Re: Space carrier fighter philosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR

Los spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> 
> 
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> 
> > 1. Sub crews are very select. Not everyone is cut out to be a
> > submariner. I know a number of them. They are...different.
> >
> 
> As are spaceship crews

As select? I don't know. Seems to me there are more spaceships than 
subs and more people committed to that (proportionately, but that is 
a guess) than to the subs today. But YMMV.  
 
> > . A sub can surface. Going for a spacewalk may be the equivalent,
> >
> 
> Do you think on the rare occasion when a sub surfaces (BTW missile
subs NEVER
> surface, attack subs surface when they are coming into port and ging
out) That
> crew members are allowed to even go topside? I too have a lot of
friends that
> are sunbmariners and live near Groton which is one of the biggest sub
base
> around. When subs are surfaced there's a few (4 or 5) crewmembers up
there,
> it's not time for the crew to get out there and sunbathe. The majority
of the
> crew will not see the sun again until the tour is over.

And yet I've heard tales of half the crews getting ondeck when 
running surface in the tropics. I suspect it depends on the mission, 
but you are right that some guys spend a long time underwater. But 
that takes its toll mentally and physically. Not what you'd 
necessarily WANT your troops to experience if you could design around 
it.  
 
> > roops 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
> >
> 
> I aboslutely agree. But I think you undersetimate the endurance
ability of
> crews. OK I'll leave a few rooms open for a holodeck. BTW Diesel
boats? You
> mean some navies still grub around in those things? <grin>

When they work. (sigh)
 
> > - 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
> >
> 
> Hopefully we won't need 5000 guys to run a carrier! (Half of them are
busy
> cleaning out shitters <g>)

Even in the future, a rotten job will be a rotten job. I assume you 
may need less people (although carriers will be intensive). Do the FB 
designs back this up? Whats the crew of a carrier? of a BB? 
 
> Whoa whoa obviously physical size and weight don't matter. It's the
cost.
> These materials don't grow on trees.

Given. 
 
> NSL FIGHTER CARRIERs should be up your alley then. They pack the punch
of
> dreanoughts (almost) as well as 6 FGs. Shitty thrust though (2).

The speed is more important than the armament. I'd want T4 if I'm 
behind enemy lines (6 if I could get it). 
 
 
/************************************************
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
**************************************************/