"Carriers and space fighters" Topic

So, assuming that most most SF space craft carrying ships ("Carriers") don't need long landing strips for recovering and launching "space fighters" (and "bombers", etc.,) for operations what seems "best" for launching and recovering such craft?

1) Launch Tubes (though this seems more "one way" but I guess with enough computing power on ship and craft recovery is possible – launching still seems easy compared to recovery… fast but a miscalculation resulting in spacecraft/tube walls would be akin to taking a major "hit" from the enemy

2) Launch Bays – where doors/valves open for craft exit/enter – safer, possibly slower then tubes, represents a opening to allow enemy ordnance to enter the ships interior

3) Exterior mounts/attachment points – very fast mass launches, risks damage to launch craft that being interior to the ship would reduce, I suspect recovery would be difficult,/prone to accident/and difficult for damaged ships or injured crews to execute

So, handwavium aside, what seems the best way to launch recover space craft or battle riders from "carriers" in design?

And what models best represent that?

I like the landing/launch strips on many miniatures/models out there – Brigade Models, GZG, and so on – currently but it makes matching size of carrier with landing decks/strips and size of space fighters, etc., problematic. YMMV.

I think launch pods (i.e. a single small launch bay for each fighter) would save the most space, allow quick deployment, and with some sort of magnetic grappling arm, allow for reasonably quick recovery. B5 sort of had this.

No ideas about models though, I guess you could just use any ship and call it a carrier then.

Having said that, TOS BSG's launch tubes were the coolest.

How real is the physics in your universe?

Launch Tubes makes sense as you have protection for the fighters, a small target to be damaged and a chance for the fighter to get up to speed.

A number of recovery platforms also make sense as this too is a small surface area target and the platform can recede into the ship elevator style.

If you launhc in tubes recovery could be easier by having a recovery bay. I'm thinking a large aft opening you land the fighter in. Then it is prepped and put in a tube for relaunch.

"Landing decks" on space ships look really cool but for the most part make no sense. That said, I'm planning to own a bunch in my fleets :-)

Launch tubes with landing bays. You can launch fast and recovery takes a little longer.

If anyone has seen StarBlazers/Space Cruiser Yamato you can see how Space Carriers work and I like it like it works there.

As ever, it's the balance between cool and believable.

Launching is easier, and at launch time your concern is going to be how quick you can get a couple squadrons off. That leans towards individual systems like tubes or pods.

At landing time the concern is going to be damaged craft, craft with very low fuel, and craft with injured crew. Some very fancy things are possible, but whatever you like should either work even if the carrier and fighters have had some battle damage or there should be a backup system.

Tractor beams solve a lot of problems, but not everyone wants/has them.

One element of realism I haven't seen anyone deal concerns the difference in velocities. You need to end your process with the carrier and fighter having the same velocity (that is, direction and speed). With naval carriers two things make this easy – the aircraft are moving much, much faster than the ship and the aircraft have air to help them change direction faster. In space the carrier might be moving as fast as the fighters, and when the fighters want to match course and speed they can't use control surfaces, burning fuel is the only way to change velocity.

Given that, a really slick landing system would be one that operated from any direction. Imagine a 200 meter diameter nerf ball. The fighters can run into it from any direction, regardless of current damage, and their velocity matches the carrier's more or less immediately without the expenditure of fuel or time. And you can land a bunch at once, no need to get one craft off the deck to make room for the next.

Obviously you want something less silly, but you see the advantages. Maybe a spherical force field, a circular flight deck that can be landed on from any direction.

Love the Nerf ball idea!

I'm a fan of Launch/Landing Bays. Not that hard to model (or imply), and won't look completely ridiculous like the landing strips (seriously? In space? In microgravity? Huh?).

BSG was always cool, in both versions, and SAAB had a great concept with the USS Saratoga, if problematic for ship repair/reload.

My concept would be a bay that is entered from one side and exited from the other, like a covered landing strip. Assume the bay has magnetic repulsion/attraction systems that operate like the aircraft capture lines (for recovery) and catapults on launch. That way the carrier has some of the control over the velocity of the landing vessel, if it's damaged or the crew is incapacitated. Call it the Nerf Ball idea, but as a force-field/velocity dampener field as opposed to a physical thing. Pretty much the way a real carrier works, just with fancier tech. Also, perhaps the bays themselves can alter orientation for recovery. After all, the ship itself can yaw and spin, too. Give the bays a little flexibility, and the fighters can come in at a wide array of angles for landing. Maybe not 360, but a pretty descent "recovery cone," as it were.

(P.S.: Anybody else flashback on trying to line up your ship with the spinning landing bay slot in Elite? Cue "Blue Danube…" )

Well not being a believer in the use of fighters in space combat, one way missiles are a much better idea. That said do you really need launch bays? No one is sneaking up on you in space. You see an enemy several days to weeks away depending on propulsion systems. You can plan your intercept and recovery with lots of time to plan. You can use one launch tube to get your fighters up to the speed you need so that they all arrive at the same time on target.

Of course the only way to recover them will be if you win the fight. Since the fighters now must reverse thrust and build up velocity again to turn around and come back. The enemy will probably already have engaged your fleet. Then there is the problem if you win, the fighters have to slow down again and change direction again. Which means they are probably nothing but fuel tanks with not much armament.

Probably better just to launch fighters, let them fight and continue on. Then your fleets fight and pass by each other and pick up fighters on the other side. Do recover and repair battle damage and turn fleets around and do again. Sort of like knights jousting, one way passes. But how exciting would this game be.

Personally, I think the old landing pads on a ship is best, at least in terms of simplicity. Basically, like separate little lily pads spread out evenly over the structure of a ship.

They are a bit more exposed to enemy fire though, so the carriers need to either avoid direct combat with others, or expect losses.

Certainly less expensive to build the carriers using this model.

Launch bays are obviously more protected, and keeping the fighters stored internally aids repair and maintenance work, though the launch/landing bays are very vulnerable to accidents and enemy action.

Can't recall the old Starship range that does the "lily pad" type vessels, but suspect someone will be along shortly to provide that info. They make a very wide range of vessels, and are one of the oldest lines of great looking starship models produced.

Mako11, I think you are referring to the StarDate 3000 range from Valiant Enterprises
link

Here is their Federation Attack Carrier

Well not being a believer in the use of fighters in space combat, one way missiles are a much better idea.

Been hearing how drones will replace human fighters/bombers/etc. for… decades but still they have a use. While no one really knows what combat will be like in 2500 AD I suspect war gamers (who make up the majority of the people reading TMP I suspect) like fighters for the cool factor.

You guys are missing some points to consider. First, modern navies have VTOL, STOL and V/STOL aircraft that reduce the need to accelerate to nothing for takeoff. Second, the need for modern aircraft to accelerate/decelerate has to do with how the operate, i.e. air flow. Lastly, unless a launch tube produces additional movement points, there is no real reason for it in space. A flight deck or bays would really suffice, as would fighter racks.

All that said, I still like all of the examples you are asking about.

Actually, TSR, that's not the one I was thinking about, but is another good example.

The other range had some very triangular, Star Wars-esque vessels, as well as lots of other complex shapes. Some really large capital ships, and a nice selection of smaller vessels too, in addition to small, individual fighters.

They probably also date back to the late 1970s – early 1980s era.

Galactic Knights, now, apparently. Used to be Super Galactic Dreadnaughts, produced by Superior Miniatures.

Each of the light gray circles below, is a spacefighter launch/landing pad.

See here for a lot more images of the various factions:

link

Nerf balls are Go!!!

Seriously though, given the sppeds and ranges of the big ships, are fighters even going to be viable? There is no "other medium" – aka air, not water – in space that the fighters can use to go 10x as fast as the ships

Every time I look at the physics of space combat I get back to pre aircraft carrier warfare where the "aircraft" are actually quite big, like torpedo boat destroyers were. They still operate in squadrons but have enough oomph to be indepenedent albeit shorter rangs vessels.

But I guess they will still need a mothership to feed and water them, its just that they may be quite big so this ship is mote like a flying docking station.

Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk aboard USS Macon

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the airship method of launching and recovering fighters. It's not very practical in the atmosphere, but should work okay in space.

Edit

Canadarm aboard NASA Space Shuttle

A robotic arm would probably help things along considerably.

Ron

TIE launch bay?

Note the "loading conveyor" that apparently pulls the TIEs from some sort of storage area.

But I like the Sparrowhawk idea. You have a series of "hook-in" points on the surface of the carrier. The fighter hooks on and is pulled inside, then conveyed to a hangar/repair-reload bay. Retrieval system is then ready for another fighter. A few hooks could serve a large fleet of craft efficiently and quickly, especially if a continuous conveyer approach is used. Think of the cars in some continuous amusement park rides. The conveyer system (theoretically) never stops, and individual cars can be diverted off to a side track for repair without interrupting the flow. So a launch system could be sort of a cross between a bay and a pod and a conveyer belt.

I see no mention of the EarthForce fighter launch bays from Babylon 5:

YouTube link

They just drop out of their holes like bats out of a cave….

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

I like catapults/launch tubes and recovery bays for small craft.

Catapults to prevent the small craft's engines from damaging the carrier, and a simple open area for the small craft to match vectors and drift into a "landing".

For bigger stuff like "battle riders" (maybe 10 per ship instead of dozens to hundreds), external docking.

The bays on Babylon 5 however require a rotating grav section. A "luxury" which few space operas can afford.

Something that might better fit other shows is the launching system from the Excalibur in Babylon 5 Crusade, where a shelf of 6 or so fighters dropped down and the fighters thrusted off from that instead.

In one of the Halo computer games (3, I think), the fighter you pilot drops onto the outer hull of an immobilized enemy Corvette ship (so you can get out and whack the crew to shut off the forcefield…) …that allows the transport to filter through a forcefield wall into a landing bay.

In one of the new BattleStar Galactica episodes (no idea which), some sort of transport held Vipers in a line behind doors number 1 and 2, which rotated open to launch the fighters. It was some sort of sneaky ploy to fool the bot-brains…

I like catapults/launch tubes and recovery bays for small craft.

Me, too, although I like the Nerfball analogy, which has been used using magnetic/gravimetric/technospeak-ic techy tech to decelerate/launch. Also used as a sneak-attack commando entry point to explode the techy-tech bingo-bomb next to the super-concentrated fueltech for a mighty big boom.

All good stuff!

If your universe has some sort of realistic limitations on fuel then any extra velocity imparted by a launch system would be *very* desirable to eek out that precious delta-v. That would indicate some sort of catapult system to help give the small craft that extra oomph. It also has the benefit of throwing them clear of the mother ship before they light off their own drives. I suspect that missiles might very well use a similar system.

-Will

"The bays on Babylon 5 however require a rotating grav section. A "luxury" which few space operas can afford."

I thought the launch bays in B5 were outside of the rotating section?

@Bob: No, the Starfury bays are on the arms that connect the sphere of the Ops section to the cylinder of the habitation section.

YouTube link

Season 4 of B5 has an episode where four Black Omega Star Furies launch from a transport. Basically, the ship with the SF's horizon the same as the transport, but when the launch, the support arms rotate 90 degrees and may eject them. This could be achieved with compressed air.

"@Bob: No, the Starfury bays are on the arms that connect the sphere of the Ops section to the cylinder of the habitation section."

But the arms themselves don't rotate. The rotating section of the station rotates beneath them.

"The bays on Babylon 5 however require a rotating grav section. A "luxury" which few space operas can afford."

Um, why? Babylon 5 didn't have much of a problem with ships incorporating rotating grav sections:

The earlier 2010 movie the same as far as incorporating rotating grav sections:

So again, why not?

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

@Bob: There are two sets of arms on Bab5. One set is stationary, and is what the solar panels attach to. The arms where the Starfury bays are rotate with the command and hab sections.

I'm striking out trying to find the ONE scene from the series (probably in season 1) where you see the Starfuries drop out and the camera turns around fast enough to catch the last of the 6 fighters in that bay as it leaves the hatch, complete with said hatch moving as the grav section spins.