Here's an alternate way to do Fighter bases/carriers:
Fighter launch system/tube
Mass: 10 Cost: 20 can launch 6 fighters per turn. Pretty much the same system
as The viper launchers in Battlestar Galactica or Space: above and Beyond.
Fighter Recovery System Mass: 5 Cost: 40 can recover 6 fighters per turn. Same
system as BG and Space: A&B.
Fighter Squadron (12 fighters) Mass: 6 Cost: 30 (variable on type) See the
More thrust manual for fighter details
As an example: the Nimitz class carrier has 2 fighter launch and 1 fighter
recovery systems. 96 embarked craft (8 squadrons). total mass of systems is
73. the normal mass is 96. This makes large carriers a bit more economical and
puts a practical limit on the number of fighters it can launch per turn. As a
general rule you need to have at least one recovery system if you wish to land
your fighters. but it isn't needed. the fighters just need an alternate place
to land. Kind of like doolittle's bombers, they could take off from the
carriers but I don't believe that they were able to recover them even if they
had wanted to.
Any comments would be appreciated.
> On Sun, 04 May 1997 21:21:11 -0400, you wrote:
> As an example: the Nimitz class carrier has 2 fighter launch and 1
> Any comments would be appreciated.
The recovery equipment is needed. How else would you get the fighters back?
Have a second carrier follow you around? Might as well put everything on one
ship.
By the way, they did want the B25s back. They planned to land in China. Only
the Japanese really flew suicide missions. The
CAM/Hurricat ships would have been a better example. (Converted
merchantmen with one fighter plane that launched via catapult. The pilot would
ditch the plane over the convoy and hope to be picked up).
On the subject of fighters, I would like to see "external racks" for fighters
allowing them to be "clamped" onto the hull of a ship. Said ship then tows the
fighters into range, releases them, and brings them back afterwards. Of
course, it cannot rearm the fighters but they would provide a useful boost to
firepower provided that a carrier was
also in the squadron to re-arm and repair the things.
This system could also be used to carry missiles "under the wings" like
airplanes.
> At 02:55 AM 5/5/97 GMT, you wrote:
Maybe kamikazie style missions, But I was actually thinking of fighter
transports. Loadthen up with fighters at the home world and transfer them to a
starbase.
> By the way, they did want the B25s back. They planned to land in
I didn't say that it was a suicide mission, only that the carriers could
not recover the b-25s if they had tried to land. (I didn't know about
the CAM, but that is a much better example.)
> On the subject of fighters, I would like to see "external racks" for
The externals would be very vulnerable to damage, esp. from the sandacaster
that was going around last week. just imagine all your fighters being
sandblasted off your ship. real useful for FF and DD classes though.
> This system could also be used to carry missiles "under the wings"
That's an idea I really like! You would need a starbase to reload, that would
take care of the 40 pt boat strike force in campaign games.
> Marshall Grover writes:
@:) >On the subject of fighters, I would like to see "external
racks"....
@:)
@:) The externals would be very vulnerable to damage
In fact I would suggest that any externally carried objects take damage before
the ship in all circumstancs.
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 09:57:40 -0400, you wrote:
> Marshall Grover writes:
A fighter clamped to the ship's hull would be no more vulnerable to
"sandcaster" damage than a fighter flying in space, in fact, maybe even less
so since you can clamp them to the hull behind a projection (like the wing
mirrors...), which would shield them from the forward
aspect. Well, at least that's the _theory_.
You would still need a carrier to do the reloading (before battle, so don't
get caught at anything less than alert status). The racks just mean you can
carry extra fighters.
However the usual use I enivsage would be to increase the _range_ of
the fighters, not the quantity. Your carrier/base transfers a squadron
to the destroyer's racks, the destroyer tows them into range, releases them,
then joins the combat. The fighters fly back to their base or carrier under
their own power. Sort of like the "shuttle tecnhique", it would increase the
range at which a fighter strike could be mounted, to double or more (depending
on the acceleration difference between the destroyer and the carrier).
If external racks are taboo for you you could make a "fighter pallet" that did
the same thing, but was TOWED by a ship. The pallet might
even contain a little landing bay allowing you to re-arm (once).
However, I do not like this idea.