Re: Space carrier fighter philosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> 1. Sub crews are very select. Not everyone is cut out to be a
> submariner. I know a number of them. They are...different.
>

As are spaceship crews

> . A sub can surface. Going for a spacewalk may be the equivalent,
>

Do you think on the rare occasion when a sub surfaces (BTW missile subs
NEVER
surface, attack subs surface when they are coming into port and ging
out) That
crew members are allowed to even go topside? I too have a lot of friends
that
are sunbmariners and live near Groton which is one of the biggest sub
base
around. When subs are surfaced there's a few (4 or 5) crewmembers up
there,
it's not time for the crew to get out there and sunbathe. The majority
of the
crew will not see the sun again until the tour is over.

> roops are your value (highly trained) and thrust is cheap (relative
> to today), then build your ships the minimum size required for
> military operations WITHOUT side effects. And even the sub isn't
> fully self contained as a spaceship (or at least, the diesels aren't
>

I aboslutely agree. But I think you undersetimate the endurance ability
of
crews. OK I'll leave a few rooms open for a holodeck. BTW Diesel boats?
You
mean some navies still grub around in those things? <grin>

> - the nukes may just be but they are palatial compared with the
> diesels). And a carrier does not have to carry LS for its crew of
> 5000 like a space carrier will. My point was that the ratio of
>

Hopefully we won't need 5000 guys to run a carrier! (Half of them are
busy
cleaning out shitters <g>)

>
> Okay, why is that a problem? Because you have to push it through a
> resisting medium (and keep it afloat). In space, things float without
> reference to bouyancy. And thrust is an issue, but I'm assuming the
> mass of railguns, antimatter plants, aligned superdense unobtainium
> armour and such is all very heavy, so the palty weight of even 50
> extra fighters (given you don't need extra crew, extra maintenance
> gear, etc. is not required because these are replacement spares)
> isn't a big issue. Space might be a bit of a concern. But maybe a
> packed fighter only takes 1/3rd the space of an unpacked one. And
> maybe if we talk about a fighter bay as including launch/rearm
> equipment, the figure is more like 1/4 or 1/5th. If I was a carrier
> commander and could devote 2 boxes to getting 10 replacement spares,
> I'd sure think about it.
>

Whoa whoa obviously physical size and weight don't matter. It's the
cost.
These materials don't grow on trees.

>
> A CVS in SFB sometimes had two very fast, high endurance CE (Aegis)
> with it, but it was more than capable of self defence, packing the
> firepower of a light cruiser. It was a deep strike carrier capable of
> operating without escorts. It would be killed by a CVs fighter
> groups, or massed enemy fleets, but it could run fast, launch a fair
> number of fighters, and operate with an almost non-existent logistics
> chain. Pretty hand, I thought.
>

NSL FIGHTER CARRIERs should be up your alley then. They pack the punch
of
dreanoughts (almost) as well as 6 FGs. Shitty thrust though (2).

> Hmmm. I'd arm them, but they are still big targets.
>

They are.

Los