Re: Superships and Fighter capacity.

Binhan Lin wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Peggy & Jeff Shoffner wrote:
> 
> > Actually, I had a question about that limit;  A Nimitz class CVN
carries
> > approximately 90 aircraft;	why is a fleet carrier limited to only
36?  Yeah,
> > I know this isn't sea warfare, but come on, it's supposed to be a
FLEET
> > carrier....
> 
> In WWII American carriers has more carrying capacity than British
carriers
> for the reason that the Americans were willing to store their aircraft
on
> deck, whereas the British required that all aircraft carried could be
> stored within the armored hangar.  That is also the case today where
most
> of the planes are normally stored on deck with the possibility of
fitting
> everything below deck if everything is packed as close together as
> possible (limiting usage)  So the FT example would be a fleet carrier
with
> 6 squadrons internal and 6-12 squadrons externally on racks. 
Reloading
> could only occur in the 6 interior bays though.
> 
> >
> > Another question I had is why are fighter bays only limited to Cap.
ships?	A
> > large enough cruiser could carry a squad of fighters.....
> >
> Bays imply the space to launch and recover fighters.	In a previous
> discussion launch racks for carrying prasite fighters was hypothesized
and
> I believe several suggestions for rules posted.  Although the mass of
a
> bay is small (6 mass) it may imply a large area - enclosed for
reloading,
> recovery and launch as well as gneral maintenace etc which may be far
> bulkier than the mass implies.
> 
> --Binhan

This sounds like a proposual for a new ship system (perhaps even to have
the honor of being inculded in the next supplement *grin*) 
and while were thinking on the costs of an external fighter racks, has
anyone thought of the point costs and balancing issues for FTL capable
fighters (as seen in star wars)