Prev: Re: Fighter Mounts - Reply Next: RE: Fighter Mounts

Re: Fighter Mounts

From: "Jared E Noble" <JNOBLE2@m...>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:29:27 -0900
Subject: Re: Fighter Mounts



realjtl@sj.bigger.net on 06/03/98 04:24:10 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Fighter Mounts

>
> At 00:09 5/31/98, scipio@interlog.com wrote:
> >The problem with fighter on the outside is that it is incredably
awkward
to
> >do anything with them. Imagine a surprise attack, you would have to
get
> >suited up and then `run` through an airlock. What about getting a
wounded
> >pilot out an into a sickbay, what if he needed first aid right there?
Doing
> >routine repair work would be slowed if you had to use a vacsuit. I
think
> >the cost of a fighter bay is justified.
>
     The 'Inside' vs 'outside' debate is fun to watch but the most
likely (in my mind) scenario is one in which both are used.
Outside: the standard FT fighter and interceptor are deployed
	 on mounts that supply/resupply  the energy and fuel
	 needs of the  craft.
Inside:  The specilized attack, bomber, torpedo craft are carried
	 internally so that the expendable loads may be mounted in
	 more PROTECTED/controlled conditions.	These craft will
	 be serviced by robot/waldo crew chiefs  in vacuum.
Comments: The external mount will be the first to launch in a surprise
	 attack situation since only the pilot needs to mount his
	 craft and launch as an individual.   The internal bay
	 theory requires all pilots to man and ready their craft
	 prior to the pumpdown of the bay itself.   After all, how
	 many complete changes of air will a ship have?
 Bye for now,
John L.

<begin reply- my stupid mailer doesn't prpoerly handle quoting, and I'm
tired of doing it by hand>

When the Parasite Racks (external mounts) were first bought up, in
relation
to B5, there was some discussion about them.  Basically this is my read
of
how they would work.

1) External mounts cannot carry specialized reload fighters (I would
include Attack and torpedo in here - bombers if you use 'em.)

2) Anytime a ship is hit by enemy weapons fire, externally mounted
fighters
still attached must make thereshold checks at the current threshould
level.
When the carrying ship makes a threshold roll it also tests the external
fighters/racks - so yes, they can be forced to take 2 rolls at the same
threshold level in the same turn. (but they SHOULD be fragile.)

3) Ships which know they are heading into combat may launch all their
externally mounted fighters at once (this is the major advantage of the
racks.) If a ship is 'surprised' (scenario dependant I suppose)  Then
you
have a race-to-scramble situation. I propose no launches on the first
turn
of surprise (fall out of 'jump' in the middle of a fight?). At the end
of
each turn, including the first, roll one die for each individual
squadron
and keep a running total per squadron. When the total equals 6 or more
the
squadron may launch on the following turn.  The launch of any number of
externally mounted fighters in one turn is considered a single
Fighter-Launch operation for control purposes.
A Carrier with 3 external squadrons, 3 internal squadrons, and 1
FlightCon
(or just vanilla 50%+ style carrier) could launch all 3 external
squadrons,
in addition to 1 internal squadron.

4) External racks MAY NOT be used to recover fighters during combat. If
a
ship has standard internal fighter bays, it may recover and refuel any
fighter squadrons. <I'm thinking that only the torpedo bays have torpedo
reloads, but other than that, any bay may refuel/rearm any squadron>. 
So
during combat, a carrier may have a number of squadrons refueled/rearmed
equal to the number of internal bays.

So to summarize -
External mount fighters cost and mass the same as normal fighters. I
assume
the facilities for repair and maintenence are still included, but not in
a
convenient manner - you can rotate fighters throught the bays to make
repairs, but this is not an option during combat.  Replacing fighters on
the external mounts is also a non-combat operation.  On ships that have
no
internal bays, all work is done externally - VERY non-combat.

Advantages-
  Faster Launch, with less FlightControl requirement placed on the
carrier
on launch
Disadvantages
  Far less protection
  No in-combat recovery/refuel/rearm operation from the mounts
  Cannot be used for Attack and Torpedo fighters

Considering the propensity for FT fighters to get wasted, it seems that
having the benefit of the rapid launch may make them worthwhile.  When
it
comes time for the Fighters to return to the carrier for servicing,
enough
will be dead that maybe the reduced number of internal bays will not be
significant.

BTW - In my opinion it would be very rare to see fleet operations using
only external mount fighters with no internal bays in the fleet - stupid
idea IMO, except for special scenarios.  Smaller ships could carry
external-only fighters to supplement the abilities of the Main carrier,
but
would be much weaker operating alone.

Anyway, that's my 3 cents worth (don't you just hate inflation?)

     Jared

Prev: Re: Fighter Mounts - Reply Next: RE: Fighter Mounts