Fighter Mounts

> At 06:24 PM 03-06-98 -0700, you wrote:
Doing
> >routine repair work would be slowed if you had to use a vacsuit. I
I guess this can be considered a grey area in one respect, if a ship has an
energy screen protecting it from attack then why not one at the opening of the
bay to prevent the air from escaping ala star trek?

> Furthermore, if one is dependent on a bay to launch/recover, losing
but in
> a less cinematic setting, there's no reason to have a 'runway' to
There was a discussion a couple of months ago along these lines. Rather than
run that thread, let me summarize.

External Mounts/Launch Tubes:
  This type of system (Omega Destroyer - Star Fury launches) allows the
ship to launch many (if not all) of thier ships at one time. The drawback is
docking and maintainence. Mating to a docking collar during combat is tricky
(if not deadly). Doing maintainence in
microgravity/vacume is also tricky.

Launch Bays: This type of system (Battlestar Galactia) allows the ship to
launch
fewer fighters at once, but recover/refuel/rearm them quicker. It also
allows for maintainence in a gravity/atmospheric conditions. Another
downside is that if the bay is lost it is lost for all the fighters that would
have landed (or were) in that bay.

A mix of the two (launch tubes and recovery bay) was the best tactical system
but took the most mass.

IIRC there was no concensus on which was the better system.

> You wrote:

> External Mounts/Launch Tubes:

Ideally suited for species like the Bugs[1] of In Death Ground (David
Weber), who use their gunships very much in one-shot roles.

And never mind maintinence, I want to be able to rearm my torpedo fighters
without suiting up some techs and having them try to conduct EVAs in combat!

> At 00:09 5/31/98, scipio@interlog.com wrote:
Doing
> >routine repair work would be slowed if you had to use a vacsuit. I

The 'Inside' vs 'outside' debate is fun to watch but the most likely (in my
mind) scenario is one in which both are used. Outside: the standard FT fighter
and interceptor are deployed
         on mounts that supply/resupply  the energy and fuel
needs of the craft. Inside: The specilized attack, bomber, torpedo craft are
carried internally so that the expendable loads may be mounted in
         more PROTECTED/controlled conditions.  These craft will
         be serviced by robot/waldo crew chiefs  in vacuum.
Comments: The external mount will be the first to launch in a surprise attack
situation since only the pilot needs to mount his
	 craft and launch as an individual.   The internal bay
theory requires all pilots to man and ready their craft
	 prior to the pumpdown of the bay itself.   After all, how
many complete changes of air will a ship have? Bye for now,

I thought this thread was covered earlier with outside (hull mounted) fighters
called 'Parasite' fighters. The consensus seemed to be that they could be
mounted on any ship(even a freighter for a real surprise.) BUT if a ship took
damage before launch, you crossed off fighters instead of damage boxes.! AND
the ship retrieving the fighters had to fly straight to retrieve the fighters
at about 1 or 2 each turn. Are we talking about something different or new
here?

Tom Hughes

On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 18:24:10 -0700 John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
writes:

> The 'Inside' vs 'outside' debate is fun to watch but the most

scipio@interlog.com on 05/30/98 07:38:55 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Fighter Mounts

> At 06:24 PM 03-06-98 -0700, you wrote:

Careful there - mentioning Star trek and 'Technology' in the same breath
can get one in trouble around here ;->

But seriously - this is something we are making progress on.  A Plasma
Window, as it is called, encloses hot plasma inside electromagnetic fields
and can actually serve as a fairly effective Pressure/Vacuum barrier -
Now there would obviously be a power cost, but I imagine that is not an
insurmountable problem - I can't envision these starships operating on
anything less than a small Tokamak Fusion generator. And no one said you can't
still have a bay door to shut during routine cruising operations.

See the web page below, from Brookhaven National Lab's site:

http://www.pubaf.bnl.gov/pr/bnlpr080896.html

Now I'm not saying this is a solved problem by any means. You still need to
drop the Window to get out- maybe a double window 'Airlock' would at
least
obviate the need for depressurizing completely - but the you are still
susceptible to explosive docmpression when you lose power to the Window
-
no fun. And I for one have no interest in flying my fighter through the
active Plasma Window - ionized gas at 12,000 degrees C?

I imagine it would at least scour the dirt off the paint...

> At 08:52 AM 6/4/98 -0900, you wrote:
What dirt?;)
> Jared

/**********************************

realjtl@sj.bigger.net on 06/03/98 04:24:10 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Fighter Mounts

> At 00:09 5/31/98, scipio@interlog.com wrote:
Doing
> >routine repair work would be slowed if you had to use a vacsuit. I
The 'Inside' vs 'outside' debate is fun to watch but the most likely (in my
mind) scenario is one in which both are used. Outside: the standard FT fighter
and interceptor are deployed
         on mounts that supply/resupply  the energy and fuel
needs of the craft. Inside: The specilized attack, bomber, torpedo craft are
carried internally so that the expendable loads may be mounted in
         more PROTECTED/controlled conditions.  These craft will
         be serviced by robot/waldo crew chiefs  in vacuum.
Comments: The external mount will be the first to launch in a surprise attack
situation since only the pilot needs to mount his
	 craft and launch as an individual.   The internal bay
theory requires all pilots to man and ready their craft
	 prior to the pumpdown of the bay itself.   After all, how
many complete changes of air will a ship have? Bye for now, John L.

<begin reply- my stupid mailer doesn't prpoerly handle quoting, and I'm
tired of doing it by hand>

When the Parasite Racks (external mounts) were first bought up, in relation to
B5, there was some discussion about them. Basically this is my read of how
they would work.

1) External mounts cannot carry specialized reload fighters (I would
include Attack and torpedo in here - bombers if you use 'em.)

2) Anytime a ship is hit by enemy weapons fire, externally mounted fighters
still attached must make thereshold checks at the current threshould level.
When the carrying ship makes a threshold roll it also tests the external
fighters/racks - so yes, they can be forced to take 2 rolls at the same
threshold level in the same turn. (but they SHOULD be fragile.)

3) Ships which know they are heading into combat may launch all their
externally mounted fighters at once (this is the major advantage of the
racks.) If a ship is 'surprised' (scenario dependant I suppose) Then you
have a race-to-scramble situation. I propose no launches on the first
turn of surprise (fall out of 'jump' in the middle of a fight?). At the end of
each turn, including the first, roll one die for each individual squadron and
keep a running total per squadron. When the total equals 6 or more the
squadron may launch on the following turn. The launch of any number of
externally mounted fighters in one turn is considered a single
Fighter-Launch operation for control purposes.
A Carrier with 3 external squadrons, 3 internal squadrons, and 1 FlightCon
(or just vanilla 50%+ style carrier) could launch all 3 external
squadrons, in addition to 1 internal squadron.

4) External racks MAY NOT be used to recover fighters during combat. If a ship
has standard internal fighter bays, it may recover and refuel any fighter
squadrons. <I'm thinking that only the torpedo bays have torpedo
reloads, but other than that, any bay may refuel/rearm any squadron>.
So
during combat, a carrier may have a number of squadrons refueled/rearmed
equal to the number of internal bays.

So to summarize -
External mount fighters cost and mass the same as normal fighters. I assume
the facilities for repair and maintenence are still included, but not in a
convenient manner - you can rotate fighters throught the bays to make
repairs, but this is not an option during combat. Replacing fighters on
the external mounts is also a non-combat operation.  On ships that have
no
internal bays, all work is done externally - VERY non-combat.

Advantages-
Faster Launch, with less FlightControl requirement placed on the carrier on
launch Disadvantages Far less protection
  No in-combat recovery/refuel/rearm operation from the mounts
Cannot be used for Attack and Torpedo fighters

Considering the propensity for FT fighters to get wasted, it seems that having
the benefit of the rapid launch may make them worthwhile. When it comes time
for the Fighters to return to the carrier for servicing, enough will be dead
that maybe the reduced number of internal bays will not be significant.

BTW - In my opinion it would be very rare to see fleet operations using
only external mount fighters with no internal bays in the fleet - stupid
idea IMO, except for special scenarios. Smaller ships could carry
external-only fighters to supplement the abilities of the Main carrier,
but would be much weaker operating alone.

Anyway, that's my 3 cents worth (don't you just hate inflation?)

I am not fussy on this type of rule as it slows things down, complicates
things,requires more paperwork and (in my opinion)is not
necessary/realistic.  Fighter crews  would be trained and trained in
"surprise" launches and their take off time would be pretty consistent
(especially within the time involved in a turn). Even fairly green crews would
still make it out of the ship in roughly the same time as
experienced crews - the difference in training would be reflected in
what they do once space-borne.  I think the only way dice rolling should
be used is if the fighter launching system (whatever it is) has taken damage.
I have the same problem with rolling a die every turn to determine if a weapon
has recharged enough to fire although I guess the point could be argued by
saying other systems are competing for energy in the middle of a battle. To me
a weapon would recharge at a fixed rate according to the physics involved
especially if it's not undergoing unusual activities.

David Best
> Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:

Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> When the Parasite Racks (external mounts) were first bought up, in

Reasonable.

> 2) Anytime a ship is hit by enemy weapons fire, externally mounted

Also good. Trade off of readiness for vulnerability.

> 3) Ships which know they are heading into combat may launch all their

If one was using some form of crew quality, I'd think better squadrons could
launch faster, maybe rolling a bigger die or having to reach a lower total
before launch.

> 4) External racks MAY NOT be used to recover fighters during combat.
If a
> ship has standard internal fighter bays, it may recover and refuel any
So
> during combat, a carrier may have a number of squadrons

It is even possible to conceive of the outboard pylons refueling and rearming
standard fighters. But not specialized craft.

> Considering the propensity for FT fighters to get wasted, it seems

As pointed out, the internal bays would be required to extricate wounded crew,
to extract someone from a fighter that was not functioning normally, etc.

> BTW - In my opinion it would be very rare to see fleet operations

Not many fighter jocks would fly with no hope of repair or recovery....
(desparation or special attack scenarios only I'd
guess).  I'm assuming that rescue/repair ops on fighters performed in
vaccum due to a lack of internal bay space (due to capacity or due to combat
damage) would be prohibitively slow and distinctly not within the framework of
combat time.

A very nice piece in total.

Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

In Fasa's "Adventure Class Ships Vol. 1" the 400-ton (mass 8) Stedlas
class Zhodani system defense boat has one 50 ton Fighter (mass 1 hvy fighter)
externally mounted. I guess for patrol purposes.