Re: Space carrier fighter philosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR

Los spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> You've said this before about people being unable to live tightly
packed
> in ships, etc. I think you mentioned something about how crews are
> usually at sea for only about two weeks or so. (Trying to remeber back
a
> month) In the US navy, Trident Sub crew go under for six months, no
> surfacing for air, shore leave or anything. (This may have recenty
> changed to 90 with the reduction in cold war stuff etc.)  It's not
> unusual for Carrier crews to be at sea for up to six months or longer
in
> times of crisis.. And many of them seldom get a chance to see the
light
> of day. There's no gawking allowed on carrier decks etc. These are
> military crews not elemantary school kids or old ladies. While it is
> important to allow for crew comfort, humans can live and function in
> tight quarters for months at time if necessary. They've been doing it
> forever.

1. Sub crews are very select. Not everyone is cut out to be a 
submariner. I know a number of them. They are...different. 
2. A sub can surface. Going for a spacewalk may be the equivalent, 
but it lacks sounds, gravity, and air against your face. Carrier crew 
can get topside (or out to the big openings on the maintenance/hangar 
deck) pretty easily from what I've heard (not often, but often 
enough). A carrier is like a city (lots of waste - in sense - space - 
but they can afford it). Sure its cramped. But it pales by comparison 
to how cramped some attack subs are. US subs have relatively large 
amounts of space (especially the boomers) internally. Some of the old 
diesels (a la Das Boot) are damn small. And the sub life really has 
high stress (more incidents of breakdowns and stuff). You could 
design your space navy around this premise. But in a world where 
troops are your value (highly trained) and thrust is cheap (relative 
to today), then build your ships the minimum size required for 
military operations WITHOUT side effects. And even the sub isn't 
fully self contained as a spaceship (or at least, the diesels aren't 
- the nukes may just be but they are palatial compared with the 
diesels). And a carrier does not have to carry LS for its crew of 
5000 like a space carrier will. My point was that the ratio of 
gear/personnel will tilt in favor of gear in the future in space 
because of the increased overhead (relative to anything today) of 
maintaining men and women in space - and the 
miniaturization/sophistication of tech. 
  
> Nor must we suppose that every fleet operation will take six months.
> There are plenty of  planets to stop in at here or there for shore
leave
> or whatever.

The scenario I'm thinking is carrier operations along contested 
borders or behind enemy lines in exploitation or attack scenarios. 
This would be times which could be six months or longer without pit 
stops (depending on how long you think travel takes). I think 
creeping up on enemy locales is slow. 
 
> 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.

Okay, why is that a problem? Because you have to push it through a 
resisting medium (and keep it afloat). In space, things float without 
reference to bouyancy. And thrust is an issue, but I'm assuming the 
mass of railguns, antimatter plants, aligned superdense unobtainium 
armour and such is all very heavy, so the palty weight of even 50 
extra fighters (given you don't need extra crew, extra maintenance 
gear, etc. is not required because these are replacement spares) 
isn't a big issue. Space might be a bit of a concern. But maybe a 
packed fighter only takes 1/3rd the space of an unpacked one. And 
maybe if we talk about a fighter bay as including launch/rearm 
equipment, the figure is more like 1/4 or 1/5th. If I was a carrier 
commander and could devote 2 boxes to getting 10 replacement spares, 
I'd sure think about it.  

> 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.

I guess most naval design is balance. You don't have to account for a 
lot of systems in the GZG FB case (or at least it isn't anywwhere 
near as complex as some ship design schemes). I figure ready spares 
don't take a lot of space or weight. If you figure they do, relative 
to ready fighters with launch bays, maintenance bays, repair and 
reload crews, etc. then you wouldn't have them. If they were small 
enough, they offer some important options. 

 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!

Now I'd think there should be one cockpit sim for every 4 pilots but 
that doesn't take a lot of space either (compared to total ship 
size). Could be fold down units that are easy small storage units.

   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).

True. I think deep strike vessels may well try to use non ammo 
consumptive weapons such as beam batteries. Main Wall of Battle 
forces will obviously need replenishment. 
 
> Of course you might special build patrol carriers for extended
> operations beyond the rim etc. They may carry more spare fighters...

This is (I think) really where I was going. I'm thinking deep 
penetration raiders (CVS by my def'n). High speed, big fuel capacity, 
overloaded on spares for key systems, operate either as deep strike, 
cutoff, or commerce raiders.  
 
> 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.

Sorry, that was part of my point about wanting more logistics organic 
to your carrier. 

> You  Carriers are already tied to escorts and otehr ships?

A CVS in SFB sometimes had two very fast, high endurance CE (Aegis) 
with it, but it was more than capable of self defence, packing the 
firepower of a light cruiser. It was a deep strike carrier capable of 
operating without escorts. It would be killed by a CVs fighter 
groups, or massed enemy fleets, but it could run fast, launch a fair 
number of fighters, and operate with an almost non-existent logistics 
chain. Pretty hand, I thought. 

 Add
> armed replenishment ships. That what the US navy does. They
> replenishment ships are right there with the rest of the SAGs and
CAGs.

Hmmm. I'd arm them, but they are still big targets. 
 
> Just stating the rules as written in Full Thrust. Not real life. It
> takes three turns to rearm fighters and get them out the door
again....

True, and a turn has no set duration. I was just saying with 15 min 
turns, this is a LONG time. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/