 | | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) be (...) Why not have everything blanketed in energy weapons? IMO, no space empire can get too military oriented; the more, the better [bet the enemy wouldn't expect a turbolaser-caked freighter, especially if half its cargo is fighters]. The (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) Hahahaha! I agree... :) -- Mark Nelson Speedy's Lego Page: (URL) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) Then again, of course, it's not a freighter anymore...:) best LFB (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) What's the difference between transports and freighters? Is one armed, and the other not? I haven't been able to figure that one out.. Z (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) Freighters carry generic cargo, stored as compactly as possible for shipping. "Transports" generally carry people or machines designed for immediate deployment or comfort. "Tenders" also fall into this category. Now, what does one call a ship (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) if (...) the (...) deployment (...) a (...) filling (...) Transports can (...) purpose. (...) That makes sense. Then, I suppose, a freighter bristling with turbolasers and with a cargo bay 2/5 full with fighters can still be used as a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) especially (...) that also serves as a heavy warship doesn't need escorts. What a cool idea. Maybe I should build one. Z (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) Sure! But then it may not be a "freighter" anymore (even if it started out that way). It becomes more like the amphibious assault ships the US Navy uses today--they can carry cargo, and a lot of it, but they also carry a lot of craft and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
Granted, fighters don't generally mind what the pattern is as long as they can get in and out, and historically they haven't been aboard sea freighters because of the whole runway issue that may be irrelevant to small spacecraft. A fair number of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) Hm...I wasn't aware that had actually been implemented. I knew the option had been studied, but thought it was canned once P-51s and P-47s became available along with "Jeep" carriers (CVEs) for convoy duty. It probably was, but I can see (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
|
(...) if (...) the (...) deployment (...) a (...) filling (...) Transports can (...) purpose. (...) But what if the freighter uses trash, debris, or radiation as a weapon? Alex (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
