Re: FT-Fighters and launch bays

Ryan Gill wrote:

> Note all of this is for the sake of argument and discussion. I'm not
> certain now after further thought that the Mostly Cargo space
> "carrier" is such a great idea....
>
> At 10:23 PM -0400 6/5/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> >The awkward problem is repairing fighters.  They cannot
> > be repaired in the cargo
> >bay,
>
> Well, I can't see much of a reason why a fighter can't be repaired
> anyplace the crew can get to the components. Cargo bay or launch bay.
> Really I think the best way to think about the "fighter launch bay"
> is that it includes the shipboard crewmen to maintain/arm the thing
> and the space for hardware associated with all of that. A carrier
> based fighter takes up no mores space spotted or packed.

They cannot get to the components in the cargo bay, it takes less mass
because the
extraneous volume and equipment to maintain the fighters have been left
out.  the
launch bay includes facilities and equipment to fuel, arm and maintain
the
fighters.  The cargo bay probably does not include enough space to move
a fighter
around another fighter, and the fighters are loaded first-in, last-out. 
The launch
bay includes space for servicing, the cargo bay does not.

>
>
> >and moving a fighter from the cargo to flight deck requires an empty
>
> Ever watch the Blue-shirts on carriers spot aircraft? They do a
> pretty good job with those multi ton jigsaw puzzle pieces.

Wet navy carriers have different problems.  The reason as many planes
are on the
deck as there are is to make room in the hanger deck for servicing.  As
a gross
percentage of total tonnage, the Nimitz carries a pittance.  Less than
five percent
of its mass is its airgroup (unless the average carrier aircraft is
fifty tonnes).
At one point per fighter, the typical FT:FB1 carrier usually triples
that number.

>
>
> >
> >Balance is another issue.  The only way to reflect the disadvantage
of not
> >carrying all of the fighters in launch bays is to disallow launches
before the
> >game starts.  The launch evolution would then be: turn one, launch
ready
> >fighters.  Turn two, move squadron of unready fighters to launch bay
and
> >determine when they will launch (they cannot launch before turn
> >three, probably
> >will not launch until turn four, may not launch until turn five [is
the battle
> >still going?], no recovery until the second group is launched/struck
> >back to the
> >hold, which also takes a turn).
>
> Which is why a carrier set up this way would need Cargo space of
> sufficient size for the fighters plus a bit extra space AND probably
> three launch bays (One for recovery, one for the Ready 5 and one for
> launching the CAP or other aircraft)
>
> Once you've got clear space in the 'cargo' space, you've got room to
> prep aircraft.  If you have Cargo space for 8 groups and 4 bays you
> could operate oh say 10 groups pretty easy. Once a group was launched
> and on CAP and another group was out on escort for the Anti-shipping
> role, you'd have more elbow room for prepping, spotting and rearming.

If your cargo space has the facilities to fuel and arm the fighters, it
is a launch
bay without the external hatch, so it will be almost as expensive.

>
>
> (note how Hermes and Invicible carried and operated more fighters
> than standard during the Falklands war by using deck space parking...)

Did they operate more fighters than they were designed to, or did they
previously
operate fewer sea harriers due to budget constraints?