Re: Space carrier fighter philosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR

Los wrote:

> > Now, on a CVL, maybe your spares are 20%, on a CVS maybe 30%, and
> > maybe on a CV about 50%. Maybe on a SCS, SSCS, or SCV, you spares
are
> > also in the 50% region. Maybe another 100% are kept in the fleet
> > train. In 'victorious' operations (even some losing ones), you'll
> > recover more pilots than craft if you auto ejector systems are any
> > good.
> >
>
> Think about it. The CVN Enterpise carriues 72 aircraft. Look how huge
> the mass is on that ship already jsut with everything you need, power,
> maintenace bays, ordnace storage etc etc just to keep those up. now
you
> want to lug around another 36 fighters? That's a huge commttment in
Mass
> and space.
>
> I agree that you could build the mass to carry these into the ship. I
> disagree that they are so designed now. I also don't feel that
valuable
> space on fleet carriers are best tied up carrying spares. I'd rather
be
> able to sortie more FGs is that was the case Or more crew space, or
more
> PDS etc. Or more simulator space so not as many crew	get shot down in
> the first place so we don't have to repalce their birds!   Fleets
would
> be accompanied by replenishment vessles anyway. SO the fleet train is
> right with you in teh fight, though it can hang back a bit. (Hell I
> fired off every SML I had in the fleet in just 45 minutes).
>
> Of course you might special build patrol carriers for extended
> operations beyond the rim etc. They may carry more spare fighters...
>
> > But that makes you dependent on your fleet train. Not good for CVS
> > operating behind enemy lines (think Tiger's Claw from WIng
> > Commander). I think the operational paradigm you are suggesting
gives
> > your carriers more punch per mass but ties them much more closely to
> > their logistics train.
> >
>
> How can you not be tied to your fleet train? Hit and ruun operations I
> can see. But extended combat operations use up resoruces at an
alarming
> rate. You  Carriers are already tied to escorts and otehr ships? Add
> armed replenishment ships. That what the US navy does. They
> replenishment ships are right there with the rest of the SAGs and
CAGs.

If you are going to use modern carriers as examples for carrying spares,
then
you need to take into account the fact that most modern budgets do not
cover more than 10% for spares or maintenance parts of the existing
fleet.
Procurement for extra planes and their parts has been low and stagnant
for
the greater part of three decades, the air arms are lucky enough to
receive
funding for the planes they ask for, let alone the follow on funds to
acquire
spares and extra parts to keep them in the air.  One reason for this is
that

it looks much more impressive to say you can put up 72 aircraft from a
carrier, not 48 with 24 spares in case the you lose 24.  In addition,
how
far are you really from getting extra planes on a modern carrier? 12 to
24 hours probably. Much shorter if there is a friendly airfield nearby.
Case in point would be supplying a carrier in the Persian Gulf, resupply
is probably a matter of minutes away with resupply from Saudi Arabia
and so getting replacement planes would be relatively easy.

FT doesn't quite fall into this model since the fighters have a much
shorter

range (i.e. no FTL) than the carriers.	I would suspect that you might
build

an auxillary carrier as a storage area for ready fighters - it would be
able
to
launch something like one squadron a turn but be able to carry something
like
6 squadrons.  The space would be 2/3 that of normal to reflect that the
carrier
is sacrificing maintenance capability for added storage space and this
would

have to be reflected in the rules somehow - perhaps the fighters
maintained
at a level where they can be flown but not necessarily "combat ready"
with
stores or armed weapons.

--Binhan