MGT Only: 3,000-ton escort carrier

[Brandon C]

Not necessarely:

Huh. Not sure why I thought a 10-ton fighter couldn't mount a turret particle beam.

But it's unlikely you need to work in all your fighters externally at once. Maybe just having such full hangers for 5-10% of your fighters may be enough, while the rest can be in smaller ones (and so not able to be externally serviced/repaired, but fully opperative otherwise), or even externally in Docking Clamps (1 dton per clamp, as per HG page 46), so forfeiting the need of the launching tubes (I asume all the clamped small crafts may be launched at once, as can all the drop tanks that are also so clamped)...

Now that you mention it it, a 300 ton ship I designed for GT that carried fighters had all but one in bays (listed volume) with a proper hanger to allow one to be worked on at a time.

I will need to reread the launch tube rules to see if this will be an issue.

 

[McPerth]

Huh. Not sure why I thought a 10-ton fighter couldn't mount a turret particle beam.

Maybe because below the table for mínimum PP needs in page 61 it says that PB barbettes count as 2 weapons (so needing a PP sL at mínimum).

When I first read it, as in CT/MT all PB turrets are called barbetters, I didn't realize it does not affect PB turrets (it took me some time to realize it).

 

[kilemall]

You are joking.. this is wholly absurd. This ship is simply too small to be an effective carrier. Even in a small ship universe.. a fleet or escort carrier needs to be in the 20k range... I am sorry.. if your going to have more than one or two squadrons of fighters, and the cargo capacity to carry the parts and resupply ordinance for the fighter attack crafts.. this ship fails to meet the bill.

A fleet carriers ought to have at least 10-30 squadrons of fighters.. I am sorry but that is how things actually work given the scale of space you are dealing with. To operate with only 2 fighter squadrons is laughable... it give you no covering support if you send both out to attack the opponent. Even today most Carrier ops will have 4-8 squadrons and today that is enough given the speed vs space issues one deals with in today's naval combat environment.

Only the US operates big carriers, most everyone else has half-sized or smaller plane capacity, even the big French carriers don't have anything on Nimitzes.

The UK retook the Falklands with itsy bitsy carriers, not something that would have worked against the Soviet Union but good enough for the job.

 

[kilemall]

Quite honestly a carrier that has any sort of direct combat capability is a waste of tonnage. They are not supposed to be in the same postal code as direct actions. IF a carrier is threatened with direct contact it's first action should be to drop a bomb in the lap of the escort battle groups commander.

It's primary striking power and defense is it's fighter group. and In a fleet battle the fighters should be launched, and the carriers withdrawn to a safe distance. Behind it's destroyer/cruiser screen, and lots and lots of frigates and corvettes to boot.

f it is carrying more than PD, and Turret lasers/sand, it is definitely not using it's tonnage to cram in every last fighter it can carry.

Special purpose battle/strategic strike carriers might be better armed and protected simply because they are expected to jump into a hornets nest.

Marine carriers supporting a landing for instance and fast sortie turnaround is worth risking the ship to attack.

 

[wbyrd]

Marine carriers supporting a landing for instance and fast sortie turnaround is worth risking the ship to attack.

excellent point a ship that has to get in close to the action such as a marine support vessel would need better protection.