Re: What makes a carrier, a carrier?

Mike wrote:
>Pete wrote:
>>	Ages ago, there was some talk about the dividing line between
>>a carrier and a non-carrier.	I believe it compared the MASS of the 
>>fighter bays vs. something else.  I need to know so I can update my
>>gaming groups "House Rules".	Anyone remember what the "accepted"
>>carrier classification is?
>
>I think it was suggested to use ships with mass of at least cruiser
size for
>carrying fighters.  Of course smaller surface ships of today, like
>destroyers are capable of carrying aircraft as well, but with limited
>capacity and facilities.
>
>I like the idea of carrying fighters on ships smaller than capital
size.  It
>seems logical since fleets might tend to be small when patroling the
vast
>expanses of space, and might require some small craft support (e.g.
>scouting, etc.).  This would be very helpful in campaigns.

Plus ships of Escort size with Hanger Bays aren't going to be carrying
much else, are they? ;-) Maybe a C-battery or a PDAF system or two...but
not much else! So why not have 'escort carriers'? Good for pirate
patrol?

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Oh, yes. You. Prepare to die, Earth scum. Again!"

"Oh, I think you've made your point. Now sit down and shut up so we can
go home!"

"Look. When a vastly superior alien culture comes all this way to take
over your world, certain basic laws of planetary conquest apply. For
example, when someone points a quad-vected, hyperthermic cosmoblaster
at you, it's a fair bet you're about to become toast."

"Will you please sit down and be quiet?!"

"Or perhaps in your case, a whole loaf of toast!"