Re: Fighters

-----Original Message-----
From: jeremy claridge <jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 7:28 AM
Subject: Fighters

>
>> ***
>> In truth, I don't believe space fighters will exist at
>> all in the near future,
>> ***
>>
>> Thanks, Tony! I'd meant to mention this, also. Never
>> cared for them in SFB, though you'll have to pry the
>> TFG Fed carrier model out of my cold, dead hands if
>> you want it. ;->=
>
>Wasn't a similar arguement made in our own history about the
>usefulness of Aircraft in naval warfare.
>As I recal most Naval experts couldn't see the point in aircraft.
>
>Me I never rule anything out.
>If the enemy have some I want some to :)

    Fighters fit a role labelled by Captain Wayne Hughes (USN-retired)
of  a
second stage platform.	By using the first stage of a carrier to act as
a
base and carry all the food, ammunition, excess fuel, berthing etc. the
fighter as a second stage can devote all of its mass to weapons and
drives
(plus the little life support package).  The additional advantage is
that
the first stage can be relatively vulnerable but let the second stage do
the
fighting away from the main body.
    With this in mind, I would give fighters 50% mass devoted to thrust
and
45% devoted to weapons.  A Mass one vessel in this case has a thrust of
10
and a 1/2 mass weapon.	This fits perfectly for the half range c battery
they usually carry.  They carry just enough life support for a short
range
mission (6 hours max.)