--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/22/16, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML]About That Apocalypse . . .
 To: "tml" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 Date: Friday, April 22, 2016, 4:47 PM

 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at
 10:05 AM,  <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 I'd
 say x3 is a more common ratio.
 If we want to keep our putative
 "obsolescent battlecruiser" smaller than a canon
 dreadnought, then ~150Kdton is better.
 I really don't see what the
 author wanted with a million displacement ton vessel. Even
 if we figure the fighters at 20 dtons (heavy fighters rather
 then basic light ones), hanger space for three hundred would
 still run less than a 1Kdton. Maybe it was supposed to be
 both a fighter carrier and a fleet
 tanker? --
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The heavy fighters the Tigress carried were 50dtons, as I recall.
That would take up a little more space.
Using the CT HGv2 construction rules plus J4 capability, there was a break-point (some where 'tween 500-600kDT where I used to have trouble using up all the space. So, I went to a J5 design and  I believe that at J6 even a 1Mdt design couldn't have everything.
Now, according to canon, there was a time when BB's carried not only fighters but also armies.
Maybe that ship was was built around a salvaged old-time Tri-cap BB?

================================================================