Nebulon-B Hangar

This is the place for chit chat! Everything goes even Star Trek! Just make sure to buy the Moderator a drink!

Re: Nebulon-B Hangar

The Saxman
Admiral (Moderator)
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am

Post by The Saxman » Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:02 pm

The Medical facilities on Redemption occupy a lot less of the interior volume than the flight deck (which as I noted wipes out the entirety of the officers' quarters) and hangar (which occupies a LOT more space than the surgical areas on the Medical Frigate).
GQyu1[1].png
I mean you can kind of get a sense of it here.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Rich C
Lieutenant
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2001 12:01 am

Post by Rich C » Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:08 pm

Will T wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:06 pm
magic science fields that can... keep air in.
Just wanted to point out that this can actually be done, though it's a bit too energy-intensive for everyday use. :geek:

Plasma Window
"If you're going through hell, keep going."

User avatar
Phoenix Leader
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Post by Phoenix Leader » Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:15 pm

We are probably focused too much on the FRG Redemption.
I suggest taking a look at the FRG Far Orbit, even though it only appears in Legends Star Wars.
It's also a Wookieepedia featured article and all the decks are described in detail: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Far_Orbit

User avatar
Epsilon Eridani
Cadet 3rd Class
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:57 am

Post by Epsilon Eridani » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:33 pm

FRG Far Orbit is Legends Star Wars, so it still carries 24 TIE fighters according to The Far Orbit Project, a WEG Legends source published in 1998.

User avatar
DTM
Fleet Admiral (Administrator)
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by DTM » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:43 am

A curiosity about the ability to host small-scale aircrafts: the Boing 747 AAC concept

Image

Personally, I think this was just a propaganda project. In fact, he never entered the experimental phase.
I think the USS Akron and USS Macon airships projects were more interesting:

Image


There is also the Japan I-400 submarine:

Image

User avatar
ual002
XWAU Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am

Post by ual002 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:32 am

The sub analogy is spot on.
Image Image Image Image Image

The Saxman
Admiral (Moderator)
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am

Post by The Saxman » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:58 pm

ual002 wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:32 am
The sub analogy is spot on.
Except only three were built, only two actually put to sea, and they were never used operationally.

User avatar
DTM
Fleet Admiral (Administrator)
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by DTM » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:56 pm

The Japanese I-400 project was not completed, because at that time the Japanese navy had to change its priorities, moving on to a defensive strategy. Fortunatly!
A submarine aircraft carrier does not have the capabilities of a traditional aircraft carrier, in fact the I-400 project could have had a chance of success only if all the fifteen naval units had been completed:
this small fleet, capable of diving to avoid enemy reconnaissance, would have to secretly bring 45 bomber fighters into the Atlantic Ocean, for a single surprise attack action. Hit and fade. In full style "Rebel Alliance" ;)

The Saxman
Admiral (Moderator)
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am

Post by The Saxman » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:27 pm

I think you're being overly optimistic. Allied ASW tactics were annihilating Japan's submarine force, so the likelihood of the I-400 boats even reaching their launch points was pretty slim. The fact the boats had to surface to launch and recover their aircraft added an additional window window of vulnerability. Also keep in mind that even the logistics would have made such an operation improbable, which is why Japan never attempted to commit its surface forces in a direct attack on the United States (excluding the Aleutians campaign) after Pearl Harbor.

The entire concept was a misconceived waste of resources from the start.

User avatar
DTM
Fleet Admiral (Administrator)
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by DTM » Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:15 pm

The entire concept was a misconceived waste of resources from the start.
Who knows? Probably, this same phrase was repeated many times to many people, who yesterday were considered only visionaries, and today we remember them as pioneers.
Memento audere semper. Audentes fortuna iuvat.

User avatar
ual002
XWAU Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am

Post by ual002 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:23 am

Its doesn't really matter if the subs weren't in mass production with that configuration, it's simply an analogy for its possibility. My head canon has always been that there are different configurations on both sides of the conflict for Neb-Bs. And the ones with starfighter compartments don't hold many, and I just sort of ignore the large squadron deployments in the games. I get that the when X-wing and TIE Fighter were released, there wasn't a ton of universe building in existence that would give players some variation in mother ships, so they used familiar sights to sell it's star warsness. But it set a precedent and I for one accept it with some minor tweaks to its usefulness and scope in my own head.
Image Image Image Image Image

Post Reply