Re: Lightweight Fighters

Haun, Gilles, SSG wrote:
> 
> >Subject:	  Re: Lightweight Fighters
> ><snip>
> >Dean Gundberg wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>  Lightweight Fighters
> ><snip>
> >>  Any comments?
> >>
> >>  Dean
> >>  <dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com>
> >
> >Dean,
> >	Comment, 1 EA, as requested.
> >
> >One could make a good case for the current FT 'fast fighter' as
> >a lightweight fighter. (I.E. higher thurst to weight ratio than
> >the standard fighter.)
> >
 ...Snip...(JTL)

> >Good thought, but I think your covered.
> >John L.
> 
> taking into account the thrust to weight ratio and the speeds
attainable
> by 'light fighter/fast fighters', couldn't it be surmised that one of
> these 'light fighters is more specifically designed for dog-fighting. 
I
> know the rules are already in place for that, but could they possibly
> get a better manueverability bonus?  Also, being 'light', wouldn't
they
> also act more as fast 'interceptors' rather fighters and have
> restrictions on carryable payloads?
> 
> just my thoughts.
> 
> Gil
> The guy with no tag line
> (haung@emh10.eustis.army.mil)

Gil,
     the light fighter concept could have evolved into multiple
fighter types:
1) Fast fighter;  All thrust used for speed generation (18), standard
   weapons.
2) Interceptor;  66% of thrust for speed (12), 33% used in a dedicated
form for vectored thrust (I.E. REALLY BIG maneuvering thrusters).

     The problem I have with changing the number of fighters in a 
group is simple; 
1) The additional fighters need support equipment on the carrier.
   This is what you buy with the 6 mass of the fighter bay.
2) The Light fighters are simply not 33 percent smaller than
   the regular fighters with the same size engine,  33% less
   fuel, 33% less ammo, these losses in capability would render
   them almost useless in combat.
   The Light fighters profile would be: 
   Range; normal
   combat: one attack turn, one defend turn. 
   (The reason for 1+1 combat is that the fuel will be used up more
   quickly due to the oversized engine vs fuel supply)

By for now,
John L. 
(Also tagline deprived)