Space carrier fighter philosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Well, you may suggest these are on replenishment vessels. But I have
> an argument for making them carrier based. In space (a difference
> from the ground), humans are the expensive (spacewise) resource. You
> can't pack people going into interstellar space like sardines
> exactly. And they need CO2 scrubbers, air supplies, food supplies,
> etc. A broken down fighter (modular possibly) occupies space. Weight
> is (almost) inconsequential compared against ship mass. Space is a
> premium, but depending on hull design, the extra space may not be
> that hard to come by.
>

Very much agreed about space being at a premium...

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.

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.

> 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.

> 45 minutes? If one is using 15 minute turns, I'd say that is an awful
> long time given the state of the art today and in 2185. I'd think 1
> or 2 turns (or maybe this would be some sort of a purchased advantage
> or a tech advantage for high tech forces, hmm....?). Of course, they
> may not have been thinking 15 minute turns either. That was just some
> number I heard on the net.  It could be longer if that is your taste.
> I think 45 min to re-arm a fighter is off-base (correct me if any of
> you has modern fighter jock experience). I'm not talking about
> re-inspection, calibration, etc. I'm just talking about land, refuel,
> switch pilots, re-arm, take off again.
>

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....