C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[TCD]

I'll second Zincat on this.  I really, really don't like that sort of restriction on systems totally independent of logical justification.  It smacks of special pleading.

Perhaps MarcAFK meant it can only refuel fighters? I think you could easily justify that, perhaps the 50t system doesn't have a long enough boom for larger ships? Or maybe just a different size of refueling nozzle. On that basis maybe the big 500t system shouldn't be able to refuel fighters either, they could either need a hanger or a specialized small craft refueling module.

[bean]

Perhaps MarcAFK meant it can only refuel fighters? I think you could easily justify that, perhaps the 50t system doesn't have a long enough boom for larger ships? Or maybe just a different size of refueling nozzle. On that basis maybe the big 500t system shouldn't be able to refuel fighters either, they could either need a hanger or a specialized small craft refueling module.

That makes slightly more sense, but I'm still opposed.  A 50t module that has 10% (or even a bit less) of the delivery rate of the 500t one would add a fair number of options to the game which I would like to see. 

[83athom]

I think people are forgetting that hangars would still refuel fighters a lot faster than a 50 ton "fighter refuel only" system.

[ryuga81]

I think people are forgetting that hangars would still refuel fighters a lot faster than a 50 ton "fighter refuel only" system.

I don't think that mounting hangars on fighters in order to refuel other fighters would be a good idea

We are not discussing the fact that hangars and carriers are vastly superior in logistics, but that you might often need a "range extender" for your fighters, for whatever reason (i.e. you don't want to risk your carriers, moving the entire fleet would cost too much fuel, you want to keep the bulk of your fleet somewhere else etc.), and a full fledged tanker might not be a good idea (far easier to spot).

[83athom]

but that you might often need a "range extender" for your fighters, for whatever reason (i.e. you don't want to risk your carriers, moving the entire fleet would cost too much fuel, you want to keep the bulk of your fleet somewhere else etc.), and a full fledged tanker might not be a good idea (far easier to spot).

Have you ever heard of "light carriers" or "escort carriers" in sci-fi or irl? They are specifically made to be put forward of the main carriers to be a range extender without putting a lot of resources so far forward.

[QuakeIV]

There are carrier bourne tankers specifically because its still useful to do in-flight refuelling without having to either land the aircraft or in general send a huge warship in advance to support the mission.

You could prevent the fuel systems from working for large warships by preventing them from transferring enough fuel to realistically refuel a large platform in a meaningful time.

As far as a warship really slowly refuelling something, why not?  It seems like that could reasonably be possible.

[Iranon]

Size and fuel requirements aren't necessarily that closely correlated.
I routinely build 10000t warships that can cruise for months on 0.2-1HS of fuel, that sort of thing will only become more attractive (albeit with a few more small tanks, to have some reserve and avoid complete loss of fuel from battle damage).

[bean]

Have you ever heard of "light carriers" or "escort carriers" in sci-fi or irl? They are specifically made to be put forward of the main carriers to be a range extender without putting a lot of resources so far forward.

Not in IRL.  I don't know of a single case in which any carrier was used as a forward base for airplanes from other carriers.  I'm not saying it absolutely never happened, but it's rare enough that it definitely wasn't standard.  Light carriers are basically just smaller, cheaper (and, most importantly, faster-building) fleet carriers, while escort carriers were intended to serve as second-line carriers, initially to escort convoys, and later as providers of replacement aircraft and air support for amphibious landings.

[QuakeIV]

Size and fuel requirements aren't necessarily that closely correlated.
I routinely build 10000t warships that can cruise for months on 0.2-1HS of fuel, that sort of thing will only become more attractive (albeit with a few more small tanks, to have some reserve and avoid complete loss of fuel from battle damage).

I'd argue the ability to use virtually no fuel for larger ships is its own problem.

Forcing people to use massively overbuilt fuel systems to refill super-effecient vessels isn't really going to fix that.

[alex_brunius]

Have you ever heard of "light carriers" or "escort carriers" in sci-fi or irl? They are specifically made to be put forward of the main carriers to be a range extender without putting a lot of resources so far forward.

Can you mention which sci-fi you have seen them used that way in? Because that is for sure not how light carriers or escort carriers were ever used irl...

IRL the fast and big fleet CVs always were the most forward operating aggressive ones with the mission to strike behind enemy lines and hit their fleet ( for example Pearl Harbour ).

Light or Escort carriers main roles was shipping aircraft from home to the front, securing sealanes versus submarines, and acting as "backup" carriers to protect fleets and assets when there were no real carriers available (most of the time  because the big CVs were away hitting the enemy further forward ).

[Black]

One of the Starfire books - In Death Ground have this. They used their carriers to cycle fighters from star base to replenish their life support systems and rearm them because they would not be able to reach hostile fleet on their own. But I think that it was one time thing.

I think that specialised module to refuel fighters should be available, we can do it in real life, so I don't see a reason why it should not be available in Aurora.

Maybe if it would be possible to change fighter loadouts, for example to add additional fuel tanks for long range mission, then it would not be necessary to have fighter tankers.

[alex_brunius]

One of the Starfire books - In Death Ground have this. They used their carriers to cycle fighters from star base to replenish their life support systems and rearm them because they would not be able to reach hostile fleet on their own. But I think that it was one time thing.

That's not the usage we are looking for here. That just sounds like a variant on normal Carrier Ops ( the entire point of normal Carrier Ops is to reach an enemy that can't be reached from stationary "land" bases ).

What I mean is launching Fighters from Large Strike CVs, then refueling them on forward light/escort CVs specifically to extend the range.

[Felixg]

I'll second Zincat on this.  I really, really don't like that sort of restriction on systems totally independent of logical justification.  It smacks of special pleading.

No it doesn't.

There is a reason you don't use this http://www.nmeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gas-pump-regulations-for-people-with-disabilities.jpg to transfer fuel from one of these http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/tanker-lng-image101.jpg to this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CXYSu1Rw394/maxresdefault.jpg

[alex_brunius]

No it doesn't.

There is a reason you don't use this http://www.nmeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gas-pump-regulations-for-people-with-disabilities.jpg to transfer fuel from one of these http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/tanker-lng-image101.jpg to this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CXYSu1Rw394/maxresdefault.jpg

Just for fun I did the math.

Assumptions: A normal refueling hose for gasoline cars have a capacity of around 1 liter per second. We want to refuel a USS Iowa class battleship from 10% to full using a single one.

Fuel Capacity of USS Iowa: 8,501,867 liters ( Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html )

To get it from 10% to 100% would require 7,651,680 seconds = 127,528 minutes = 2,125 hours = ~88.6 days


The USS Iowa actually have a fuel Endurance of between 42 and 6.5 days, so it could be kept topped up if constantly connected to a dedicated tanker with between 2 to 14 hoses depending on speed ( and assuming there was a tanker able to keep up with it! ).

[ryuga81]

I like the current draft where refueling system is 500t. It's a good balance for such a critical system, I think.

I don't want something that is going to be stuck on every single ship just because it is small. 500t is perfect, you're not going to stick that on every ship. If it was 50t, you WOULD stick it on every ship.

As a matter of fact, having a warship in need of refueling, and no tanker available (i.e. because it was destroyed on the way or whatever), and absolutely no other way to refuel it is very bad. I actually believe all ships should be able to transfer fuel (albeit at a very slow rate) in case of emergency.

I mean, if a current navy carrier was stranded somewhere without fuel, for whatever reason, and there was only its escort (destroyers, whatever) available and no dedicated tankers in sight, i'm pretty sure they would find a way to refuel the carrier despite not having dedicated tanker equipment (even if it meant manually ferrying barrels around with boats).