Re: New fighter rules

On Sun, 04 May 1997 21:21:11 -0400, you wrote:

>As an example: the Nimitz class carrier has 2 fighter launch and 1
fighter
>recovery systems. 96 embarked craft (8 squadrons). total mass of
systems is
>73. the normal mass is 96. 
>This makes large carriers a bit more economical and puts a practical
limit
>on the number of fighters it can launch per turn. As a general rule you
>need to have at least one recovery system if you wish to land your
>fighters. but it isn't needed. the fighters just need an alternate
place to
>land. Kind of like doolittle's bombers, they could take off from the
>carriers but I don't believe that they were able to recover them even
if
>they had wanted to.

>Any comments would be appreciated.

The recovery equipment is needed. How else would you get the fighters
back? Have a second carrier follow you around? Might as well put
everything on one ship.

By the way, they did want the B25s back. They planned to land in
China. Only the Japanese really flew suicide missions. The
CAM/Hurricat ships would have been a better example. (Converted
merchantmen with one fighter plane that launched via catapult. The
pilot would ditch the plane over the convoy and hope to be picked up).

On the subject of fighters, I would like to see "external racks" for
fighters allowing them to be "clamped" onto the hull of a ship. Said
ship then tows the fighters into range, releases them, and brings them
back afterwards. Of course, it cannot rearm the fighters but they
would provide a useful boost to firepower provided that a carrier was
also in the squadron to re-arm and repair the things.

This system could also be used to carry missiles "under the wings"
like airplanes.

Sandy Goh ( sandy@artica.demon.co.uk )
Change REPL field in message header to the above address.