Fighter storage

[glitterboy2098]

discussions on the chat about whether or not the group's ship could store a fighter got me thinking.

the Hunter destroyer is tiny as destroyers go, at 70ft tall, 80ft wide, and 300ft long.
yet it can carry 4 fighters, typically scorpions (10ft high, 31ft wide, 34ft long) or Black Eagles (14ft high, 32 ft wide, and 45ft long), which seem like they would not only take up most of the internal space, but also make a real headache for fitting hanger bays in given the different sizes. to make it worse, some supposedly are issued Star Ghost fighters, at a whopping 35ft tall, 40ft wide, and 65 feet long, which makes that "fighter" more like a patrol ship or light freighter in size.

i've seen deckplans done by various people, including Mr. Gleba, which kinda allow a ship to carry 4 scorpions, though it was a super tight fit, required some pretty weird hanger hatches, and 3 different hanger spaces.. and it required depressuring entire sections of the ship to get the fighters out, and you had to pass through the hangers to move from front to back on the ship.. not really a good idea.

in looking up the Hunter in relation to the discussion, i had an epiphany. what if the fighters are NOT stored inside the ship?

to explain my idea, i direct you to the recent Star Wars spinoffs, specifically the TV show Star Wars Rebels. where the Galactic Empire is shown using a common type of medium freighter, the Gozanti class. which measures 48ft tall, 105ft wide, and 209 ft long according to the Lucasfilm supplementary materials.
Civilian Gozanti's look like this: http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... 5-rktb.jpg
more or less similar shape as a Hunter, just a bit smaller and with outrigger engine pods.

in Imperial Service they look like this: https://deadlypinkunicorns.files.wordpr ... .jpg?w=627
with a more wedge looking top profile thanks to wider equipment mounts and different engine placement.

why do i bring up what looks like a basic freighter? because the Imperial version has a feature that could solve the Hunter's hanger woes.
http://www.xwingminiaturesgame.com/wp-c ... f105d.jpeg
external carriage of its fighters.


so what i propose is that the Hunter class Destroyer carries it's fighters in clamps on the 'underside' of the hull, perhaps in a semi-recessed area. this would allow it to carry Scorpions and black eagles equally, since the greater length of the black eagle might not be a factor if your just looking at clamps and a docking tube over the cockpit. and while you still wouldn't be able to fit 4 star ghosts, you could more easily carry two such large 'fighters' (or even Proctors, which are similar sized), as they would take up the same rough square footage on the underside of the hull as 4 scorpions or Black eagles would. it would also make it easier for the CAF to substitute Oni katana fighters or Naruni Broadsword fighters instead of scorpions or Black eagles. or for non-CAF users to sub in any number of fighter types across the three galaxies. the FWC could for example fit the 'demilitarized' Hunters (described in DB3) up as carriers and could even carry captured TGE flying Fang fighters that way.

[taalismn]

Why not? The UEEF had a similar idea with its Horizont shuttles mothershiping externally-docked Legio-Tread combos.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Space fighters docking along the hull of their carrier. Both examples that I can site, from the 80's-90' are from anime. Mospeda (RT new gen) and Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

With Mospeda it is a escort fighter for a landing craft.

Legend of the Galactic Heroes, the carrier for the alliance was the mother craft of 36-40 fighters.
https://ru.myanimeshelf.com/upload/dyna ... ier031.jpg
https://ru.myanimeshelf.com/upload/dyna ... ier011.jpg


What are the problems with this idea: The fighters are vulnerable to being attacked directly.
What are the pros about this idea: minimal internal volume dedicated to carrying parasite craft. The pilots of the parasite craft are not 'stuck' in their ships and can decompress in the larger ships corridors. Thus won't go nuts over long trips.

[glitterboy2098]

it certainly is a more vulnerable position. but on a small ship, the advantages in space savings and the ability to actually HAVE fighters probably outweighs the downsides.

a ship like the Hunter class really would struggle to carry any fighters otherwise.

and to be honest.. this would be much more interesting to encounter in a game.


i wonder if this could explain how the Arcane Mk.II Patrolship (70ft tall, 80ft wide, 100ft long) can carry 4 shadow bolt fighters (13ft tall, 40ft wide, 50ft long).

[taalismn]

Also a bit more difficult to service and re-arm fighters with externally-mounted ordnance...If you have to manually do it, you run the risk of your armorers floating off or a loose piece of equipment becoming flotsam.
On the other hand, if you DO have an ordnance issue reloading an externally-carried fighter, less chance of said ordnance doing major damage inside a hangar(or worse yet, a PRESSURIZED hangar).

[glitterboy2098]

true. not just externally mounted ordinance as well. though for things like the Scorpion Fighter's GR railgun and internal minimissile bays i could see one docking station perhaps being fitted with a system to attach to the ammunition feed ports and reloading at least that stuff.
most Scorpions would be the SF-69 with just those, the SF-69B bomber variant with the externally carried cruise missile is probably more rare and stationed more often to the bigger ships and stations that could afford a proper hanger. the Black Eagles look to be the same way.. only the SF-101A model has external cruise missiles, the SF-101AI is a dogfighter versions without them, relying on GRrailgun, lasers, and mini's. and the SF-101LR FTL equipped model apparently don;t have cruise missiles either. Star Ghosts have two cruise missiles (not said if external or not, but i'd bet they are) but they are also only rarely assigned accordign to the Hunter's description.

presumably on patrol the fighters wouldn't be used as a strike force so much as a recon and additional point defense.. while in an offensive action the ship would be unlikely to be operating without a warshield or other larger vessel in the group which could stage the Hunter's fighters through it's hangers for re-arming.

[RockJock]

I like the fighter clamp/external docking ports for everything except "carrier" type mother ships. Not that it is talked about in the games, but I would make the parasite craft limited in repair abilities, and perhaps require a longer rearming cycle. GR guns are easy, but the missiles become the issue.

I'm thinking these as sort of the catapult launched, water recovered floatplanes of WW2. They were slow to recover, but were much better than having no spotter at all.

Maybe there is something akin to a modern warship with a helicopter hanger for maintenance. The ship carriers four birds, but only one can really be worked on at a time.

[glitterboy2098]

More or less, and I agree about the carrier distinction.

Though it is worth noting that floatplanes played a different role than the fighters of a hunter would. Floatplanes were recon, a way to give the ship the ability to see 'over the horizon'. With no horizon to speak of in space, the Hunter's fighters would be less needed for recon. Though being able to extend their sensor shell a bit would be one use. More likely they would be deployed as escorts, a combination of combat air patrol and mobile point defence, intercepting enemy missiles, fighters, robots, and power armor farther from the ship than the ships point defence guns can reach.

To be honest, Palladium's tendency to overstuff their ships with fighters and bots makes it tricky to decide where to draw the line as to whether a ship is or is not using internal hangers. For example, the TGE smasher class cruiser carries 36 flying fang fighters. Which take up enough volume to make finding hangerspace tricky for a ship of its size. Personally I have decided it uses a system similar to that employed by the SBB Yamato in the Space Battleship Yamato 2199 remake anime, where the fighters are stored on racks in a circular framework, and get shifted around like a revolver crossed with a sliding tile puzzle during launch and recovery.

[taalismn]

I like the fighter clamp/external docking ports for everything except "carrier" type mother ships. Not that it is talked about in the games, but I would make the parasite craft limited in repair abilities, and perhaps require a longer rearming cycle. GR guns are easy, but the missiles become the issue.

I'm thinking these as sort of the catapult launched, water recovered floatplanes of WW2. They were slow to recover, but were much better than having no spotter at all.

Maybe there is something akin to a modern warship with a helicopter hanger for maintenance. The ship carriers four birds, but only one can really be worked on at a time.

Inflatable external hangar pods, maybe?

[drewkitty ~..~]

In the AUGG space ship construction text/tables there are listed: externally mounted hangers, and cargo pod hard points that the text does mention other ships docking to.

[Vrykolas2k]

discussions on the chat about whether or not the group's ship could store a fighter got me thinking.

the Hunter destroyer is tiny as destroyers go, at 70ft tall, 80ft wide, and 300ft long.
yet it can carry 4 fighters, typically scorpions (10ft high, 31ft wide, 34ft long) or Black Eagles (14ft high, 32 ft wide, and 45ft long), which seem like they would not only take up most of the internal space, but also make a real headache for fitting hanger bays in given the different sizes. to make it worse, some supposedly are issued Star Ghost fighters, at a whopping 35ft tall, 40ft wide, and 65 feet long, which makes that "fighter" more like a patrol ship or light freighter in size.

i've seen deckplans done by various people, including Mr. Gleba, which kinda allow a ship to carry 4 scorpions, though it was a super tight fit, required some pretty weird hanger hatches, and 3 different hanger spaces.. and it required depressuring entire sections of the ship to get the fighters out, and you had to pass through the hangers to move from front to back on the ship.. not really a good idea.

in looking up the Hunter in relation to the discussion, i had an epiphany. what if the fighters are NOT stored inside the ship?

to explain my idea, i direct you to the recent Star Wars spinoffs, specifically the TV show Star Wars Rebels. where the Galactic Empire is shown using a common type of medium freighter, the Gozanti class. which measures 48ft tall, 105ft wide, and 209 ft long according to the Lucasfilm supplementary materials.
Civilian Gozanti's look like this: http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... 5-rktb.jpg
more or less similar shape as a Hunter, just a bit smaller and with outrigger engine pods.

in Imperial Service they look like this: https://deadlypinkunicorns.files.wordpr ... .jpg?w=627
with a more wedge looking top profile thanks to wider equipment mounts and different engine placement.

why do i bring up what looks like a basic freighter? because the Imperial version has a feature that could solve the Hunter's hanger woes.
http://www.xwingminiaturesgame.com/wp-c ... f105d.jpeg
external carriage of its fighters.


so what i propose is that the Hunter class Destroyer carries it's fighters in clamps on the 'underside' of the hull, perhaps in a semi-recessed area. this would allow it to carry Scorpions and black eagles equally, since the greater length of the black eagle might not be a factor if your just looking at clamps and a docking tube over the cockpit. and while you still wouldn't be able to fit 4 star ghosts, you could more easily carry two such large 'fighters' (or even Proctors, which are similar sized), as they would take up the same rough square footage on the underside of the hull as 4 scorpions or Black eagles would. it would also make it easier for the CAF to substitute Oni katana fighters or Naruni Broadsword fighters instead of scorpions or Black eagles. or for non-CAF users to sub in any number of fighter types across the three galaxies. the FWC could for example fit the 'demilitarized' Hunters (described in DB3) up as carriers and could even carry captured TGE flying Fang fighters that way.

Yep, external clamps is about the only way to do it, with perhaps an inner hanger where a single fighter at a time can be worked on.

[glitterboy2098]

going through the list in the books i have..

CCW:
Hunter Frigate - External
Scimitar Patrol Ship - Hanger bay, semi-external.
Warshield Cruiser - Hanger bays
Protector Battleship - Hanger Bays
Packmaster Carrier - Internal, obviously.
Explorer Cruiser - Internal hanger
Aranae Interdictor Battlecruiser - Internal hanger
Emancipation Dreadnought - Internal hanger


TGE:
Beserker Class Frigate - no fighters. (could probably be refit to carry external ones, or dock 1-2 to external airlocks)
Smasher Class Cruiser - Internal hanger, using "yamato" style storage to save space
Doombringer Dreadnought - Internal hanger, likely very cramped. rain of death Troop transports are likely carried externally.
Executioner Battleship - Internal Fighter Bays. rain of death troop shuttles docked externally.


UWW:
Arcane Mk.II Patrol Ship - External (only way to fit 4 shadow bolts. fighters might use folding wings to save extra space))
Dwarven ironship - External, given the size of it's airwing vs the size of the ship. probably something retrofitted in well after original design.
Arcane Mk.X Nexus Battleship - Internal Hanger
Brightwander Battleship - Fighters and Troop shuttles in external hangers. Arcane Mk.II patrolships docked externally.
Tangent Space Station - Internal hangers


Others:
Altess Zhokil Battlecruiser - Internal hanger
Golgan Bindas Cruiser - No fighters. (could probably be refit to carry some externally)
Golgan Sylnor Command Battleship - Internal Hangers. troop shuttles probably are docked semi-externally
Naruni Audit Ship - Internal hanger/bay (modular, with limited capacity)
Naruni Commodity Battleship - Internal Hangers/bays. (modular, mainly meant for cargo but can be fitted for fighters/vehicles/troops)
Splugorth Servitude Cruiser - no fighter bays. Raider class shuttles docked semi-externally
Splugorth Taskmaster Carrier - Internal hangers, very cramped.


one thing i noticed is that there is a marked trend with some books for what i call TARDIS syndrome.. the ships have to be bigger on the inside than the outside to fit everything they are supposed to carry. this has led to a fair number of external or "very cramped" notations above. this is especially true with the TGE's rain of death troopships, which are nearly the size of a hunter class frigate, yet we have ships carrying several dozen, in addition to hundreds of fighters. two of the worst, IMO, are the Splugorth Taskmaster and the UWW Brightwander.. the former carries way more troops (many of them giants) and fighters than should comfortably fit in the dimensions given, while the latter is only about a thousand feet sphere, yet carries not only a very large amount of troops, fighters, and shuttles, but also twelve arcane patrolships.. the latter of which would take up the majority of the volume.

[ShadowLogan]

There are several possibilities to get X # of B-fighters with Y dimensions on C-ships.

1. Just go with the flow/RAW. Don't worry about how it does it. Though for plot points it might cause issues (granted w/o official deck plans...)

2. Super Technology like Doctor Who's TARDIS that isn't stated:
A. Gravity Control technology (which Phaseworld has) might be a justification for it. If intense gravity can slow time down, then it can also alter dimensions (I know as you travel faster distances get "telescoped" and since time also slows down, then gravity should be able to do the same thing (IIRC it does)
B. Phase Tech/Powers along the lines of the power "D-Shift Distance" to make the hangar bay bigger than the ship is expected to be.

3. Internal carriage would be possible in 3 ways (mix-match is possible to for various slots)
3A. Horizontal-Horizontal. The hangar deck is horizontal to the other decks and the fighters are stored horizontal (ie typical). This is classic perception, but it isn't the only solution.
3B. Vertical-Horizontal. There are a few ways to do this, but it basically works out to the "fighter" being stored/launched/retrieve in a relative vertical position to the rest of the ship. Only really possible in space.
3C. Ramp. The Hangar Deck(s) are at a slopping angle and can create a right triangle. This allows the "deck" to be the hypothenous of a right triangle, and there for longer than the deck might normally allow. I'm not sure if this approach would give more overall room to work or not (off the top of my head), but it would increase the deck space as compared to 3A.

4. External carriage. Here there are two docking approaches actually, and could be semi-recessed
4A. Inline/parallel like in Robotech's Horizon-T or the B-52/X-15 or B-29/X-1 or SR-71 variant /M-21 drone or Arkon & Macon flying aircraft carrier.
4B. For space only operations though there is no need for the fighters to attempt to dock as above and could come in 90deg/perpendicular. This would be the type of docking the US Space Shuttle did to ISS (and Mir IINM) and IINM Soyuz-family vehicles at the ISS.

5. A mix/match setup where a specific slot uses #2 #3 or #4 in some form, which could be different on another slot.

[kirnos]

Although I agree some of the scales on the ships may be a little off, and some ships should be bigger, i think it is not so illogical or imposible for the hunter to bring 4 space fighters. If you take a look at real life carriers, for example the Nimitz-class can carry a maximum of 130 fighters, although it never carries so many. How they can carry so many I can't tell, cause i suck at maths and don't know the internal distribution.
I know the real world carriers are not battleships, so don't carry big weapons like for example Hunter do, but anyway i expect spaceships from the three galaxies to be more advanced in space management and miniaturization of systems.

But i will not disregard the use of external points to set the fighters. As others said, we have seen that on many anime and scifi movies, so can be an option. Me myself will stick to the "let's hope for the best and don't ask too many questions about how they do it" thing, but maybe use the external on homebrew starships.

[Blue_Lion]

You could combine the two ideas have a ship a internal hanger for repair and rearm while external mounts for QRF fighters that can launch as soon as the pilot is in them or the ship drops to sublight. This means your internal hanger can be pressurized and use fighter air locks, and still be able to launch wings of fighters.

Think Babylon 5 had external fighter ports that had a door covering them to protect them from direct fire and provide a place to work(had the strengths of both). Each fighter was almost in its own bay that would limit ordinance issues.