Re: FT-Fighters and launch bays

At 8:40 AM -0400 6/6/01, Roger Books wrote:
>If I were your opponent and you were using this I would howl.
>
>Cargo bays base cost is massX0.  You are getting a major
>point savings here.  Fighter bays base cost is massX3.  You
>are making a system which is often debated as being overly
>affected even cheaper.
>
>Here, try it this way.
>
>Fighters physically take up 6 Mass.
>
>Fighter support, for people, equipment and spares take up
>3 mass.

in reality what that .5 mass costs.

>In actuality the fighter bay itself costs  little, it is
>after all mostly empty space.	OTH the equipment, support, and
>spares area costs MassX6.
>
>Roger

Aye, this is really where I'm leaning. My argument is that I don't 
see why the fighters require massive huge crates for storage on a 
nice dry/warm and climate controlled ship (Eurie Carriers may be 
different, but I see NAC, Swab and Froggie carriers being pretty 
clean...) You crate things up so you don't have to worry about the 
people handling them in shipping banging them up. The fighter is 
already at its end user. If some Blue shirt sticks the wing of an 
Interceptor through an Attack fighters side, I suspect someone's 
going to find out quick...Carriers are pretty crowded places.

I guess my big question lies with wether or not a carriers Air Ops 
people are all dedicated to one fighter group or do they generalize 
in some cases. DO I need a team for spotting every aircraft or would 
4 teams for 6 groups work?

(I'm arguing theory here only mind you..)  :)

--
- 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  -