Okay, a strange little question (from a strange little man) - Talking
about System defense Ships:
"Why not have a Non-FTL Carrier for system defense?"
The idea worked as follows:
1) Fighters have fuel constraints 2) Bases (Planet) are long transit times to
and from combat 3) Stations (or planetoids) are frequently not where they are
needed and can't get there quickly
4) Non-FTL Carriers can maneuver to position themselves in position to
launch fighters supporting FTL/Non-FTL craft defending a system
5) The loss of a FTL drive leaves more room for Bays, PDS, primary weapons
Not saying I'm for or against the idea - feedback solicited.
Gracias,
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Sounds like a fine idea, but you probably won't see them in a backwater colony
or system. A system defense carrier
would be a major colony/homeworld asset.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
You could, but they get expensive. If I'm spending that kind of money, I
prefer System Defense Monitors. 34 armor boxes. Not fun. Will take forever to
die.
> 1) Fighters have fuel constraints
Not always true! Combat in a system is based around securing planets. So you
have to come to ME. Which means my Planetary Defense Wings will have plenty of
range. Gotta remember, sea/space/air combat is not an
end to itself.
> John Atkinson wrote:
It's a personal preference issue and also depends on the depth of their
wallets. They could have a number of monitors with a fighter carrier in
support.
Fuel expenditures for the fighters are less if they don't have to climb out of
a deep gravity well. You'd base them on planetary orbital stations and on
moons or asteroids.
> --- Jon Davis <davisje@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> Fuel expenditures for the fighters are less if they
Where possible. On new colonies where orbital stations aren't available, they
would have booster packs strapped on for the climb out.
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 04:42:19PM -0500, Jon Davis wrote:
Oh, I don't know about that, John. It seems just the sort of thing
you /would/ give to a new colony you're courting for your space
empire. Non-FTL, to keep costs down, relatively "low tech" so
maintainance can be done locally, high-manpower/low-tech to further
that agenda, and its a fine gift.
Further, if you have a purely solar power, one limited to one solar system,
its one of the means of force projection they'll already be using on a regular
basis.
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:45:09 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Validity of points noted *but* How much fuel is used in getting from base to
combat and returning to base after combat? I don'r know but for simplicity
sake I would guess not enough to keep track of.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Validity of points noted *but* How much fuel is used
Well, if you put on boosters for launch and do a Space
Shuttle-style dead-stick landing, then you aren't
using ANY of your combat endurance. Of course, this might take a bit more time
than a powered landing so that's going to be something else you have to take
into account.