RE: FT-Fighters and launch bays

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Gill [SMTP:rmgill@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:43 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	RE: FT-Fighters and launch bays
> 
> At 8:00 AM -0400 6/6/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
> >
[snip]

> .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.
> 
[snip]
>. 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).
> 
[snip]

> >  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.
> 
[Bri] Yes. And so the cost should be included in the FT model.

> >  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...
> 
[Bri] Because vacuum is inherently dangerous. A small tear can ruin your
whole day. Is the cargo hold 1 hold or several. If several, you would
have
to assign a 
fighter squdron to a specific hold. If one bay, then you open the whole
bay
to vaccume at the same time. If you are opening the hold to space, you
are
exposing everything in the hold to vacuum and some decompression (you
can't
pump out all the atmosphere each time). Space suits are clumsy. Crews
will
be slowed down if they are working in vacuum suits. If they are not,
they
you have to repressurize the bay after each launch. Also everyother
thing in
the cargo hold woudl have to be protected against vacuum. You are
talking a
cargo hold here, not just a fighter staging area.

> >  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] More reasoning for increasing mass.

> >
> >[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] True, but much of the is done by cranes at port. And cargo
aircraft do
not have as much devoted to such purposes. The form-fitting containers
are
loaded in and the forklift is left behind.
  Cargo ships in space would have a fairly large area with a large hatch
to
connect to a space station (or to open on the ground if atmospheric
capable). Most of the lifting and moving equipment would be at the
station
and remain there. The form-fitting containers would not leave room for
cooridors in the hold, it would be packed in a First-In, Last-Out manner
so
that as containers are removed, you gain access to the ones behind.

> >
> >[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] So then

> >
> >[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 by analogy, you would park the fighters on the outside of the
ship
and have the pilots climb over the outside hull of the ship to get in
the
fighter?

> >
> >[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.
> 
[Bri] So call it preping. Someone still has to do it.

> >
> >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...)
> 
[Bri] Or you could say that it is already abstracted into the Fighter
Bays
already. You have commented that "A serious consideration [fuel),
probably a
good slice of the .5 mass of the 1.5 that a fighter takes up in a launch
bay". So,  an upacked fighter would not need less fuel, and therefore
bring
the mass/cost of a fighter unpacked in a cargo bay back to the mass/cost
of
a fighter in a fighter bay.

> --
> - 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  -
> 
My comments above marked by [Bri]
  I would agree with some savings as a trade-off to not being able to
launch
all the fighters at once. But in most games, the effect would be
trivial, so
the mass/cost difference should also be trivial.

---
Brian Bell
bbell1@insight.rr.com
http://www.ftsr.org
---