Prev: Re: Launching non fighters Next: Re: Carrier design in FT

Re: Carrier design in FT

From: "Jared E Noble" <JNOBLE2@m...>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:52:26 -0900
Subject: Re: Carrier design in FT

It seems to me that to represent PT boats, (or pseudo fighters) you need
to
make small combat capable ships , probably non-FTL, that are armed
primarily with expendable weaponry- sub-packs, missiles, SMRs (but the
SMR
is getting pretty big).  The horrible bathtub fleet everyone loves to
hate.

But then for the tender, I see 2 ways to do it - either design:
 Tender: (by the FB definition a ship that provides internal hangar
space
for the ships it tends and FTL for the whole shebang),
or
Tender-Tug: Uses FT Tug style FTL to carry the additional Mass of a
number
of the PT boats, no internal protection or carriage.

Now to make the whole system viable, Allow PT boats to dock with the
Tender
as fighters can, and allow reloads at whatever rate you have chosen for
fighters.  For Tender-Tugs, I think you need to provide some way of
"External Docking" - and then allow a reload.  My feeling is that this
reload would be slower than properly supported tenders.

Then, allocate space for all those weapon reloads, and maybe draw a box
around them on the SSD to denote that they are carried cargo.  You could
load up on SMs without a launcher, maybe carry missiles and subpacks at
a
small space savings? (3 missiles in 5 mass?)  Or take a slight cost
savings
instead, to reflect the lack of a launch system.  I would personally
like
to see a good way of supporting "Docking" and reloads.	I think lots of
fun
could come from it.  If you have a generalized reloading procedure, then
you can also keep your bathtubs FTL capable but make generalized
Ammo/Resupply ships - and with most SML mounting ships in the fleet book
you are limited to 3 turns of ammo (admittedly three potentially nasty
turns) but the capablility of rearming never hurts.

Jared

Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> on 08/05/98 11:53:40 AM

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

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Carrier design in FT

Jerry spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> 2)  Operational reality;  you have to be really careful to keep the
range
> open, or dedicated carriers tend to pop real easy.  (Much easier than
> something like the Nimitz would.  On the flip side, I was working on
an
> extremely small hull; you might have better results with something
more
> appropriate for a fleet carrier.)

Sounds like you need Warp Packs or some such idea to give you a
longer operational range and therefore let you operate at greater
distance from the carriers. Plus a bunch of escorts with ADAF, PDAF,
batteries capable of engaging fighters, etc. And a CAP to protect the
carrier (not all strikefighters!). You could do Midway esque wars
with such systems. Real fighters have ranges that are way long
compared to FT ranges. Drop Tanks? Consumable Warp Packs?

And how about Pseudo Fighter/PT Boats and their tug/tenders....

(Yes I am an SFB hand-me-down....)

Tom.

/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.softwarekinetics.ca or http://www.sofkin.ca or
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

Prev: Re: Launching non fighters Next: Re: Carrier design in FT