Re: Fighter Mounts

> 
> 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.