat design ... where LBB2.81 cannot do what was possible to do under LBB2.77 ... and in those rare instances there ought to be an understanding that LBB2.81 is inferior to what can be accomplished using LBB2.77 and should therefore YIELD to the continued use of LBB2.77 for those specific designs.

This means that in general LBB2.81 starship design will be the favored paradigm to work in ... just not the exclusive be all/end all/accept no alternatives paradigm that retcon destroys all which has come before. Just be CLEAR about it when referencing LBB2 materials (77 or 81) to avoid confusion and misunderstanding and it's all good.



Besides, there's a bit of "rose colored chronology" going on here that's rather easy to forget all these decades later after the fact.

1977: LBB2
1979: LBB5

1980: LBB S7
1980: LBB5

1981: LBB S9
1981: LBB2

LBB2.81 wasn't even published until AFTER all of the previous sources published XBoat design details using LBB2.77. In terms of publishing chronology for CT, it's not like LBB2.81 was even available to "retcon the XBoat out of existence" when the relevant references were published in LBB S7 and S9.

That's why ALL "Book 2 design" ships in LBB S7 and S9 are built using LBB2.77 rules ... because LBB2.81 did not exist yet in published form. It's also why there is no "this Book 2 vs that Book 2" references are to be found in LBB S7 or S9 ... because when S7 and S9 were published there was only one version of LBB2. It's only later on (from 1981 onwards) that "which LBB2?" even became a question at all (and here we are, decades later, still wrangling over minutiae that weren't a problem at the time of CT publishing!).

 

[Grav_Moped]

The fundamental fallacy trap that you're falling into is that XBoats "worked just fine" while they were built with LBB2.77 (because they obeyed all the design rules and principles as stated and stipulated, etc.). The discontinuity point that is tripping you up is assuming that once LBB2.81 was published ... somehow ... ipso facto retcon ackshually ... all of those LBB2.77 XBoats that had been in service and working "just fine, thank you" for years somehow magically retconned themselves into having been LBB2.81 all along the entire time and then suddenly stopped working (because they're not "LBB2.81 compliant/legal" anymore) with absolutely no one noticing (or caring, really) at any point or at any time.

Not a fallacy, it's how rule changes work.

In the extreme case, look at what High Guard did to the OTU (Big Ship Universe vs Small Ship Universe). A J4/4G 1250Td ship was a first-rate, line-of-battle ship, then "suddenly" it was a slow escort to ships twenty times its size* that had somehow simply materialized out of the void of space. That didn't happen -- they re-wrote how ships could scale up (and specifically that they could), and those bigger ships had been there all along.
‐----------
* and then, not a very good one, due to the changes made in HG '80....

 

[AnotherDilbert]

One of the following is thus true:
- it's a HG build at TL-13
- It's LBB2'81 as I described it
- it does something almost unique: jumps without the power plant that LBB2'81 mandated.

How about a fourth option: A TL-10 HG XBoat:

XB-1540441-000000-00000-0       MCr 75,2         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=10
                           Cargo=1 Fuel=44 EP=4 Agility=0

Single Occupancy                                    1        94 
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Part Streaml  Custom             1          100           
Configuration       Sphere             5                      7 
                                                                
Jump Drive          B                  4    1      15        20 
Manoeuvre D                                                     
Power Plant                            4    1      12        36 
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-4, 4 weeks            4      44           
                                                                
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/4                4    1       4        30 
                                                                
Staterooms                                  1       4         0,5
                                                                
Cargo                                               1           
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 94,00            Sum:       1        94 
Class Cost          MCr 19,74           Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 75,20

Only one stateroom and no "data banks", but if we squint hard enough?

 

[Grav_Moped]

How about a fourth option: A TL-10 HG XBoat:

If you want to waive the Drive Tech Level Table on page 23, sure.

And that's probably not a terrible idea -- if the drives in LBB2 can provide a specified level of performance in a specific hull, you can get that performance from LBB5 drives regardless of TL? I'll have to think about that...

Edit to add: oh, you intermixed drives. Eh. Less interesting.