Nebulon-Bs and Fighters?

[Alyeska]

I was always under the impression that the fighters can be stored above and below the docking bay itself. The bay is just how the fighters launch and land. Not where they are stored. Look at X-Wing Alliance how it depicts storage to the sides on the docking bay in a Mon Cal.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Or SW ICS on the TIE racks located on a rail system to be moved to a launch hangar.

[Alyeska]

Still doesn't really say where the non racked fighters would go.

[McC]

Here's another look.

Nebulon-B length: 300m (known)
Nebulon-B height: 164m (extrapolated from EGVV scan; includes antennae)
Nebulon-B height: 400 px (in comparison image)

Diagram scale: 400 px / 164 m ~ 2.44 px/m

TIE length: 6.08m (known)
Scaled TIE length: 6.08m * 2.44 px/m ~ 15px



Unless the EGVV diagram is inaccurate (which it may actually be -- that front profile doesn't look quite right), then the proposed storage scheme from Straha's source can work, although it would indeed take up most of the entire upper bulb area.

Unless the starfighters are supposed to fill the entire upper bulb structure, I don't see how this is possible.

So is that it? Are they supposed to fill up the entire structure? For some reason, that doesn't strike me as making sense for this ship...but then again, all the evidence points towards it...

[Sharp-kun]

If I remember well, in the game Tie fighter (battle 2, mission 4), two Lambdas docked with each other, and they faced vertically.

That was more to do with the game engine though. It couldn't do docking any other way

[vakundok]

If I remember well, in the game Tie fighter (battle 2, mission 4), two Lambdas docked with each other, and they faced vertically.

That was more to do with the game engine though. It couldn't do docking any other way

Sorry, it seems that I wasn't quite clear. My main point was that in the story of the game, two lambdas docked, so the lambda shuttles are capable to dock with other ships. How they did it was nearly unimportant (and game engine- dependent).

Other thing:
Two squads of Tie fighters could fit, but as I know, the official carrier capability of a Nebulon- B is not reduced for the larger rebell starfighters.

[McC]

I have serious doubts about the ability of a Nebulon-B to fit two dozen X-wings. Two dozen A-wings maybe, but X-wings are considerably larger in bounding-box dimensions than TIEs.

[Macross]

In the Wraith squadrom books they managed to fit a whole squadron inside a Corelian Corvette. So whats the hold of a Corvet like compared to a Frigates?

IIRC, the consensus back then was that that was a different model corvette because it's physically impossible to pack 9 or so X-Wings in a Blockade Runner hammerhead.

Even the author has stated that it was a differant type of Corvette, not the one seen in the movies. I believe this information can be found in FAQ on his web-site.

[Kuja]

Unless the starfighters are supposed to fill the entire upper bulb structure, I don't see how this is possible.

So is that it? Are they supposed to fill up the entire structure? For some reason, that doesn't strike me as making sense for this ship...but then again, all the evidence points towards it...

It would explain why the bridge is something like 3/4ths down the bow pylon instead of at the nose.

[Knife]

Unless the starfighters are supposed to fill the entire upper bulb structure, I don't see how this is possible.

So is that it? Are they supposed to fill up the entire structure? For some reason, that doesn't strike me as making sense for this ship...but then again, all the evidence points towards it...

It would explain why the bridge is something like 3/4ths down the bow pylon instead of at the nose.

Good point, however, stuffing the 'bulb' area with the actual fighters leaves little room left in the entire ship for the necessary equipment to service those fighters, let alone ships systems and crew compliment.

[McC]

Furthermore, the EGVV lists that forward bulb area as freshwater tanks, which is in direct contradiction to the RPG diagram. On the other hand, the EGVV described Redemption, which we already know to have been heavily modified, so perhaps this isn't a direct contradiction after all...

But Knife's point about necessary servicing equipment still holds.

[Dirty Harry]

I'm looking at strathas image now, and apparently Deck 5 does have a machine shop and some storage areas. Could the repair stores that Knife and Mcc are talking about be stored here?

The TIEs would seem to be serviced in the racks since I carn't see a level of the ship given over to maintaince.

[hvb]

The TIEs would seem to be serviced in the racks since I carn't see a level of the ship given over to maintaince.

... and maybe major servicing that requires partial disassembly of a fighter (including repair of fighters with major battle damage) must be done in the actual hangar, taking half of the hangar deck out of service for launch/landing purposes (2 Ties can fit in the hangar, so one could be serviced there without totally crippeling the carrier).


This is of course not optimal, as it will take the Neb-B out of the carrier business if it ever recovers two badly damaged Ties (until they are repaired or given up and pusked overboard), but there you go, if you want a carrier on such small scale compromises have to be made.

note also that acct. the racking diagrams for garrison bases, the T/Bomber takes up ~1½ standard rack space, so the 25 racks on deck5 allows for only 2 T/B in the mix unless the hangar itself is used for storage of fighters. if two T/B are on the hangar floor, then you can have 6 T/B out of 24 Ties carried, but must first launch the two T/B before other fighters can launch! (or you could carry those on external cradles).


Now as to the X-/A-/Y-wing conversion: they all appear to be at most ~3m or so high, whereas the Tie is 7.6m-7.76m acct. Saxton. Thus the Tie storage deck could concievably be converted into two decks for storage of these ships (with minimal headroom, possibly requiring crews to board the craft on the hangar deck after they are retrieved from the racks, limiting the ship to two ready fighters ... plus any traveling on their own hyperdrives).
This limits the problem to finding space for 12 fighters per deck, easily done for the A-wing but problematic for the X- and especially Y-wing.

My guess (without taking pencil & paper and drawing it up) would be that in a such scheme 6 fighters on each deck must be A-wings in order to allow another 6 fighters on the deck of the other two types. The B-wing would be even worse, they could possibly fit on a twin-deck, but are so large that 4 would fill the deck.
So: no B-wings if you want 2 squadrons, and one of the two squadrons must most likely be of A-wings for it to work. But under those restraints it seems possible.

Of course with this cramped storage arrangement even small repairs will be a nightmare.

[Dirty Harry]

The TIEs would seem to be serviced in the racks since I carn't see a level of the ship given over to maintaince.

... and maybe major servicing that requires partial disassembly of a fighter (including repair of fighters with major battle damage) must be done in the actual hangar, taking half of the hangar deck out of service for launch/landing purposes (2 Ties can fit in the hangar, so one could be serviced there without totally crippeling the carrier).


This is of course not optimal, as it will take the Neb-B out of the carrier business if it ever recovers two badly damaged Ties (until they are repaired or given up and pusked overboard), but there you go, if you want a carrier on such small scale compromises have to be made.

Your following my line of thinking here. How much longer are Rebel fighter types then Imperial ones. Also how much more complex mechanically are they (all of them have shields systems and warhead launchers, some have hyperdrives as well). How much more difficult would it be to perform a major system overhaul or repair job in so little space

Does anyone else think that the Nebulon-B may have been rushed into service. Maybe the loss of the Death star 1 and rebel attacks on convoys really scared the shit out of the Imperial navy brass, so they wanted a cap ship, any cap ship to haul fighters to counter this treat.

[beyond hope]

My understanding was that the Empire primarily uses it as a convoy escort. In that role, couldn't the ship just store any heavily damaged starfighter it doesn't have the capacity to repair? Presumably the convoys would be moving from base to base, and it could draw fresh TIEs at the next stop on the route and offload the damaged ones via tractor beam (or an escort carrier could be used as a resupply craft.) If a convoy drew more serious Rebel attention and the Nebulon-B's fighter screen was seriously degraded, it would likely be reinforced by other capital ships anyway.

[hvb]

OK, went home last night and did some work in "Paint" so I have some errata for my post on the XYAB-wing capacity of the twin-deck variant:

first off of course the deck height on both decks would be more like 3.5m rather then 3m; with a .6m-.76m deckplate & between-decks thickness.
It is still cramped, but hopefully sufficient; I must assumed so for my twin-deck design anyway.

If anyone would host my Paint pic (1,31 MB) / tell me how I get Wong to do so on this page give me a hint; here is a rundown of my sketches in words:

A-Wings: each triplet of Tie racks can be replaced by an A-W pair on each deck for 16-17 A-W per deck: 2 squadrons of them is no problem, and there will be ample room for repair space on the deck (although headroom may well prove a problem ).

X-Wings: a row of 4 at the port, nose toward starboard, well interspaced;
a row of 3 nose to port inserted between, with cannon-tips a few meters from the leading edge of the port row's X-foils (and vise versa).
Repeat with a row of 3 facing starboard staggered with 2 facing port.
This arrangement leaves space for a pair of A-W close to the hangar bay lift OR (better) for one of the X-W to be disassembled in the same area, allowing whatever maintainance that doesn't require headroom for 1 fighter at a time.

B-Wings: at a stated 16,9m length, they are actually fairly packageable.
By putting 1 at the stern bulkhead facing bowward I can fit 3 rows facing starboard: two of 4 and one of 3; for a full squadron. this requires a bit more cramping of the hulls then I would like (i.e. more then the TIE racks) without enough leftover space anywhere to squeece a TIE (let alone an A-W) in edgewise. The height constraint worries me too.

Y-Wings: (a used a very conservative width of 12m, which may be erring too far to the side of caution...) Anyway:
Putting one at the port stern bulkhead facing starboard and staggering starboard and port facing (noses just squeecing 2-3m in between the engines in the other row) I can fit in 6 and still have room for 2 A-W in the rounded front port corner; another 3 A-W can be fitted along the starboard bulkhead facing forward; a 6th and last A-W can be put in the starboard stern opposite the first Y-W. Again this is rather cramped, but hopefully because I used a too wide Y-W sketch.

In conclusion to the above: 12 Y-Wings can only be carried if the other 12 are A-Wings (unless a narrower Y-W fit shows otherwise). Otherwise any combination of squadrons (A-, B- & X-W) can be carried. All options allow for some additional low-headroom repair space other then the hangar bay itself, where most major repairs will likely have to take place.


beyond hope: Yes indeed the Neb-B could carry the damaged craft to a port and replace them. WWII aircraft carriers usually just pitched too-damaged craft overboard to clear the deckspace and reduce the danger of fire, though.

The issue with the "let som garrison base handle the repair logistics" approach is that if that was the intent, then the Neb-B might as well carry the TIEs on external cradles/hard-/docking-points, rather then allocate space internally, other then a 1-2 fighter small-repairs bay.
If packed too tightly it would still carry the fighter craft, but would not serve as a carrier for them in the normal sense of the word (including major refit/repair like engine change facilities, not just wiping the cockpit & changing the oil/Tibanna ).

This is a weaker form of the difference between a true aircraft carrier and designs like the WWI/II era idea of putting a fighter catapult on a battleship/freighter that was unable to recover the spotter/fighter plane, thus making launching it a one-shot deal (often for the pilot as well, more's the pity).

[hvb]

OK, went home, again again, and looked through som material for a better Y-Wing silhuette.

With that in hand I found it possible to fit 12 Y-Ws on the deck space available, with excess space left for a single A-W on the deck as well.

I also edited my X-W silhuette to a "worst case compromise" from the available sources, leaving only space for 1 A-W with the 12 X-Ws.

Lastly I attempted to put 24 A-W on a single deck, which I found possible only by breaking with my rule of keeping an least 1 meter hull-hull / bulkhead-hull spacing (as the TIE racks does in the original image) between (only) two of the A-Ws; thus a possible 4 squadrons of A-W could be carried, although the extra space would as before be better used for repair/maintainance.

[Robert Treder]

PM Mike; he should be able to host the pics for you.

[McC]

The first of HVB's images is here. Went from a 1.3 MB bmp to a 27 KB GIF

[YT300000]

The problem is, there is no way in hell that would work. You need (as a rule of thumb) at least 3 times as much space as the ship takes up around it (what with access for repair crews, turning space, etc.)

[Dirty Harry]

What the height of the hangar bay itself? Is there sufficient clearance for a fighter at the back of the bay to use it repulsors to clear all the other parked birds and launch?. If not, imagine if the ship closest to the exit to the hangar bay could move, all the others would be trapped.

[Isolder74]

What the height of the hangar bay itself? Is there sufficient clearance for a fighter at the back of the bay to use it repulsors to clear all the other parked birds and launch?. If not, imagine if the ship closest to the exit to the hangar bay could move, all the others would be trapped.

They would be until the outside bird had launched. Using tractor beams and other ship contols would also help it to work. since it only took one layer to store the ties it shows us that it obviously designed to be used by tie fighters. This might explain why the Rebels would turn it into a medical frigate rather than make use of its hanger. It is obvious they do not have many of the ships and those that they do have are not using 2 squadrons.

[hvb]

True the clearance/headroom is indeed problematic:

the single deck TIE scheme I send McC today will have a similar problem, as the deck is likely to be no higher then ~8m.

This gives less then 4m in the two deck schemes, so as an X-W is ~3.6m high (acct. ACSW&T) and the B-W is likely to be as thick as well we have a serious problem ... and that is not including landing gear, so they have to be in some sort of cradle system along the ceiling with gear retracted.
This problem is still severe for the ~3.1m high A-W, and the Y-W is somewhere in between, so ships closer to the hangar lift/hole have to leave either by their own power or otherwise to clear the way. To reverse the order of ships in the bay they will have to launch ~1/3 of them to make room for shuffling.

This is not good, we can agree, but the ship was not initially intended as a *-W carrier but as a TIE carrier: they are a bit smaller, and the difference shows. Major repairs/maintainance would have to be done in the hangar itself (not shown in the GIF) and two craft could be stored there while minor maintainance is pulled on them and on the craft on the deck they came from, then be wedged back in and the other deck be maintained in the same fasion.
The best solution is to have 1 deck of 12 A-W plus a few (say 2) of the other squadrons XYB-Ws to make room on the other deck, and place a further 2 non-A-W in the hangar, thus freeing some deck space for minor maintainance on both decks. If the hanger needs to be kept empty the decks would then be stacked more densely, as shown in the GIF.


The TIE schemes also suffer somewhat from deckspace limitations, although more because I included a TIE shuttle and a TIE landing craft in the mix then for other reasons.
This I did because this is supposed to be a guess at what the real Imperial Starfleet/Navy would carry, not some fanboy-wank-all-TIE defenders scheme , and the ability to perform boardings and transfer crew is a genuine need that must be met in some fashion; so I chose the minimal craft-mix that would accomplish this. (McC should have a link to the image of this up some time soon).

[McC]

Image here.