Re: FB small carrier construction

On 13-Sep-99 at 16:03, Ryan M Gill (monty@arcadia.turner.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Hmmm. Single syllables. A formidable opponent.
(The
> Tick) wrote: 
> 
> > No restriction exists for where you put hangar bays for FB designed
> > ships. That, to me, is nice, 'cause I like the occassional dinky
carrier
> > design for light duties.  :)  (of course said ship, if
destroyer-sized,
> > ain't gonna be able to do much else, but that's the price you pay!
:)
> 
> I see no problem with this what so ever. There are currently carriers 
> that are not much larger than a smallish cruiser. Look at the Italian
and 
> Spanish navy's ASW carriers. 

I'm not sure about the "can't do much else" either.  Try my latest
micro-carrier:

CVM
Hull Displacement     61
Point Cost	     214 + fighters
Hull Strength	     Weak(3/3/3/3)
Hull Armor	       1
Thrust		       4
FTL Capable

Fighter Bay	      (2) Empty Bay
Fire Control System   (1)
SMR	      FP F AP
Beam / 2      FP F AP 
Beam / 1      FP F FS AP A AS 
Beam / 1      FP F FS AP A AS 
Beam / 1      FP F FS AP A AS 
PDS	     (2)

It is basicly a slow version of my standard heavy destroyer with
2 fighter squadrons added.  It may not be up to standing alone
against an escort cruiser, but add those fighters in and it has
a chance.  As for those small, light things people like to slip
in behind the big boys to take the carrier, well, a couple of
these can provide a little fight.  With a 2 and an SMR (side
aimed) it can even aid the big boys with a few plinks.

Roger