Re: [FT] B5 Ships Scale Question

My own personal take on the Omega carrier/cruiser/destroyer (yeah it was
called
all three at various times) was that you should read 'Omega class' as
'Omega
hull'. They build one hull for convenience sake and then outfit them as
needed:

Cruiser - sacrifice fighters, for heavy weapons and mission endurance
Carrier - add extra fighters losing some endurance and heavy fire power
Destroyer - lots of shorter and medium range weapons for fighters and
some
endurance

Just a couple of pennies tossed into the pot.

Michael Llaneza wrote:

> I like to think that the Omega is a destroyer in the same sense that
the
> british jumpjet carriers were "through-deck cruisers" - if it helps
get the
> appropriation passed - call it a tugboat.
>
> The Omega is based on the Nova-class dreadnought hull, which only
confuses the
> issue for some people.
>
> --- Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
>
> > And for those of you who missed this discussion from the past, note
> > that JMS' naval nomenclature does not necessarily correspond to
> > contemporary naval designations. Thus the Omega Destroyer would be
> > essentially, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to an attack
> > carrier or an SDN. It was just *called* a destroyer. The Hyperion
> > _heavy_ _cruiser_ was noticeably smaller.
> >
> > Okay, my two bits for the week.  :-)
> >
> > Mk

--
Channing C. Faunce

chanfaunce@NOSPAMHEREtoast.net
http://members.toast.net/chanfaunce/index.html

NEW projects
http://members.toast.net/chanfaunce/tidak.jpg
http://members.toast.net/chanfaunce/vadok1.jpg

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
     decide everything. attributed to Josef Stalin

--------------------------------------------------------------