RE: FT-Fighters and launch bays

At 2:28 PM -0400 6/6/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
>  [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.

But, if the holds are interior and in the middle as connecting space 
to the "launch bays" all you'd end up really having is a space 
between the launch area and the area where the fighters are serviced. 
Now, does the bay include the airlock? If it doesn't then how are 
these craft serviced in the first place. If it does then put the 
"cargo space" the really big open bay area on the other side of the 
launch bays.

So in effect, you have:

Aft recovery area [Airlock] Big boxy space [launchbays x3]

>  > >	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.

Theoretically you have some of these on hand already. Again though, 
in the theoretical, how many tugs do you need? One per 6 fighters or 
1 per 12.... Still this is far below the detail scale of FT....

>
>[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.

well, the larger cargo aircraft (IL 76, C-130, C-141, etc) are self 
unloading and have rollers (most cargo planes) and cranes (AN-124) 
for facilitating self unloading. Some even kneel to make rolling a 
truck up an easy prospect.

>   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 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?

Nope, the ship is a big box with several partitions and levels in 
side. At the front and back are the launch and recovery bays 
respectively and in the middle is a huge bay (perhaps multi floor) 
for aircraft parking.

>  > 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.

heh... :)

>
>[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.
>

Yeah, I'm still leaning towards one or two extra cargo type spaces 
for additional fighters and such. Though, I'm inclined to think given 
the support assets that they'd require, one would be better off with 
an 18 mass bay.

>
>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.

Aye... that is true...

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -	

----------------------------------------------------------------