Re: Fighter bay design (was: FT-Fighters and bays)

At 11:20 AM -0300 6/7/01, Bob Makowsky wrote:

>On the other hand an out of control fighter ramming a carrier cannot be
a
>good thing.  So I agree that they would not be let near Mother.

Yes an out of control fighter yes. A damaged one coming into land, 
no. Look at the number of aircraft that came in damaged during 
Vietnam flights. In the case of carrier ops, why can the fighter not 
match speed with the carrier and then be brought in with tugs even. 
If the fighter's controls are jammed and cannot retro burn/maneuver. 
He's not going near the carrier in the first place.

>So there needs to be a way to recover pilots from crippled fighters
(and
>crews that escape the destruction of their vessels).  This seems to be
some

I would assume that specialized ship's boats on a Carrier would 
accomplish this task. Something like a Pinnance or small shuttle 
another 1 mass style craft.

This would also handle space to ground missions nicely...

>This brings an interesting mission type into play,  a small quick force
>trying to locate the ELTs of pilot survival capsules as the main battle
>moves away.  The CSAR vessel would be protected by others (Most likely
>fighters as they have a vested interest in it completing its mission)
and
>would tend to dart in, grab then run.

Aye. Or even a planet side style mission.

--
- 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  -