> Brendan wrote:
> With all the ships I've designed so far using the construction system,
That's high-thrust and decently-hulled, though. If you look at the FB
ships, the average is closer to 40% available. Using 20% of the total Mass as
a limit should probably be OK. However, it doesn't help the large
carriers very much - a wet-navy carrier can only launch the aircraft in
a single direction, which limits the launch speeds; but a space fighter
carrier should be able to launch the fighters in *any* direction, which
means that it can potentially launch lots of them very fast - all of
them at once, if it has enough launch bays...
Later,
I've just had a thought about the definition of a carrier in the new FTFB.
With all the ships I've designed so far using the construction system,
after all the _fixed_ systems (% of mass systems) are installed (drives,
hull, ftl, screens) most ships usually have about 30% of their mass available
for offensive systems & armour.
As a guide, this should make any ship with more than 15-20% of their
mass in fighter bays a carrier (using the old 50% systems definition).
By the way, try this for a ultralight escort carrier:
Mass: 90 (318 pts + fighters)
Hull: Weak FTL: standard MD: 4 Armour: 2
Hits: 18; 5/5/4/4
Crew: 5; 4/4/4/4/2
ADFC 5 Point Defence Systems 4 Fighter Bays
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Mass as a limit should probably be OK. However, it doesn't help the
OTOH, wet navy ships are so slow compared to aircraft that the carrier's
movement doesn't really matter (except for wind speed over deck). A space
carrier's velocity vector may make it impractical to launch in some
directions.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > Mass as a limit should probably be OK. However, it doesn't help the
Not really... not as long as you don't allow the carrier to maneuver on the
turn of launch, to give the fighters time enough to clear the ship so
they aren't overrun by it :-/
OK, I wouldn't launch my fighters directly behind the carrier (into my
engine exhausts), but apart from that ;-)
Later,
> On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Not really... not as long as you don't allow the carrier to maneuver
Unless you completely ignore the velocity vector the carrier gives the
launching fighters (which I think is the way FB handles it, hohum...), you
want to launch so that the carrier's velocity helps the fighters reach their
target.
So, a wet navy carrier turns into the wind to launch while a space carrier
turns into the attack to launch (or at the very least stops).
Oh well... if you take real physics far enough, space fighters turn out to be
a pretty stupid weapon anyway...
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > OTOH, wet navy ships are so slow compared to aircraft that the
It seems to me, that fighters are a LOT more manueverable in FT that the
carrier they are launching from, and as long as the carrier isn't manuevering
VIOLENTLY (and since carriers generally have 2 thrust it's unlikely) and that
over a (perhaps)15 minute turn 6 fighters launching would take.... hmmm, a
minute at most (assuming they all aren't going out the same door or up the
same tube) there is no need for this 'no manuevering during launch'
restriction. The carrier isn't going to overrun you, since you leave with the
same vector and velocity that it had, plus your boost off the ship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mikko wrote:
> > Not really... not as long as you don't allow the carrier to maneuver
> launching fighters (which I think is the way FB handles it, hohum...),
Nope. Fighters don't have velocity vectors in either FT, MT or FTFB.
Answering the rest as if fighters had movement vectors in FTFB (it's not very
difficult to add, of course):
> you want to launch so that the carrier's velocity helps the fighters
Sure. But unless the launch catapults are very powerful (a lot more than the
fighter engines, too), the direction the launch catapult is facing
out from the carrier is not important - only the direction of travel of
the carrier is. The launch bays can still cover most of the available surface
area and spit the fighters out like a cloud surrounding the carrier, before
the fighters light up their own engines and start maneuvering on their own.
Hm, I don't have the post I replied to above any longer... Not sure if you
were talking about carriers being able to launch fighters in more than one
direction (as aircraft carriers generally are not, while space fighter
carriers could be) or how a carrier should maneuver just prior to
launch :-/ I'm talking about the former :-/
> Oh well... if you take real physics far enough, space fighters turn
> to be a pretty stupid weapon anyway...
<g>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Sure. But unless the launch catapults are very powerful (a lot more
As I said...
> Hm, I don't have the post I replied to above any longer... Not sure if
A bit of both, actually. With modern catapult, RATO etc. technology, carriers
could be built to launch into several directions if they saw the
need (they did see the need to launch and recover at the same time --
which actually does give two launch directions if really needed). I don't
think even Harriers are launched en masse even though they technically could
be.
But I guess carrying the largest possible amount of the best possible aircraft
is a higher priority than chucking them all in the air 30 seconds faster.
Then again, a wet navy carrier wouldn't be caught dead in the same "gaming
table" with an enemy warship if it could help it, quite unlike FT carriers.
> Then again, a wet navy carrier wouldn't be caught dead in the same
Absolutely- time to start panicking if there is an enemy combatant
within 80nm. Aircraft within 100nm are extremely bad news. However, that is
based on the relative weapon enagement envelopes- its all relative.
> You wrote:
> Absolutely- time to start panicking if there is an enemy combatant
I'd panic if all I had was a CIWS and a couple of Sea Sparrows between
me and death. The FT carriers are a little better armed--esp the NSL
one, which I've taken to referring to as a Carriernought.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> I'd panic if all I had was a CIWS and a couple of Sea Sparrows between
Depends on the CIWS. Forex, the improved YAVUZ class of the Turkish Navy
> At 9:47 PM +1000 15/6/98, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
That is what makes software... soft
O).... the smiling dalek
MarkS
All the way from GallifreyÂ