Re: SPOILER ALERT/PARASITE FIGHTER RACKS

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, M Hodgson wrote:

> The rules look ok initially, but obviously I haven't had chance to
give
> them a go yet.  A question though
> 
> Why have fighter bays at all ???  they cost a lot take up lots of mass
> etc....  With racks like this about I see no reason to bother....
> 
> Aside from the protection it gives to fighters, what is the advantage
of a
> full bay ?  Am I missing something ?	Fighters are unlikely to be on
the
> racks when fired upon anyway as the whole point is they are there to
> defend the carrying vessel.
> 
> _michael h

Simple, it's much easier for maintenance if you can access the entire 
craft rather than certain parts or have to suit up to access the sticky 
out parts.  Bays also make retrieval much easier since the fighter only
has to enter the bay, maintenance personnel and equpemnt take care of 
refitting and then placing the fighter in an appropriate launch 
position.  Replacing external stores would be a pain in outer space, 
whereas having a bay allows lots of places to anchor supplies and 
equipment.  Parasite racks would essentially give you a one shot launch 
with no reload capability.  A WWI era comparison would be Zepplins 
carrying fighters on hooks below.  Although this means the fighter can
be 
carried anywhere a Zepplin can go it turned out not to be so practical 
since retrieval was a significant problem.  Therefore Aircraft Carriers 
became the dominant method of transporting aircraft into battle where 
land bases were not available.
	Another problem with racks would be fitting non-standard
fighters 
to them.  What if there was a double sized Fury? or one with large bulky

external stores.  These probably wouldn't fit onto a standard rack, but 
with a launch bay you can always push them out the airlock... :)

--Binhan Lin