Re: FT-Fighters and launch bays

At 6:16 AM -0700 6/6/01, David Griffin wrote:
>Roger has a point. The combat cost of various
>systems is at issue. The cost of cargo bays is
>0 because it doesn't affect the battle. If you
>allow a noncombat system to affect the battle,
>it's cost should be at least 3xMASS just as the
>fighter bay is costed. (note that even cargo
>costs *something* because you still pay for the
>general mass of the whole ship).

Actually its mass savings in theory. You're still paying for the 
fighters. But I'm having trouble reconciling how to pay for the extra 
aircraft ops personel.

>[snip]
>I think though this is an attempt to graft a
>concept from wet navies onto space navies who
>no longer have the restriction that required
>the concept. It's easier to launch and recover
>fighters in a vaccuum and doesn't require the
>large, expensive catapult bottleneck our
>current navies do. In other words, It's so
>easy to create a shotgun launch capability
>in a space carrier, that most everyone does
>it.
>

A catapult seems like a great way to save on launch based 
fuel/reaction mass expenditures. The launch isn't the bottle neck in 
general. Is aircraft prep/turn around time. Thats the slow link...

--
- 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  -