Re: Fighter Mounts

At 06:24 PM 03-06-98 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> At 00:09 5/31/98, scipio@interlog.com wrote:
>> >The problem with fighter on the outside is that it is incredably
awkward to
>> >do anything with them. Imagine a surprise attack, you would have to
get
>> >suited up and then `run` through an airlock. What about getting a
wounded
>> >pilot out an into a sickbay, what if he needed first aid right
there?
Doing
>> >routine repair work would be slowed if you had to use a vacsuit. I
think
>> >the cost of a fighter bay is justified.
>> 
>
>     The 'Inside' vs 'outside' debate is fun to watch but the most 
>likely (in my mind) scenario is one in which both are used.
>Outside: the standard FT fighter and interceptor are deployed
>	  on mounts that supply/resupply  the energy and fuel
>	  needs of the	craft.
>Inside:  The specilized attack, bomber, torpedo craft are carried
>	  internally so that the expendable loads may be mounted in 
>	  more PROTECTED/controlled conditions.  These craft will
>	  be serviced by robot/waldo crew chiefs  in vacuum.
>Comments: The external mount will be the first to launch in a surprise
>	  attack situation since only the pilot needs to mount his 
>	  craft and launch as an individual.   The internal bay 
>	  theory requires all pilots to man and ready their craft
>	  prior to the pumpdown of the bay itself.   After all, how
>	  many complete changes of air will a ship have?  
> Bye for now,
>John L.
>
>
I guess this can be considered a grey area in one respect, if a ship has
an
energy
screen protecting it from attack then why not one at the opening of the
bay
to prevent the air from escaping ala star trek?