sea_monkey said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that carrier did not continue on to the Battle of Earth due to the damage it took. Four torpedoes messed it up pretty bad, I don't think it's fair to say it could have taken 10 more based on what was in the book. But four torpedoes will mess up a Hakaga but only take down two Fralthra, leaving five more perfectly functional ships.
Actually, those four torpedoes would have completely destroyed two Fralthra, or would have disabled four Fralthra. Assuming 40 craft per cruiser, you've damaged the bases for about 160 fighters, which is about 60 more than the average fleet carrier
carries. That battle at Sirius disabled one ship, the
Tarvakh, due to internal fires and having three launch bays shut down. We're not sure if the ship that Tolwyn's strike force hit was the
Tarvakh, or if it was the
Yu'ba'tuk which had the shield generator issue. However, it's reported that one launch bay on the latter ship was closed, which seems consistent with the gun-camera footage that Lone Wolf had.
And in that one assault, against those heavily armed and armored carriers, the Confederation lost about 260 craft out of 480. Even with the heavy Kilrathi fighter losses, 464 or so fighters, that wasn't a cheap engagement.
The most remarkable thing about those carriers was the fact that they not only carried a lot of craft, but were able to function with damage that would've crippled the flight operations of almost any other ship in space. One torpedo hit, enough to seriously cripple a vessel like a Fraltha, would end its usefulness as a carrier at least until some repairs were made.
sea_monkey said:
Easier to defend? A few lucky hits and the ship is crippled. 7-8 ships are much, MUCH easier to defend do to the nature of their being 7-8 of them. All other things being equal any sane commander would rather have multiple small ships as a means of reducing the risk involved. Cheaper? How the heck would you know? Judging by the fact it took so much effort just to build five of them, I'm guessing they're not very cheap at all.
The reason those carriers were expensive was because of the extra bays and the state of the art technology they employed, especially when it came to shielding and armor. It took at least four hits to do serious damage to one of them, and that one we did see kept fighting. In comparison, one shot was enough to disable the Lexington's ability to launch fighters in WC4, and a relatively small amount of explosives kept Concordia from launching craft in WC2.
And seven targets IS a problem - if you have to worry about the health of each ship, knowing that the loss of one means that three or so squadrons won't have a home to return to, it's an issue. There's a reason that the Midway was constructed in WCP; it was cheaper than building the equivalent number of carriers, and was easier to defend - and its extra size could be put to use powering generators that would feed starbase-sized shields. If you spread out your forces too much, then you don't have effective striking power; at the most, you'll be up to the task of detecting incursions, but not stopping them.
Remember that much of the reason for all the space in the carriers, at the expense of armor and weapons, is because they need that space to service fighters and carry spares. You need room for all that, which means that you're giving up torpedo tubes, larger engines, or generators for extra guns.
sea_monkey said:
Yeah, and it makes no difference whatsoever to my argument that corvettes don't have hangar bays. You bring up the US Navy, but that is my whole point. On Earth -- with gravity -- you NEED a massive metal floating runway to carry fighters through the ocean. You CANNOT do it on cruiser or destroyer. In SPACE, you can, hence the Fralthra carrying 40 fighters. Yes, there are tradeoffs involved, but the fact that ships that are not dedicated carriers can carry a lot of fighters, does in fact DIMINISH, NOT ELIMINATE the importance of carriers in space. IMHO, the games seem to indicate the Kilrathi generally prefer to use heavy cruisers/light carriers on the front lines as a means of deploying fighters, using carriers more as mobile headquarters and resupply. This is something I think Forstchen missed, hence the obsession with the # of carriers on both sides at every engagement.
It does make a difference - you stated that ALL ships needed hangars; but the smaller ones don't necessarily need them, especially as there are other methods of getting to ships that have been detailed in game and novel. It's not the runway that's the issue specifically, though having room to accelerate or decelerate the fighter to zero velocity relative to the carrier is good; it's the space you need for the support equipment, the fighter itself, the parts to keep it running, the fuel to keep it going, the missiles to keep it armed, and the crew that keeps it flying plus a little extra space to keep a few more in case one fighter gets dinged up too much to be easily repaired or is lost in action without killing its pilot.
Cruisers can carry fighters; but at the same time, cruisers are still expensive, heavy units which are needed on the front lines. Carriers can carry more fighters than cruisers can, which makes them useful in battle groups as you can keep a bunch of fighters flying - more than can be launched and served on a cruiser, which means some more flexibility in assigning missions.
Cruisers and destroyers can carry torpedoes, which are the most reliable method by which to kill a ship in the WC universe. However, fighters can also carry them, and these can be built more quickly and cheaply than cruisers or destroyers can be. However, fighters are short-ranged craft; this is why you have carriers which can carry a hundred or more of them, and thus increase the striking power of a fleet without the expense involved in building a lot of cruisers and destroyers. Fighters are less of a loss when they go down - it's one to three people and a fighter/bomber that cost a few million in contrast to a hundred or more people on a destroyer that cost the equivalent of thirty or forty fighters, at least in relative terms.
Yes, you can station fighters on cruisers and destroyers - but at the same time, this means refitting the cruiser or destroyer to carry fighters and their support equipment, which means giving up some of the capabilities that a cruiser or fighter has... and increasing its expense should the craft be lost. When you've got dedicated fighter-support ships, then why should you build more carriers which carry fighters? Yes, we've seen them in game - the Austin and the Gettysburg were cruisers, and they did well in fighter support. However, the Tiger's Claw and the Concordia were the ships that were used for the serious assaults, given that they were a) capable of carry bombers, and b) had the ability to better support fighters.
That's one thing that most cruisers or destroyers just don't have the space to do - and I think that the only cruiser-class ship that ever carried bombers in game was the Cerberus from WC:SO, using the Black Devastators.
Light carriers were built before the war began, and apparently abandoned until the 'disposable' Escort Carrier concept made its return in the 2660's - it's probably due to the size of bombers and the torpedoes they had that made them less desirable than Concordia-class ships. The relatively low price of escort carrier construction due to the missing extras typically found on fleet carriers - lots of gun turrets and armor - were what made Confed begin construction of this class of ship again. By WC3, the class seems to have made a comeback if the Eagle's title of 'one of the newest and most modern escort carriers' is any indication.
Note it's also in Fleet Action that Thrakath notes that it's the Confederation's use of light and escort carriers in raids that began to make a difference on the front lines - carriers had to go back to base, and transports needed cruiser escorts, which meant fewer cruisers could go on raids of their own.