[GZG] When placing Modular Fighters on carriers

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l>From the
Unofficial NAC Fleet Roster...

"Following the philosophy of UNSC ships, the NAC BuShips decided to create
the SF-14 Firestorm fighter with a modular design. The reason for this
was primarily for spatial considerations and strategic flexibility (your
choices were to have several different fighters that performed different roles
exclusively, or to have one type of fighter that could be refitted between
actions to fill
other roles as needed). The SF-14 normally would be considered a
'multi-role'
combat fighter, but there would be modules available to carriers so that it
could be refitted as an 'air superiority' (borrowing the term from the late
20th
century) anti-fighter fighter, an anti-shipping attack fighter, or a
torpedo bomber. In addition to this thruster packs or booster pods were
available to give it a higher speed, as well as extra fuel tanks to give it
extended endurance during combat missions.
 The NAC ASF-7 Phanton heavy fighter was designed along similar lines as
the
SF-14, only it was constructed with more armor and had a tougher
structural
integrity that allowed it to survive hits that would cripple the SF-14.
Many carriers carried extra parts and modules to refit their heavy fighter
squadrons if the captain thought it was prudent for a given assignment.
Otherwise the
ASF-7s were just beefier versions of the SF-14s."

Now should a force equiped with Omni-Fighters, still be able to place 6
fighters in a Mass 9 Hanger bay, and having the ability to retrofit pods per
current needs, or should the carrier need to alot Cargo space to have extra
"pods available"?

I'm interested as for my homegrown fraction I'm looking at Modular/Omni
Fighters.

Thanks

DO NOT HATE THE WARRIOR, if you hate the war.

Hanger bays are already considered to have a suitable selection of stores and
weapon pods included in the mass required. Of the 1.5 mass per fighter
of hanger space only 0.6-1.0 of the mass is the fighter and loading
equipment; the rest is launch/recovery/rearming/repair and other support
equipment. There is a lot of empty space in a hanger.

If you want to specifically require extra storage for Omni-pods, let
them have 2 configurations available as part of the basic hanger and require 1
mass of cargo per squadron for each additional configuration.
ie.  A Mass 9 hanger + 1 cargo would have 6 fighters and carry the
Prime, A & B configuration equipment.

If you're converting for Battletech/Battlespace, remember that
Battlespace
uses a 10-fighter squadron as standard (so Mass 15 hangers).

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 12/1/05 7:08:47 AM,
gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
writes:
> Message: 6
Thanks Brendan...

While not converting from Battletech Omni Fighters, but borrowing some from
the idea, and the following the idea I have for my primary fleet of with
the ability Swap out modular parts of the hull, for different roles.   I
knew that the hanger had space, but was trying to figure how much "extra"
space it has. The idea someone else had modular fighters, I wanted to see how
they
handled the "pods".    I like the idea of each hanger bay carrying 2
configs, and for each other add 1 Masss Cargo..

Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)