[Dilmah G]

Well, two things WRT to racks

A) It would probably be easier and of better form to sortie the aircraft you need for the assault beforehand, and have them jump in with the vessel, rather than deploy when they're there. The latter has the potential to end rather badly if the racks are hit by stray beam fire or exploding ordnance.

B) If anything, the only time you want to sortie everything is if the ship's about to go down. What sortieing everything better achieves is giving the enemy the opportunity to down your entire CAW, which isn't so great.

[NGTM-1R]

A carrier expecting an attack will usually launch its entire compliment if possible to prevent any going down with the ship. Other carriers or nearby fixed bases can take in survivors. Attack birds can be told to go somewhere safe and orbit in FS as well as anywhere else. (Arguably in FS however they can make a valuable contribution to ship defense with Piranhas or the like.)

If there's a reason to keep fighters aboard, it's not that Dilmah.

[Dilmah G]

That's what I was getting at with 'if the ship's about to go down', i.e. the group is under attack and standby fighters can't handle it. I thought what was meant earlier was that the entire CAW would be sortied during an attack on a hostile carrier group, which is slightly different.

[NGTM-1R]

That's what I was getting at with 'if the ship's about to go down', i.e. the group is under attack and standby fighters can't handle it.

Ah, but that's where we differ. You mean the group is actively under attack and can't handle it with existing resources; I mean that if the group is about to come under attack (i.e. the raid is spotted forming up in FS, given subspace drive, or it arrives at fairly far distance).

Basically, fighters are a dangerous thing to have sitting around (if for no other reason then their tendency to break their tiedowns or other methods of securing and slam around; armed and fueled they're a whole other level of awful), so if at all possible you should get them out of the ship. And if the ship happens to be lost, they'll survive. From a ship defense standpoint, everything you can put in local space is "noise" to confuse attackers and push them further towards task overload and not noticing the interceptor that just dropped onto their tail.

Given FS's lack of fighters with non-destructive stores like ECM pods or fuel stores, there's not necessarily much for a bomber to do unless it has Piranhas, but even so aboard the ship it's a danger to it and off the ship it's an asset.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, that's fair enough.

[PsychoLandlord]

The only arguments I had even thought up to support my musing is that a Vessel with racks would probably be a ultra-specialized shock attack vessel in the vein of the recent GTVA corvette generation, and in all honesty probably would BE one of those corvettes with the racks bolted on. More like a unique "upgrade" for  a small number of Bellerophons as part of a specialist squadron.

They could be handy in the sense that, say you're jumping to your target, they of course detect your subspace signature, your not a Destroyer and theres only one of you, so they arent expecting Fighter Craft, dont have countermeasures in place, and when you finally exit subspace you bleed off four wings of fighters damn near instantly and take everyone by surprise. Damage to the racks is a non-issue, as said fighters can simply jump home.

I would also argue that it could increase the time Fighters can remain on station, due to not having to jump to the target in the first place, but I dont think FS has ever actually given a crap about fuel and logistics.

[MatthTheGeek]

I dont think FS has ever actually given a crap about fuel and logistics.

If that statement was true, there would be no freighters, no gas miners, no cargo depots, and no attacks on supply convoys.

[Dilmah G]

Well, not with regards to fighters anyway. I've never heard pilots say 'Alpha 1, bingo fuel, RTB.' or anything to that effect.

[Deadly in a Shadow]

I dont think FS has ever actually given a crap about fuel and logistics.

If that statement was true, there would be no freighters, no gas miners, no cargo depots, and no attacks on supply convoys.

And what about TVWP. The burners need fuel.

[MatthTheGeek]

TVWP isn't canon. You can tell that logistics are a major part of the FS universe simply using canon facts.

[PsychoLandlord]

Well, not with regards to fighters anyway. I've never heard pilots say 'Alpha 1, bingo fuel, RTB.' or anything to that effect.

Yes, I meant for strike craft, not on the strategic level. Hell, fighters can even rearm in the field incredibly quickly and easily, and with no limit on the number of times they can do so, as support vessels can simply be rotated in and out, provided their wingmates give them some decent cover.

Fighters in FS station time is dictated solely by plot and mission design. Hell we dont even know if fighter craft have a finite fuel source. They could run on something that allows their engines to burn effectively for days on end.

[General Battuta]

BP fighters most def have a finite fuel source. UEF ships are much less efficient than GTVA ones.

[PsychoLandlord]

Excellent. Word of God helps out immensely. Did you guys ever come up with figures, or was that just a general guideline for mission design?

[General Battuta]

Just flava. We could actually implement it in gameplay, though...

[MatthTheGeek]

I'd expect UEF fighters to need refuel every few hours, while GTVA fighters could probably hold at least a whole day without support.

[Buckshee Rounds]

The only arguments I had even thought up to support my musing is that a Vessel with racks would probably be a ultra-specialized shock attack vessel in the vein of the recent GTVA corvette generation, and in all honesty probably would BE one of those corvettes with the racks bolted on. More like a unique "upgrade" for  a small number of Bellerophons as part of a specialist squadron.

They could be handy in the sense that, say you're jumping to your target, they of course detect your subspace signature, your not a Destroyer and theres only one of you, so they arent expecting Fighter Craft, dont have countermeasures in place, and when you finally exit subspace you bleed off four wings of fighters damn near instantly and take everyone by surprise. Damage to the racks is a non-issue, as said fighters can simply jump home.

I would also argue that it could increase the time Fighters can remain on station, due to not having to jump to the target in the first place, but I dont think FS has ever actually given a crap about fuel and logistics.

While it's a cool idea I would've thought that since fighters can jump in with their own drives anyway it sort of makes the 'shock' value null. The whole point of a destroyer or any ship with a hangar is it to rearm, refuel and repair fighters. Not to mention giving the pilots some respite. I can't see fighter racks filling this role at all, especially the repair aspect. I can only envision them being fitted to smaller, more vulnerable vessels. Small and vulnerable is not a description you want for your homeship.

On the fuel issue: a general idea I thought was fighters aren't really limited in any meaningful way by how long they can scoot around in space, but by how many times they can charge and use their subspace drives. I like to think that was a significant advancement the GTVA had made over the years since Capella, for example when chasing the GTC Duke.

[CKid]

I always believed that fighters could last weeks or even longer without refuel. I was under this inpression because Kappa 3 of Kappa wing from "Mystery of the Trinity" was MIA for almost a whole act, and later showed up in "A Game Of Tag". I don't think he would have been siting around with his engines off that whole period.

[Mars]

I'd expect UEF fighters to need refuel every few hours, while GTVA fighters could probably hold at least a whole day without support.

Where the GTVA had invested in cheap, sophisticated superiority fighters capable of independent operations since Capella (an answer to qualitatively inferior Shivan bombers), the UEF fighter corps maintained a moderate reserve of extremely capable high-firepower fighters and gunships. Lacking intersystem jump drives or sustainable energy weapons, these short-duration, low-fuel, high-intensity UEF fighters - the Uhlan, Kentaroi, and most notably the Uriel - were an easy match for the GTVA’s four- and six-ship wings of obsolete Myrmidons and Nahema-screening Kulas.

Not a WHOLE lot of detail, but it does let one know that GTVA fighters are more independant and UEF fighters are more sprinters designed to work close to base.

BP:AOA demonstrates the advantages of GTVA fighters very well I think; Bei's wing chased the GTC Duke through a ridiculous number of systems, and Bei still had enough fuel to fight off a flight from a SD Demon. Taylor and Corey had enough fuel to maintain life support wherever they ended up.

[Ravenholme]

I'd expect UEF fighters to need refuel every few hours, while GTVA fighters could probably hold at least a whole day without support.

I imagine that GTVA fighters might actually last a whole heck of a lot longer, given their usage of inter-system subspace drives and ability to mount extended patrols as a result of that.

[-Norbert-]

We know for sure that GTVA fighters come with onboard reactors. Both the sabotaged mission with the Sunder and the Bastion escort proofe that. Now I'm far from an expert on reactors, but I guess they need very little fuel to keep going way more than a few hours.