Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
He's the robotic star of Short Circuit... Steve Guttenburg.
Classification of TCS Eisen
- Thread starter Dragonslayer
- Start date
He's the robotic star of Short Circuit... Steve Guttenburg.
1st statement - I'm talking about a realatively new class of fleet carrier that Confed had during/directly after the war, not the existing Concordia. Also, we have also seen that a carrier can be loaded to the gills with craft, so the Eisen could pass along the extra fighters to Midway and have her original complement of fighters to fight the bugs. By the way, what is the WC number for a wing of fighters? For some reason 12 is sticking in my head, but I'm probably wrong ( I just remember Tolwyn restructuring the fighter numbers to keep the same anount of planes/pilots aboard carriers) And If I remeber correctly the Ranger class held multiple fighter wings, and it's complement was 40.
2nd statement - Again this was not the class I was speaking of. In End Run, Branbridge offers Bear one of the new fleet carriers coming out of the docks soon, not a Vesuvius (this is what I was hinting one possiblity fo rhte Eisen as being).
3rd statement - Not all theri shipyardswere destroyed. What I'm getting at is the designs that were in place would still be produced, their productions wouldn't just be halted.
4th statement - The Vampire isn't athat big (18 meters) compared to the Broadsword, twice it's size. So my question still remains, why can't an exception be made for Vampires to be stationed on a fleet carrier if that carrier was going into combat? Size isn't an issue (the vampire is actually smaller than a wartime Arrow, which the extremely small rangers carried)
C-ya
Haesslich
Spaceman
1. I'm not sure what the point of arguing that the Eisen was a new Carrier class when a former Origin person who worked on WCP (and who helped, incidentally, get the Lesnick system put onto the WC map that came with the game) has stated that it was a Vesuvius-class ship. Also, the Vesuvius class ships already had a shipyard with trained personnel ready to build them. You've got people trained to build them, and we do know that the shipyards for Vesuvius-class ships exist, but we do not know if other classes of carriers were in the end-stages of development or were commissioned by the end of WC4. Therefore, if we apply Occam's Razor, the most probable (and the correct explanation in this case) is that the Eisen is a Vesuvius.
2. In End Run, which takes place before the armistice and before WC3, the Vesuvius isn't done yet. Hell, its shipyard probably isn't done yet (which, in the wake of the Battle of Earth, is a good thing as most of the shipyards and drydocks in the Sol System were apparently wrecked). We do know that in Fleet Action, several carriers are being completed by the time the Armistice kicks in. However, nothing says that they're new designs (aka: newer than Concordia-class), and the state of the war by that time (they're short of carriers as it is, which means most of their time is devoted to building ships rather than finishing shipyards and training people to build new classes) seems to imply.
3. Designs may exist, but the shipyards are wrecked. A design is just a blueprint, but without the equipment and personnel to build the damned thing, it's no more useful in combat than a brilliant pilot is without a fighter.
4. It's not just the physical size of the deck that's the issue, but the equipment available on the carrier that allows it to support craft. False Colors is a prime example of this - the two flight decks on the Mjolnir were HUGE. However, they had mostly Kilrathi support ships and craft which had the equipment to handle Kilrathi fighters rather than having the equipment on the flight decks to do it... which explained Bondarevsky's use of Kofars to handle restock and resupply for fighters off the deck, and his use of Kilrathi craft rather than insisting on hijacking the Independence group's flight wings and requesting more fighters off Landreich - the support for Kilrathi craft was there, and it's easier to use craft you've got equipment to handle.
A fleet carrier that's much older than the Vesuvius-class may not have the equipment, or room for the equipment, to support a Vampire squadron. And we do know that the Vesuvius class isn't exactly short of space for fighters either.
It's not just the length of the fighters you have to worry about, after all - it's also their support gear, and whether you've got equipment designed to take that fighter. The Tarawa's main issue is that its flight deck was TINY (it was a jury-rigged transport), so the physical size issue was more of a problem for it than a deliberately-made carrier (which, incidentally, has space devoted to handling those fighters unlike the Tarawa).
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
You're confusing *wing* (80-100 fighters) with *squadron* (10-16 fighters). A wing is made up of multiple squadrons. The only ships we know of with multiple fighter wings are the Vesuvius (4 wings) and the Midway (3 wings) classes.
These are Concordia classes -- thanks to the production information named in ER and FA and the carriers mentioned in other sources we can account for every single Confed carrier from the mid-60s through the end of the war. An amazing secret new carrier would have to be some sort of entirely post-war design.
But there were no other designs being produced...
... because the ICIS manual says so. We're *specifically told* it serves off of heavy fleet carriers. Any argument htat says 'if we ignore X then I'm right' doesn't hold water. We don't know *why* Vampires are assigned to heavy carriers -- maybe they require more maintnance, maybe they're just more expensive... but we know that they *are*.
t.c.cgi
Vice Admiral
Okay lets think in real world terms. You have a WW2 escort carrier. And you want a *single* squad of brand new F/A-18's to replace your ENTIRE complement. Think about it. Yes you can *fit* them, but you can't carry enough ordinance for a long term engagement, or launch, or LAND them. It would be obsurd. Now lets take this to WC. Hot launch you use the catapult, and hot landings aren't fun either. So you can't slap Vampires on an escort carrier just because it's too dangerous, even in a small ferret! And the Ranger probably wouldn't be much better. Size realy isn't the issue, it's whether the carrier can *use* them. And servicing would probably be another thing too. Just how long is the Vesuvius class' bay? Just how long is the midway's launch tubes? Compare that to even a Concordia class.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
There's a zillion reasons why it's not an escort carrier:
* Carries fighters that, according to the ICIS manual, aren't carried by escort carriers.
* Delivers a fighter wing to the Midway that's twice as large as any carried by any escort carrier we've seen (80-some fighters compared to the 45 carried by Tarawa).
* Goes on to fight *ahead* of the Midway after delivering these fighters.
* Carries fighters that, according to the ICIS manual, aren't carried by escort carriers.
* Delivers a fighter wing to the Midway that's twice as large as any carried by any escort carrier we've seen (80-some fighters compared to the 45 carried by Tarawa).
* Goes on to fight *ahead* of the Midway after delivering these fighters.
Okay, so you've answered all my arguments that the Eisen is more than likely a Vesuvius, just by hte sheer amount of fighters it delivered to the Midway (didn't know it was that many), and like I said you'll run out of angry volcanoes in a little while 
But I wan tto shift this another way. So I'm to understnad that Confed after WC4 said, "Okay, lets stop building everything else but Vesuvius class carriers and let our Concordias that we have left over from the Kilrathi war (which wasn't many) to make up the rest of teh fleet." Aparently they were still building Concordias since I beleive the Lady Lex is a new Concordia (maybe just a very new refit). I really don't see why COnfed would build nothing but super expensive heavy carriers between WC4 and Prophecy.
One more thing, the Vampire isn't a whole new technology. If you can suppoirt the Panther, a ship should be able to support the Vampire (same technology just a radically different take on an existing design philosphy - instead of improved "horizontal (y) axis" movement the vampire has the same vectored thrust technology used to enhance "vertical (z)axis"and roll movement ). Like I said before, teh Vampire is small so it could fit everywhere. So it's not a matter of space or equipment, its a matter of trained personnel. It takes someone familiar with the maintanance/service of the Vamps to truly suppoort it. I guess it would take longer to train someone for the Vampire, but not that long (the excaliburs introduction in WC3 is the same situation - existing technology, minus the cloak, pushed to its limit. Didn't take Rachel and her crew long to figure it out ). I don't understand why a statement like "usually assigned to heavy carriers" would exclude any other use of an aircraft. there are many craft that were designed for use aboard a carrier, but are also used on land based installations. Just because it was designed for a specific purpose or assigned to a specific duty doesn't exclude it from being utilized elsewhere. I'm not arguing that 'if we ignore X then I'm right', its just the diffence between and inclusive and exclusive statement. I'm not ignoring the fact that the literature says "assigned to heavy carriers", I'm just arguing that there is no logical reason that the Vamp couldn't be assigned to an "un-heavy" carrier if it was needed in an engagement situation, like the ones against the bugs.
C-ya
But I wan tto shift this another way. So I'm to understnad that Confed after WC4 said, "Okay, lets stop building everything else but Vesuvius class carriers and let our Concordias that we have left over from the Kilrathi war (which wasn't many) to make up the rest of teh fleet." Aparently they were still building Concordias since I beleive the Lady Lex is a new Concordia (maybe just a very new refit). I really don't see why COnfed would build nothing but super expensive heavy carriers between WC4 and Prophecy.
One more thing, the Vampire isn't a whole new technology. If you can suppoirt the Panther, a ship should be able to support the Vampire (same technology just a radically different take on an existing design philosphy - instead of improved "horizontal (y) axis" movement the vampire has the same vectored thrust technology used to enhance "vertical (z)axis"and roll movement ). Like I said before, teh Vampire is small so it could fit everywhere. So it's not a matter of space or equipment, its a matter of trained personnel. It takes someone familiar with the maintanance/service of the Vamps to truly suppoort it. I guess it would take longer to train someone for the Vampire, but not that long (the excaliburs introduction in WC3 is the same situation - existing technology, minus the cloak, pushed to its limit. Didn't take Rachel and her crew long to figure it out
). I don't understand why a statement like "usually assigned to heavy carriers" would exclude any other use of an aircraft. there are many craft that were designed for use aboard a carrier, but are also used on land based installations. Just because it was designed for a specific purpose or assigned to a specific duty doesn't exclude it from being utilized elsewhere. I'm not arguing that 'if we ignore X then I'm right', its just the diffence between and inclusive and exclusive statement. I'm not ignoring the fact that the literature says "assigned to heavy carriers", I'm just arguing that there is no logical reason that the Vamp couldn't be assigned to an "un-heavy" carrier if it was needed in an engagement situation, like the ones against the bugs.C-ya
I'm thinkin...
Spaceman
I don't believe Confed would stop building Concordia class carriers completely. They would probably be reduced in the amount that are produced but there would still be a need for them. The Vesuvius and Midway classes can't be eveywhere at once. Use of the Concordias would help to fill the gaps or use as home defense forces.
As to what kind of fighters carriers are limited to, it doesn't really have anything to do with the size of the fighter. Mostly it has to do with support crews, maintainance, and where the carrier is stationed. Why would a carrier patroling a mostly peacful area of space need heavy fighters and bombers? Course a lot of those types of carrier duties are left to the older craft like Excals and Thunderbolts. But there is no reason for a high performance fighter to be stationed out there when there are more deadly threats that require the use of those fighters, so why waste them.
The Eisen has to be a Vesuvius class because she was sent in to battle the bugs. And she also has to have room to carry the extra fighters that were delivered to the Midway. It would take two or more Concordia carriers for the same purpose.
As to what kind of fighters carriers are limited to, it doesn't really have anything to do with the size of the fighter. Mostly it has to do with support crews, maintainance, and where the carrier is stationed. Why would a carrier patroling a mostly peacful area of space need heavy fighters and bombers? Course a lot of those types of carrier duties are left to the older craft like Excals and Thunderbolts. But there is no reason for a high performance fighter to be stationed out there when there are more deadly threats that require the use of those fighters, so why waste them.
The Eisen has to be a Vesuvius class because she was sent in to battle the bugs. And she also has to have room to carry the extra fighters that were delivered to the Midway. It would take two or more Concordia carriers for the same purpose.
t.c.cgi
Vice Admiral
It has nothing to do with them *not* building them. It has nothing to do with the space required to store them. And it has nothing to do with how similar it is in your mind to the Panther. Think about a WW2 Fleet Carrier and the new ones we have. Then think about putting an F/A-18 (comparable advancement between ww2/kilrathi war as to modern/prophecy) on the WW2 one and the newer one. Which is more practical? You also have to LAUNCH and LAND thise ships. I immagine that is why the Midway uses such *long* launch tubes, and the Vesuvius has such a *long* bay, and mabey even the confed class because it has such a *long* launching strip. SIZE DOES MATTER with newer things. You can store a brand new F/A 18 on a ww2 Aircraft carrier, sure enough. But can you *launch* and *land* them?
P.S. Please try to argue in this term, and not revert a SECOND time to "Ohh but they are similar to a Panther in concept and you can FIT them!"
P.S. Please try to argue in this term, and not revert a SECOND time to "Ohh but they are similar to a Panther in concept and you can FIT them!"
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Given that Concordias were apparently produced on the yards on the moon (Action Stations) and that the Kilrathi destroyed said yards, there's a good reason for them no longer being in production. But aside from that they're really freaking old -- B-17s were great during World War II, but we don't just keep building them for the heck of it.
No, the Lex is an old ship -- it was cripped at the Battle of Terra and restored after the war. Based on the information on the ICIS manual, Confed splits its fleet between heavy carriers and escort carriers...
No, the Lex is an old ship -- it was cripped at the Battle of Terra and restored after the war. Based on the information on the ICIS manual, Confed splits its fleet between heavy carriers and escort carriers...
Capn Johnny
Cap'n Johnny
Hmm.. that makes me feel.. odd..
-Johnny
Okay, Loaf for the cheap seats (this includes me), what in the way of carriers did Confed have in service and producing between the end of the Kilrathi War and Prophecy? Just Vesuvius-class? vesuvius and concordia? A straight plain answer would be helpful.
I'm thinking : thanks for the summary of what Loaf and I have been ironing out for the past several days, I appreciate it (heh, at least someones reading the posts before they answer)
Alright, now the fun part . . tc cgi
number 1, just how long do you think it's been since WWII? I maybe mistaken but I do beleive it was a bit more than 12 years.
We'll discuss similarities in fighter technology later. Right now, lets talk carriers.
I'd have to say that a 12 year old carrier (that puts us at the beginning of the Reagon administration - when alot of the fleet we have now was introduced) would probably launch a brand spankin new F/A-18 because, well they do on a daily basis. But lets go back to around WWII for your comparison. I'd have to argue that given the proper refit (mainly a new catapult system - actually no, scratch that. Catapult technology hasn't improved that much since it's introduction in 1951, it's only beginning changing now due to the research into EM catapults). It might be a bit iffy but I would wager good money that a catapult in the early 50's (capable of launching around 30,000lbs) could launch a stripped F-18 Hornet (if I remember correctly weighing in at just over 34,000 lbs). It would be close, and the Hornet would have to be a Super hornet with its 20% increase in thrust on full afterburner, but it just might do it. That takes care of the launch, now landing is a no-brainer, we still use the same system now to stop inbound planes that we did back then, arestor cables. SO yes I would bet that a new F/A-18 could land on a circa WWII carrier (and for those wondering about comparisons like this in other fields, yes I do believe that the '72 Dolphins would kick the ever lovin shit out of any modern team that shared the gridiron with them )
Alright, now technology development. lets say for arguments sake that the worst case scenario (for me to explain anyway) that Panther was introduced shortly after WC4 (I really don't believe this, since if that were the case I think every carrier in confed would have the panthers instead of the Excals and Thuds. personally I'd have to say that they were developed side by side, but that's my opinion). So, (on the first day) we introduce the Panther and we saw that it was good. Since it seems to me that Confed likes to keep it all in the family, I'm willing to bet that the Vampire and the Panther are made by the same company, but I'll put aside that opinion. So Confed sees that the future of thier fighters is vectored thrust, so they put out a contract for a new heavy fighter. Whoevers building this craft never want to reinvent the wheel, so they take everythings thats good from the Panthers systems and uses the next iteration (if there is one available). then bam you have something based on the Panther to produce a heavy fighter (hence same/comparible technology). If this is not the case, and the fighters were produced side by side, this whole point is moot (I don't think 2 companies would came up with vectored thrust designs at the same time unless it was specified). And in any case in 5-8 years between the (hypothetical) introduction of the Panther and the introduction of the vampire, not much in usable technology changes. I don't know what you do for a living but in my world (I'm an electrical engineer specializing in the design and fabrication of RF and microwave transmission structures/components), some projects take almost twice as long (2x 5-8 years) for an innovation to go from a testbed to a production model (my favorite story about this topic stems from our "new" stealth capabilities for planes, something that research began on in the early 70's). I can safely say that 80% of everything you use in a day uses at least 5 year old technology. I saw a calculator the other day on sale that uses the Mototrolla 68000 series chip, a chip that I had to learn the design and programming of, that many people used to play with in their ORIGINAL Sega Genesis (that was after its made it's way through the PC's of the day, back in the early 80's). Anyway, to make a long story short, unless you have a major revolution in thinking (say piston-jet power) technology doesn't advance that far in 8 years. If I saw an RF device that was 8 years ahead of its time (say give me a Startek digital phone back in the late 80's), I could still do maintanance/service/diagnosis of problems on it.
Okay, lets see now just random thoughts that are in my head right now about the Vampire.
I don't beleive that the Ranger class carriers in WC3 were designed to support the Excaliburs that it was sent. Hell it wasn't even designed (or able) to support the Arrows/Cats/Thuds/Bows (in it's earlier incarnation), but it could with the right equipment and personnel. That's all I'm saying about the Vampire. The Prophecy manual states that the Vampire is "USUALLY (the whole inclusive/exclusive thread from earlier) assigned to heavy fleet carriers", meaning that probably with the right equipment and personnel, the Vampire could be supported by a smaller carrier. Oh yeah that reminds me the size issue. Any craft can do a "cold" launch (as we saw in WC3) so why would you need all the *long* launch tubes/runways to launch a Vampire? They are not needed, they are there as the carriers design to make launch and recovery quicker, not to accomidate the specific craft.
If I haven't covered all that's been asked of me I'll know about it soon enough. I'm out, nothin but love for ya.
C-ya
I'm thinking : thanks for the summary of what Loaf and I have been ironing out for the past several days, I appreciate it
(heh, at least someones reading the posts before they answer)Alright, now the fun part . . tc cgi
number 1, just how long do you think it's been since WWII? I maybe mistaken but I do beleive it was a bit more than 12 years.
We'll discuss similarities in fighter technology later. Right now, lets talk carriers.
I'd have to say that a 12 year old carrier (that puts us at the beginning of the Reagon administration - when alot of the fleet we have now was introduced) would probably launch a brand spankin new F/A-18 because, well they do on a daily basis. But lets go back to around WWII for your comparison. I'd have to argue that given the proper refit (mainly a new catapult system - actually no, scratch that. Catapult technology hasn't improved that much since it's introduction in 1951, it's only beginning changing now due to the research into EM catapults). It might be a bit iffy but I would wager good money that a catapult in the early 50's (capable of launching around 30,000lbs) could launch a stripped F-18 Hornet (if I remember correctly weighing in at just over 34,000 lbs). It would be close, and the Hornet would have to be a Super hornet with its 20% increase in thrust on full afterburner, but it just might do it. That takes care of the launch, now landing is a no-brainer, we still use the same system now to stop inbound planes that we did back then, arestor cables. SO yes I would bet that a new F/A-18 could land on a circa WWII carrier (and for those wondering about comparisons like this in other fields, yes I do believe that the '72 Dolphins would kick the ever lovin shit out of any modern team that shared the gridiron with them
) Alright, now technology development. lets say for arguments sake that the worst case scenario (for me to explain anyway) that Panther was introduced shortly after WC4 (I really don't believe this, since if that were the case I think every carrier in confed would have the panthers instead of the Excals and Thuds. personally I'd have to say that they were developed side by side, but that's my opinion). So, (on the first day) we introduce the Panther and we saw that it was good. Since it seems to me that Confed likes to keep it all in the family, I'm willing to bet that the Vampire and the Panther are made by the same company, but I'll put aside that opinion. So Confed sees that the future of thier fighters is vectored thrust, so they put out a contract for a new heavy fighter. Whoevers building this craft never want to reinvent the wheel, so they take everythings thats good from the Panthers systems and uses the next iteration (if there is one available). then bam you have something based on the Panther to produce a heavy fighter (hence same/comparible technology). If this is not the case, and the fighters were produced side by side, this whole point is moot (I don't think 2 companies would came up with vectored thrust designs at the same time unless it was specified). And in any case in 5-8 years between the (hypothetical) introduction of the Panther and the introduction of the vampire, not much in usable technology changes. I don't know what you do for a living but in my world (I'm an electrical engineer specializing in the design and fabrication of RF and microwave transmission structures/components), some projects take almost twice as long (2x 5-8 years) for an innovation to go from a testbed to a production model (my favorite story about this topic stems from our "new" stealth capabilities for planes, something that research began on in the early 70's). I can safely say that 80% of everything you use in a day uses at least 5 year old technology. I saw a calculator the other day on sale that uses the Mototrolla 68000 series chip, a chip that I had to learn the design and programming of, that many people used to play with in their ORIGINAL Sega Genesis (that was after its made it's way through the PC's of the day, back in the early 80's). Anyway, to make a long story short, unless you have a major revolution in thinking (say piston-jet power) technology doesn't advance that far in 8 years. If I saw an RF device that was 8 years ahead of its time (say give me a Startek digital phone back in the late 80's), I could still do maintanance/service/diagnosis of problems on it.
Okay, lets see now just random thoughts that are in my head right now about the Vampire.
I don't beleive that the Ranger class carriers in WC3 were designed to support the Excaliburs that it was sent. Hell it wasn't even designed (or able) to support the Arrows/Cats/Thuds/Bows (in it's earlier incarnation), but it could with the right equipment and personnel. That's all I'm saying about the Vampire. The Prophecy manual states that the Vampire is "USUALLY (the whole inclusive/exclusive thread from earlier) assigned to heavy fleet carriers", meaning that probably with the right equipment and personnel, the Vampire could be supported by a smaller carrier. Oh yeah that reminds me the size issue. Any craft can do a "cold" launch (as we saw in WC3) so why would you need all the *long* launch tubes/runways to launch a Vampire? They are not needed, they are there as the carriers design to make launch and recovery quicker, not to accomidate the specific craft.
If I haven't covered all that's been asked of me I'll know about it soon enough. I'm out, nothin but love for ya.
C-ya
Haesslich
Spaceman
Originally posted by Viper61
Okay, so you've answered all my arguments that the Eisen is more than likely a Vesuvius, just by hte sheer amount of fighters it delivered to the Midway (didn't know it was that many), and like I said you'll run out of angry volcanoes in a little while
MORE likely? Um... someone who worked on Prophecy and SO said that the damned Eisen was a freaking Vesuvius. What more do you need, a screenshot of a Vesuvius with 'TCS Eisen' on the hull and a guided tour of the ship?
Query: why would you build old outdated ships that're pretty expensive to build when you could put the same money towards more modern craft? Remember what the ICIS manual said about the Midway's class of craft? That they were more economical than building an equivalent force of older design carriers and were easier to support in both mechanical and logistical terms? Beyond that, we do know that they build lighter ships that carry craft too.. and the novels themselves, pre-WCP, state that they've shifted more emphasis on building escort carriers which can be built more cheaply and spread out all over. However, those ships do not provide the same amount of punch that a heavy or supercarrier like Midway does - which is why these classes of craft still exist.
Lady Lex was rebuilt on the hull of the Lexington which was destroyed at the Battle of Earth, as noted in the WC4 novel. And it was FAR more expensive than building a new ship from the keel-up, as noted by Eisen. There's a reason for the Midway-class ship: it's called 'cost effectiveness'. Ditto jeep carriers, and the Vesuvius-class capships.
One more thing, the Vampire isn't a whole new technology. If you can suppoirt the Panther, a ship should be able to support the Vampire (same technology just a radically different take on an existing design philosphy - instead of improved "horizontal (y) axis" movement the vampire has the same vectored thrust technology used to enhance "vertical (z)axis"and roll movement ). Like I said before, teh Vampire is small so it could fit everywhere. So it's not a matter of space or equipment, its a matter of trained personnel. It takes someone familiar with the maintanance/service of the Vamps to truly suppoort it. I guess it would take longer to train someone for the Vampire, but not that long (the excaliburs introduction in WC3 is the same situation - existing technology, minus the cloak, pushed to its limit. Didn't take Rachel and her crew long to figure it out
C-ya
*deep breath *
What says that a Concordia-class craft can support a Panther, and that equipment designed to work with a Panther can handle a Vampire? These ships aren't exactly 'swap components, get the other fighter' type of technology... not from what we've seen. Or are you saying that highly specialized equipment (and more importantly, software) designed for item X will work on item Y? It's like saying that software suites designed to diagnose Windows XP problems will fix problems on Mac OS X machines... Different hardware platforms, different software, different components.... even though they do the same thing, even if they have similar features, they are NOT the same.
There's also a reason for the Vampire to be assigned to heavy carriers, beyond the 'there is equipment there and personnel there to support them' thing. Namely that you want to put such craft on ships that pull such missions and are likely to survive them. Heavy carriers and supercarriers are front-line craft, meant to have higher survivability and to deliver staggering amounts of firepower on targets. Jeep/escort carriers and light carriers are less survivable in WC, because they tend to have less armor and fewer fighters than a heavy capship... and in the escort carrier case, they're also expendible. Escort carriers are supposed to be used for escorting convoys and light patrols, if you recall your WC, since they don't usually carry the same number of fighters or the same amount of armor that a heavier carrier does.
If you read 'End Run', you'll also remember that the escort carriers were meant to be very expendible assets, with just enough power to defend a convoy or carry out specific strikes.. but no resources were really spent on making sure they could slug their way out of a heavy fight. Tarawa couldn't do that, or take even the three torpedo hits that Concordia did at the Battle of Earth, and survive. And you're telling me that you're going to throw your expensive fighter craft onto a carrier which isn't likely to get home, or even have the space to properly support the craft?
At least Midway or Vesuvius have armor that would let them escape, at least in theory, with their lives. Most escort or light carriers wouldn't survive more than one hit, maybe two... and even with jump-point generators on beacons, are you going to risk your most expensive craft, assigned to elite squadrons, on a freaking escort carrier?
I wouldn't. I don't want to have to tell the Senate that I lost several billion dollars of fighters because their escort carrier got wasted... when I had a supercarrier the next system over that I could've put them on and assigned the same mission to - and they'd have survived, thanks to having a ship to come home to, and enough squadrons to help them achieve the objective.
WildWeasel
Spaceman
That would be nice.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
As far as we know it's just Vesuvius class heavy carriers and the mission-specific escort carriers (like the Eagle in the WC3 novel). They also rebuilt crippled Concordia class ships, like the Lexington.
... as for the rest of your comments, it may have only been twelve years since the end of the war -- but it's been 47 years since the Concordia class came online. As for limitations in a carriers ability to launch fighters, it's clearly talked about in End Run -- some ships are just too large for an escort carrier's deck... and some have to be specially modified (Saber-D!).
The Ranger class carrier was just *recently* taken out of mothballs, though == presumably it was updated to carry more recent fighters (Thunderbolt). Although the Excalibur seems to have been designed with small bays (asteroid bases, in particular
) in mind.
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
Just for the record, catapults were introduced well before 1951. All of the major US carrier classes of WWII had and used catapults. The ESSEX-class carriers, the most prominent and successful class of warship ever built, had three (two on the flight deck and one straight out of the hangar deck, the latter very rarely used). The INDEPENDENCE-class light carriers had them. Even the escort carriers had one. Come to think of it, pre-WWII carriers had catapults. Though they weren't built with them (IIRC), the LEXINGTON and SARATOGA had a couple installe dint eh early 30's, and the YORKTOWN-class (all completed in the late 30's and into 1940) did as well.
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
Wait a sec.....weren't Vesuvius-Class ships insanely expensve to build? Didn't the WC4 novel mention how Confed was blowing like it's whole budget on the Vesuvius-Class?
Alright! Someone knows their catapult history (should be taught in the classroom in my opinion
). Actually I was talking about The Brit-copied stream ones (the only ones from that era that were capable of launching a significant amount of weight - namely around 30,000 lbs) I just forgot to include that in my defense, thx Ender.Yes, updated. Therefore new equipment and personnel were brought on to cope with a "new" design. That's all I'm saying about the Vamp. The ICIS says "usually assigned to heavy carriers" leaving room to be assigned elsewhere, right? So with the right equipment and personnel, it can be deduced that a Vampire could be supported from a smaller carrier. .. correct?
oh, IMHO, I thought the asteroid bases were pretty large to accomidate only 4 fighters ( not to mention the time it probably took to cut that out of an asteroid! )
.Ok, Haesslich, it would be really helpful if you could deduce some things from previous posts, but history shows that just gets people confused.
Q & A:
Q - TCS Eisen a Vesuvius?
A - Yes, from information it probably is (and from mine and Loafs argument, I'd have to agree). But if you rely on either the head programmer or the FMV director's coffee boy for information that didn't make it into the game or literature somewhere you get in trouble. Everyones got different opinions and you're bound to get clashing information (anyone remember the Blade Runner "Was he or was he not an android?" question that everyone including the star, the director and the novelist had a slightly different opinion on?) Unless somethings stated in something that's canon (dammit theres that word again, here comes the topic drift. . . noooooooooo) or can be deduced form information in the c word, I wouldn't put much faith in it (translation: Unless it came from a game, it's manuals, books, movie or TV show, or god himself - Chris Roberts, of the WC universe anyway
- I wouldn't try to stand on it. )Q - only Vesuvius class vessels being produced after WC3?
A - Read Loafs answer, no they were not. Ladiesman, hit the nail on the head. Vesuvius vessels were anything but cost-effective (actually for the force it put up they were probab;y close). In any case they were extremely expensive to build. The midway? We aren't even talking about carriers there yet. The Midway is where this discussion stops assuming that the Midway is being built to take over all the roles of the carriers we are talking about. And wow, thanks for restating what we've been saying the past several days. Appreciate ya *clicking teeth and pointing at you*
Q - Maintainability of Vampires on other carriers?
A - see previous posts
Q- Vampires not on carriers other than Vesuvius or Midway do to maybe not coming back?
A - So you are saying that you wouldn't want the best warplanes for the job fighting a battle? What about the Excal? Would you have liked Confed to say, "well, we aren't risking our state of the art technology (Excalibur) on a carrier that won't be able to defend it. Lets leave them where there safe and let the war go on a few decades more! ". I'd say to have 2 vampires (WC and wingman) on a small carrier (if this is supportable) would be an excellent idea. You can't get much more bang for your buck than with a vampire. Why would you limit your capabliity and effectiveness in battle just to ensure that your fighter would come back? Isn't one of your fighters duties to protect the carrier? IT's already been done in the WC history. The Tarawa had the brand new Sabre-D's with all new torpedo tracking systems on board. This was do to the mission it had to accomplish and other factors (limited space, etc). So whay can't the Vampire be the same way (going on a bug hunt that's going to be a long tour of duty? Use the fighters that's most capable of doing this)? Going into bug space? I know I'd feel alot better with a few vampires in my launch bay.
C-ya