FA+
Shop
851
Views
Views
43
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 996 x 843
File Size 96.6 kB
Report this content
More from baroncoon
In my first version of space fighter cradle http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3733103 the loading gantry only job was to lift the fighter on and off of its cradle and to place it on its launch rail. Rather SAM like in nature. It was a multi-jointed crane type device that had to rotate the fighter 90 degrees to place it on the launch rail.
When I was building flying models and was informally learning industrial design one of the things I was taught was that the fewer the parts the better, and when possible try and get more than one function out of every element of the device. A well thought out fuel tank good. A fuel tank that also acts as a structural member better. A fuel tank that is a structural member and uses it fuel to help cool a piece of electronics from outside heat best!
In this design dispensed with having a gantry that had multiple joints and had to rotate the fighter just to get into launch position, and instead went with a straight up and out arm with a pivot on the end. The pivot is not even really necessary but it make certain that when piston on the arm pushed and released the fighter it was out and away from the carrier hull and not straight down along side of the carrier.
This design borrowed from an idea proposed for capturing hovering harrier jets that was experimented in the 1980's, and is also a tip of the hat to the launch sequence at the beginning of "Macross do you remember love". Technically a carrier could stealth launch fighters this way by releasing them with the arm and letting them drift away from the ship before the fighters activated their drive systems.
Oh, and if you are wondering. Yes in a pinch a pilot can use his or hers maneuvering thrusters to launch and return to their hanger bay. In return the launch gantry along with a couple small robotic tugs/ USVs stowed in each hanger can guide and retrieve a fighter that has sustained damage or has an injured crew member. Also the fighters due possess basic landing gear of their own, but were intended to primarily use the cradles when onboard the carriers. This way they could be locked down against sudden changes in G-load if there was a loss of artificial gravity somewhere inside the carrier hull.
When I was building flying models and was informally learning industrial design one of the things I was taught was that the fewer the parts the better, and when possible try and get more than one function out of every element of the device. A well thought out fuel tank good. A fuel tank that also acts as a structural member better. A fuel tank that is a structural member and uses it fuel to help cool a piece of electronics from outside heat best!
In this design dispensed with having a gantry that had multiple joints and had to rotate the fighter just to get into launch position, and instead went with a straight up and out arm with a pivot on the end. The pivot is not even really necessary but it make certain that when piston on the arm pushed and released the fighter it was out and away from the carrier hull and not straight down along side of the carrier.
This design borrowed from an idea proposed for capturing hovering harrier jets that was experimented in the 1980's, and is also a tip of the hat to the launch sequence at the beginning of "Macross do you remember love". Technically a carrier could stealth launch fighters this way by releasing them with the arm and letting them drift away from the ship before the fighters activated their drive systems.
Oh, and if you are wondering. Yes in a pinch a pilot can use his or hers maneuvering thrusters to launch and return to their hanger bay. In return the launch gantry along with a couple small robotic tugs/ USVs stowed in each hanger can guide and retrieve a fighter that has sustained damage or has an injured crew member. Also the fighters due possess basic landing gear of their own, but were intended to primarily use the cradles when onboard the carriers. This way they could be locked down against sudden changes in G-load if there was a loss of artificial gravity somewhere inside the carrier hull.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 996 x 843px
File Size 96.6 kB
now don't get me wrong, But in a real battle you are taking to long to deploy. Recovery and deployment should be as fast as possible. Launch tubes make for a protective and high speed way to deploy fighters and a landing bay makes for fast recovery. also in this plan how would you recovers a badly damage ship if it contact point was gone or damaged? The Drawing looks great and well thought out. Just not really practical.
In actual space battles engagements last hours from the first shots fired to the end. Possibly even days. That is if you are bound to actual laws of physics and not the 'Rule of Cool'. :p
Even if we use the engagement ranges that are most likely used if you can use manned fighters, you have as much time to deploy and recover your fighters as you have on any wet naval carrier.
Besides I'm relatively sure that these fighters would be mostly launched by dedicated carriers anyway. Perhaps by escort vessels as well, but everything else would be a waste of resources and space, where you can install more redundant life support systems, carry more reaction mass or even just add more DET or KEW weaponry.
Even if we use the engagement ranges that are most likely used if you can use manned fighters, you have as much time to deploy and recover your fighters as you have on any wet naval carrier.
Besides I'm relatively sure that these fighters would be mostly launched by dedicated carriers anyway. Perhaps by escort vessels as well, but everything else would be a waste of resources and space, where you can install more redundant life support systems, carry more reaction mass or even just add more DET or KEW weaponry.
I find it interesting that people are all hot and excited about fast deployment. Fast to what? I figured that deployment and launch could occur in less a minute. Even faster if you are willing to accept accelerated wear on the launch system. Note. That is less time than it takes to taxi an aircraft on to a current nuclear aircraft carrier catapult. Lock it in place. Raise the blast deflectors and run the engines up to full power and then launch. And a carrier carries a maximum four catapults.
Here every hanger can launch and retrieve although in peacetime you'd probably follow some procedure like starboard is now releasing and port is recovering, but that is assuming you don't also have hangers top and bottom also.
The biggest thing that slows down any deployment of fighter aircraft is getting the pilots to their planes. Except when combat is imminent most of your pilots are probably 15 minutes at least from being ready for operations. That is why you establish a layered defense far away from the carrier battle group. AEWs, Air CAP, radar picket ships, scouts all arranged to keep from having to do one those "All fighters launch at once!" routines that Hollywood loves so much.
Yes you can still get bushwacked but you try to reduce those odds. Besides if do get caught with your pants completely down your point defense and support ships are more likely to get a shot in before your fighters can scramble.
That was the one thing that was neat about the series proposal was that it tried to avoid those pitfalls in writing. Yes, there was jump capability but if I remember correctly it was not something you did willy nilly and trying to surprise the enemy by jumping into middle of their battle group was a great way to get yourself dragged before a Board of Inquiry!
Here every hanger can launch and retrieve although in peacetime you'd probably follow some procedure like starboard is now releasing and port is recovering, but that is assuming you don't also have hangers top and bottom also.
The biggest thing that slows down any deployment of fighter aircraft is getting the pilots to their planes. Except when combat is imminent most of your pilots are probably 15 minutes at least from being ready for operations. That is why you establish a layered defense far away from the carrier battle group. AEWs, Air CAP, radar picket ships, scouts all arranged to keep from having to do one those "All fighters launch at once!" routines that Hollywood loves so much.
Yes you can still get bushwacked but you try to reduce those odds. Besides if do get caught with your pants completely down your point defense and support ships are more likely to get a shot in before your fighters can scramble.
That was the one thing that was neat about the series proposal was that it tried to avoid those pitfalls in writing. Yes, there was jump capability but if I remember correctly it was not something you did willy nilly and trying to surprise the enemy by jumping into middle of their battle group was a great way to get yourself dragged before a Board of Inquiry!
As I was saying, I meant no disrespect. Just a different of opinion. To me, doors, and moving arms seems to offer a weak point. and I would never suggest you change your idea just because someone has a different opinion. I simply offered mine and was interested in your thoughts on it.
Ohhh, engineer discussion ^^
The big problem with "space" design when you don't have any up/down or areodynamic limits on design.
Design like the fighter from babylon 5 goes pure ballistic with its engine placement.
Spacefighters nowadays still have wayyy to much macross in em. :D ;)
But for ship deployment the best scene i can remember atm is the dropp sequence from http://impstherelentless.com/tek9.asp?pg=chapter2 at 6:30 (sadly they added a noisy background music now - the old version was better)
The big problem with "space" design when you don't have any up/down or areodynamic limits on design.
Design like the fighter from babylon 5 goes pure ballistic with its engine placement.
Spacefighters nowadays still have wayyy to much macross in em. :D ;)
But for ship deployment the best scene i can remember atm is the dropp sequence from http://impstherelentless.com/tek9.asp?pg=chapter2 at 6:30 (sadly they added a noisy background music now - the old version was better)
IMPS is a very nice piece and that drop sequence reminds me of the starfury hanger launchers on B5. Which have always been one of my favorate designs of starfighters since the hammerheads from space above and beyond. That said the Macrosy designs are cool looking and are aerospacial fighters which adds a level of tactical flexability.
actually, this is fairly spot on for a "macross" feel. particulalry Macross Do You Remember Love, the movie version of the original story. chekc out 2:16 on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpnXSPaRyu4
Years ago I was coming up with some space warship designs of my own, the "Deity" class carriers and the "Demigod" class cruisers / battleships. (Guess what they were named after.) I hadn't looked at the small craft, but the Deities had a forward-pointing fast-launch tube and side / rear bay openings.
The US Navy has a lot of experience with aircraft launch and recovery. A space-viable variant on their system would be very workable. A large landing bay and some sort of launch catapult. Not so good if a mass launch is needed. And the 'catching' system would be a challenge to design.
If you have tractor and pressor beam technology, then the possibilities open up a lot. A smaller landing bay, with tractor and pressor beams catching and controlling the landing, then routing to a service/refuel/re-arm point, as required. The cradle you've illustrated would be good for transport and as a staging point for holding between operations. Add a lift (or drop) at the personnel hatches so the pilot (and other crew if needed) can board rapidly in combat or emergency. Launch tubes work well with pressor beams to act as the catapult. Better for mass launch scenarios. Or a single launch tube can support a group of fighters with an "auto-load sequential launch" control system. More cost effective. I would suggest hexagonal service bays, clustered in groups of six, surrounding a seventh that is the launch bay.
The other thing to think about is how much automation you have, especially for refuel and re-arm applications. A large service bay is much better if you are using manual labor, it allows the labor to shift where it's needed. Automated can work well in a large bay as well, but it is much more suitable if you want individual service/launch bays.
On a battleship or other non-dedicated carrier craft, the individual bays are workable and possibly desirable. Refuel and re-arm for these fighters is less likely to be required under combat. For large fighter operations, a dedicated carrier is much better and would be designed to do that with the highest efficiency.
If you have tractor and pressor beam technology, then the possibilities open up a lot. A smaller landing bay, with tractor and pressor beams catching and controlling the landing, then routing to a service/refuel/re-arm point, as required. The cradle you've illustrated would be good for transport and as a staging point for holding between operations. Add a lift (or drop) at the personnel hatches so the pilot (and other crew if needed) can board rapidly in combat or emergency. Launch tubes work well with pressor beams to act as the catapult. Better for mass launch scenarios. Or a single launch tube can support a group of fighters with an "auto-load sequential launch" control system. More cost effective. I would suggest hexagonal service bays, clustered in groups of six, surrounding a seventh that is the launch bay.
The other thing to think about is how much automation you have, especially for refuel and re-arm applications. A large service bay is much better if you are using manual labor, it allows the labor to shift where it's needed. Automated can work well in a large bay as well, but it is much more suitable if you want individual service/launch bays.
On a battleship or other non-dedicated carrier craft, the individual bays are workable and possibly desirable. Refuel and re-arm for these fighters is less likely to be required under combat. For large fighter operations, a dedicated carrier is much better and would be designed to do that with the highest efficiency.
I do like your technical designs! They're all very cool. This one in particular shows a great eye for detail.
I do have one question, though.... What is the orientation of the flight deck on the carrier? It appears that gravity is towards the bottom of the picture, either through artificial gravity or from engine thrust -- it looks like the overall hull is curved as in a cylindrical shape, which would put the engines to the 'left' of the picture. So that would suggest a longitudinal deck layout, like in an airplane....
I guess what I'm trying to suss out is why the fighter needs to be rotated 90-degrees at the end of its launch arm? And what the counterweight is there for?
I do have one question, though.... What is the orientation of the flight deck on the carrier? It appears that gravity is towards the bottom of the picture, either through artificial gravity or from engine thrust -- it looks like the overall hull is curved as in a cylindrical shape, which would put the engines to the 'left' of the picture. So that would suggest a longitudinal deck layout, like in an airplane....
I guess what I'm trying to suss out is why the fighter needs to be rotated 90-degrees at the end of its launch arm? And what the counterweight is there for?
Comments