RE: FT-Fighters and launch bays

At 8:00 AM -0400 6/6/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
>
>[Bri] It depends on how you view the Cargo Hold on a spaceship.
Remeber,
>when we address 1 mass it is not really just mass, but also volume. As
with
>airline cargo units things are packed VERY TIGHLTY in standard shape
cargo
>crates. There is no room to unpack the crates because the crates fill
the
>entire cargo space. If you add empty space, you have to "pay" for the
>mass/volume. If you want a way to get the fighters (crated or uncrated)
to a
>hanger deck, you must assign volume (and the mass that it could have
held)

.5 of the mass in addition to what is there isn't much of a 
difference. They aren't that tightly packed over how they'd be 
"spotted" on a deck.

>to the cooridor to move it. You must also take into account where the
>packing crate/materials will be stored (you do assume that you will get
the

I'm not certain why you have crates in the first place. Fighters when 
shipped, are usually wrapped in plastic sheeting to keep the elements 
out. Look at how the Harriers and Helos on the Atlantic Conveyor were 
carried. Looked like cargo space to me. A handling system that spots 
aircraft in a 3 D volume would be pretty easy. Or you could build in 
close level decks that allow a group of fighters to be folded 
minimally for vertical volume (tail fins drop, landing gear has a 
compressed mode) and just build lots of shelves into the sides of the 
carrier. Elevators that I presume that are just part of the aircraft 
handling system for the fighter bays would be situated between.

After all look at how LAVs, Hummers and AAV7s are parked on board 
gator carriers. You can walk around between each vehicle by stepping 
from one to the next.

>fighter back, don't you?). And you have to account for the mass of
extra
>fuel that will be used (and space to store it and get it to the hanger
bay).

A serious consideration, probably a good slice of the .5 mass of the 
1.5 that a fighter takes up in a launch bay.

>  So you now have 3 choices as I see it:
>  1) Pay for extra mass/volume to allow internal movement of fighter to
bays
>for unpacking.

Aren't we already able to do that on the carriers? Looking at the 
number of launch bays and the for and aft aircraft handling areas on 
the Ark Royal (NAC vessel, not the more recent 20th century model) 
for recovery and launch. Different areas.

>  2) Pay for extra mass/volume to allow unpacking of fighter in cargo
bay
>and for the extra mass/volume to allow internal movement to a fighter
bay.
>  3) Pay for extra mass/volume to allow unpacking of fighter in cargo
bay,
>but push the fighter out the cargo hatch (makes it hard to rearm/refuel
>fighters, or assumes casualties and lowers morale). This is also
dangerous
>for the crew and provides a chance of loosing cargo to vacuum.

Umm, why so? Where are they servicing the fighter otherwise? In the 
open deck space where ever they can and the plane captains are ok 
with it...

>  4) Push crated fighter out cargo hatch and into Fighter Bay for
unpacking.
>This would be time consuming and require loaders to be exposed to
combat
>conditions.

I suspect when moving a fighter around a ship they'd have small tugs 
for spotting and handling.

>
>[Bri] I would not call the aircraft storage area of an Aircraft Carrier
a
>Cargo Section. And they have a fair amount of ship volume assigned to
lifts
>and other equipment to get the aircraft to the launching deck. In FT
terms
>you would need hatches and accessways to get the fighters to the
Fighter
>Bays. This should add mass/cost.

Cargo ships have a fair amount of mass and volume associated with 
hatches, cranes and other gear for handling cargo as well.

>
>[Bri] So what would be reasonable? Count a fighter group as mass 9 for
cargo
>storage?

Remember though, thats not 'Cargo' Storage. You are paying for 
something else other than the space for handling the fighter.

>
>[Bri] True, but if you are preping a fighter in front of the hatch,
another
>fighter cannot use it. And you must uncrate the first one somewhere.

Again, look at Carrier ops now. They work on aircraft all over the 
place. They park them over the catapults or on the landing deck half 
the time. They still launch the entire groups.
>
>
>[Bri] So you have to assign crew capacity to unpacking and moving the
>fighters. These cannot be used for damage control if fighters are being
>moved to/from the cargo bay.

heh..stop focusing on the 'unpacking'. There is far more to carrier 
ops than foam peanuts and cellophane.

>
>A better option would be to have a "Ready Bay" for fighters. 9 mass,
but
>only 18 cost for each fighter group stored (does not include the cost
of the
>fighters). The mass accounts for the mass of the fighters, room to prep
them
>and a cooridor/hatch to the launching bay, but is less expensive,
because it
>does not have deal with launch/recovery of fighters. Draw a line from
the
>Ready Bay to a Fighter Bay. If the Ready Bay is lost the fighter group
in
>the bay is lost and fighters may not be stored there. If the Fighter
Bay is
>lost fighters in the Ready Bay may not be moved to another Fighter Bay
(in
>the time frame of a game). In between games, Fighters in accual cargo
>storage may be moved to a Ready Bay or Fighter Bay.
 
Probably not a bad idea for more precisely modeled carriers. However 
perhaps such precision is overly detailed for the game. (mind you the 
reason for the discussion is overall conceptual idealism rather than 
mass sweeping changes to game mechanics...)

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -