On a different topic to the feedback about the Jaguar, I think the proposed stats for the damage controls could use a bit of tweaking, particularly when comparing them to the versions that were present on the test server previously.
First, the passive resistances. Currently a regular damage control has the following stats:
T1: 30% hull / 10% armor / 7.5% shield
meta: 35% hull / 12.5% armor / 10% shield
T2: 40% hull / 15% armor / 12.5% shield
The proposed assault damage controls have the following passive resists:
T1/meta: 30% hull / 7.5% armor / 5% shield
T2: 40% hull / 10% armor / 7.5% shield
First, the fact that the meta has the same stats (including duration as well) as the T1 is weird - meta modules almost always have intermediate stats between the T1 and T2 versions. Second, given that the ADCU has been majorly weakened from its previous incarnation in both duration and active resistances (notably, to the point where it is feasible to kill something through the ADCU with enough DPS, which is a key difference), I personally feel that the module is now giving up too much passive effectiveness to gain its active bonus, especially with the increased fitting costs relative to regular damage controls. As such, I would propose the following passive resistance stats for ADCUs:
T1: 30% hull / 7.5% armor / 5% shield
meta: 35% hull / 10% armor / 7.5% shield
T2: 40% hull / 12.5% armor / 10% shield
First off, this provides a distinction between the T1 and meta versions as is the usual pattern. This also allows the meta ADCU to match its regular version in hull resists, which seems to be a design goal of the ADCU. The shield and armor resists for each ADCU are now a nice even 2.5% lower than the regular DCU equivalents across the boards, representing a slight increase in the passive resistances for meta and T2 ADCUs to somewhat counterbalance the lowered effectiveness when active.
Second, I think the meta ADCU should have a 14s duration rather than 13s. Previously it was 16s vs 18s for t2, and cutting a flat 2s off of each of them hurts the meta version more than the T2 one as it represents a larger percentage decrease. This also matches the pattern of the faction ADCU having 1s longer duration than T2, and makes the meta ADCU intermediate between the T1 and T2 versions in duration as well as in resistances.
Finally, I think there is merit to the various suggestions that have been made regarding the idea of making the ADCU perform differently on AFs versus HACs, specifically in terms of duration and fitting costs. I am assuming that the durations were lowered at least partially due to the potential for AFs to have their ADCU active for a very large fraction of a frigate vs frigate fight or to cover very large distances at high speed with the ADCU on to tackle something. However, cruiser fights operate on completely different timescales from frigate fights - 15 seconds is a lot longer time for a frigate than it is a cruiser. A 20 second ADCU (the original fanfest duration) may be too long for an AF, but it’s just about right for a HAC. Second, AFs tend to have extremely tight fittings and many are going to struggle to fit an ADCU on their already-tight fits, necessitating sacrifices that will degrade their fits. Given that AFs are seen as being in need of buffs, this does not seem to me to be a desirable outcome. As such, I would suggest the following ADCU-related role bonuses for HACs and AFs:
Assault Frigates:
20% reduction in Assault Damage Control CPU requirement
Heavy Assault Cruisers:
+33.3% bonus to Assault Damage Control duration
This gives AFs ADCUs that use 22.4 / 19.2 / 28 CPU, which comes close to matching the CPU use of normal damage controls, and gives HACs roughly 20s duration ADCUs, which meshes significantly better with the pacing of cruiser fights.
… or are you pretending they are snipers 
but yea I think your right time to start training blasters and caldari from frig up.