[aldo_14]

Nah, power isn't really a quantifier as of itself, it's too abstract.  There are loads of different kinds of 'power' after all.

[Mars]

In this case power = energy per second.

Has anyone actually voted recently? Maybe I should have made the poll 3 days long instead of one week.

[StratComm]

Not really, power actually has a very specific definition and we just constantly misuse it.  Power is actually the correct term.

[aldo_14]

Not really, power actually has a very specific definition and we just constantly misuse it.  Power is actually the correct term.

Really?  I always thought it seemed a bit too simple (P=W/T; W=work, T=Time - IIRC).  i mean, voltage to me seemed a bit more precise in terms of predicting stuff like heat expenditure or whatnot, but ne'ermind.

[StratComm]

Well, yes power=work/time, and is equivalent to voltage*current.  In the context of an energy production or distribution system power always refers to the latter.  I can have a powersource that produces a huge voltage but drives very little current, or which offers near-unlimited current but very little voltage differential, neither of which are very useful where high power loads (voltage and current) are required.

EDIT: You're right to a point though, because ideal power sources are almost always modeled as voltage sources with an unlimited current backing.  It's the fact that a voltage source says nothing in and of itself of what the supply's capabilities are that makes it inappropriate as a descriptor.

[Polpolion]

Not to forget that Orions need space to maintain and store all those fighters and bombers. Not to mention a huuge amounts of ordanance and spare parts for them.

Also, you need 2-4 (possibly more) matanence people aboard for each fighter to refule, repaire, switch around weapons, ETC

The Orion in FS2 is retrofitted for beam weaponry - probably less effecient than the Vasudan-designed Sobek, designed to be a beam-using corvette from the start.  Perhaps the Orions need larger energy/weapons space to operate...

Don't forget that the Orion only has 16 or so turrets, so it's not like it requires of people for manning and repairs. And 16 turrets won't take as much power as the Sobeks turrets.

[FireCrack]

Fighters are going to need a lot of equipment, theere are going to be ammo magasines, big trucks to haul around the missiles (and i mean big) crews quarters for each of the people that work with the fighters, somthing to fuel the fighters, their maintenece vehicles, etc. Power for the docking mechanisms, ship mainenence mechanisms, repair facilities.

To ready and launch a fighter you need a crew of, at the most conservative esitmates, i'd say 20.

[Polpolion]

...

[aldo_14]

Fighters are going to need a lot of equipment, theere are going to be ammo magasines, big trucks to haul around the missiles (and i mean big) crews quarters for each of the people that work with the fighters, somthing to fuel the fighters, their maintenece vehicles, etc. Power for the docking mechanisms, ship mainenence mechanisms, repair facilities.

To ready and launch a fighter you need a crew of, at the most conservative esitmates, i'd say 20.

Unless some of it is automated (which, granted, can apply to turrets too).  Crew numbers, though, strike me as debatable, because you don't know how many fighters are in the 'ready' state or stored, or how easy it is to repair the fighters.  Plus we don't know that fighters need fuel; all indications are that they have internal reactors.  Also definately don't need ammo magazines beyond missiles (which you didn't say, but it's an important note), and we don't know if destroyers have any manufacturing capacity for warheads.

[Eightball]

thesizzler - what I was driving at was that perhaps the Orion's turrets need physically larger power sources and controlling equipment that interfaces with the older ship design - Orions weren't originally designed with beam weapons envisioned, correct?  Sobeks were, I imagine.

[aldo_14]

thesizzler - what I was driving at was that perhaps the Orion's turrets need physically larger power sources and controlling equipment that interfaces with the older ship design - Orions weren't originally designed with beam weapons envisioned, correct?  Sobeks were, I imagine.

Um, that's not actually that clear.  The Sobek tech description says that they were designed "in the dark days after the destruction of Vasuda Prime", which would entail a rather rapid - but not impossible - development of beam technology. I'd support that they were designed for beam cannons - it seems a Vasudan trend - but it's not definitive.

[Nuclear1]

I believe that the Sobek was designed with flak more in mind. It seems to be a ship more capable of dealing with fighters, particularly Shivans (which the Vasudans had a rightful fear of) or pirates (which would have been more prevalent in the Reconstruction era). Beam technology might have been a later addition to the Sobek.

[Mars]

So why does the Sobek have such horrible flak coverage?

[NGTM-1R]

Work on fighters in FS has to be automated to a great extent. They're the size of a house for crying out loud, their weaponry is huge too; somebody estimated the Ursa's guns at 8-inch. You don't need people for manhandling the weapons or the ship around, because that's just not viable. It has to be done via machinery or automation.

I would guess that all told, for a 12-fighter squadron you'd have a total support staff of approximately 100. Of these about 85-90 would be directly concerned with maintaining the fighters, the rest being quartermaster types, perhaps a flight surgeon too. Individually each fighter might have four or five techs assigned specifically to that craft. (Originally I figured one or two; then I reminded myself they're taking care of something the size of a house.) They would handle day-to-day preventive maintance and minor repair work. The remainder would be specialists in a particular field; sensors, explosive ordinance handling, reactor repair, and so on. These would be "shared" personnel, who work on whatever is in need of their particular talent. Some of them may not be organic to the squadron itself, but rather adminstratively "belong" to the group or the destroyer, and work for multiple squadrons.

[FireCrack]

Uhh... the Ursas guns are more like 30-inch.

[Mars]

Where's that picture of a human in the Ursa's gun, anyway?

[SuperCoolAl]

I think we should have one mega-HLP-poll where everyone can vote for their favourite canon ship in each class (Fighter, Bomber, Support Craft, Transport, Freighter, Cargo Container, Cruiser, Corvette, Installation, Destroyer, Super-Destroyer/Juggernaut).

The Iceni should go under destroyer, as it IS primarily used as a command/control centre after all, and has destroyer-class weaponry.

[TrashMan]

*SNIP*

No...the crew number falls down over time. With new tech most of it is automated.

By StratComm
Trashman, you certainly have a knack for finding these threads.  I don't know whether you still believe that I had the last one locked down (I didn't) but you're vastly outnumbered here.  Please drop it.

Drop what? Outnumbered by whom? About what? Eh?

Nimitz class carrier:
     Length- 333M
     Crew Compliment- 5,680
Sobek class corvette
     Length- 608M
     Crew Compliment- 6,000

Nimitz - a carrier with over 80 aircraft (3184 crew + 2800 FLIGHT CREW)
Go figure...

[Ghostavo]

Bismark "class" battleship:
   Length - 251m
   Crew compliment - 2,092

Gee, maybe those all those turrets in the Sobek need to be controlled by crew!! Nah... I'm just dreaming...

[aldo_14]

No...the crew number falls down over time. With new tech most of it is automated.

That can be applied equally to any type of vessel.