launch tubes for fighter craft

Pages: 1
ghostrider
03/10/16 09:09 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am surprised that there is nothing along this line of tech that I have even heard about in the game. With the idea of large fighter carriers, I would have thought this would be something important to have on a ship.

The only thing it would do is allow storage and faster launching of fighters, with no landing capability.
The idea of limiting the amount of fighters a carrier could launch sounds backwards to me, atleast for those times when you know combat is coming up, ie before you jump into a known hostile environment.

I don't know why I haven't seen anything said about this issue before. Could be a very old idea, and I didn't look for it. I know it is not canon, but hopefully something will become of it.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/10/16 10:40 PM
172.56.7.70

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why would someone want to launch fighters that they can't recover?

I doubt you would get any fighter pilots willing to step on the ship since launching off the thing would be committing suicide.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
ghostrider
03/10/16 11:56 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The tubes themselves would not be the landing bay.
There would be another normal bay for that. This is more for being able to launch more fighters at once, so a ship with a couple of aeroregiments could actually use them in a game. The mega carrier comes to mind.

It sounds stupid to have a full regiment of fighters on a ship and not be able to get them in the air quickly.
I was thinking like battlestar galactica concept. You could still use the normal hanger for launching and landing, but get around part of the limited doors for launching the fighters. This would be dedicated to just that. Get the fighters in the air quickly. It could also be used to increase the speed at which additional fighters could be prepped and launched.

Almost like a fighter cradle that will allow a launch without moving the fighter to another area for the normal launch. Save some tonnage by not allowing it to land into the tubes, as well as not be repaired in the tube, but have them ready for emergency launches. Something the game doesn't seem to take into account, but this could still be usable in the game.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/11/16 02:31 AM
172.56.7.70

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I could see an external cradle where you launch then attach to the mother ship until needed. After a few hours you would have to detach from the cradle for resupply of air and for a rest.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Karagin
03/11/16 06:02 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Are you referring to what was shown in the Original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/11/16 01:17 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The original Battlestar came to mind at first. Though not thinking that long of a tube.
Just something that would increase the speed of deployment of fighters on a ship.
You could still use the normal hanger as normal.

The idea was to have them inside the mothership, since having something being held outside the ship would be difficult to get the pilots into the craft. Yes it would take space and weight from the ship, meaning weapons and armor may need to be dropped to do so, but the fighters are more of the offensive and defensive measures for a carrier then the main weapons. Used right, the carrier itself should never really engage in a fire fight directly.

Buck Rodgers show has something similar as well. Robotech and a few others used the same idea, so if anyone says it was a rip off of battlestar, that isn't true. I was using that as an example of the set up. Babylon 5 had something similar as well, though the entire bay was depressurized instead of each individual one.
Akirapryde2006
03/11/16 06:20 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ghost,

I think I know what you are talking about and its not a bad idea. Deploying fighters in space has little to do with lift, but you do want to get your fighters clear of the launch area.

While Buck Rodgers and Battlestar both used magnetic launch systems. I don't know if the game universe allows for such technology to be used like this. Basically, you are taking a large Naval Gauss Rifle and using it to throw your fighters off the ship.

Robotech uses a steam catapult system as seen on normal carriers. I can't begin to tell you why this wont work in space, but hey that is what Robotech uses.

My suggestion is to stick with a magnetic launch system. Build it off the Naval Gauss Rifle system, and evolve that technology and you should do well.

If memory serves, the traditional way of deploying fighters is to have the fighters expend their own fuel to get off of their carrier.

If this is still true during the dark ages of the game, then your idea Ghost is a sound idea. During WWII and through modern times fighters expended fuel during deployment. In the Mechwarrior universe, fuel is a critical resource for fighters and dropships. There are more than three examples where space battles had ended in a draw because both sides lacked the fuel to return to their own sides of the battle. So this idea of yours does have merit in saving fueling. In space, the fighters wont need to expend fuel to reach speed.

My own answer to fuel was to add In-Space Refuelers, this why I could refuel my fighters while on depoyment instead of bringing them back to the carrier. A system that has not been referenced in any novel or source material that I can think of. I wont lie, I didn't even think of your idea.

I really like the idea. If you don't mind, we could work together on building a dedicated carrier to exploit both technologies.
Karagin
03/11/16 10:31 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea would work, but what would the disadvantages be to using it? The limits on the doors means you have to be logical when you build your stuff. I posted a long time back a carrier that had over 5000 fighters on it, doesn't mean it would work or even be used and never would they get all the fighters into the fight. The ideas was funny and different and silly and just more of hey it can be do but don't expect to it to work.

So more on the pros and cons of the tubes and such I think would be a good place to start.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/12/16 01:28 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They use hatch covers for weapons on the ships. Why not a simple thing like that to cover the launch tubes?
Hell, even just having the air lock and not having a hatch outside of the ship could work, but explosions being caught in it would be brought up.

Disadvantages run from extra weight being used to build the tubes, on top of the fighter cradles, as well as possible heat build up from the exhaust.
A tube would weigh more for a generic launch tube verses one that would allow allow one specific fighter to use it, ie a tube set up for a sparrow hawk could not launch anything but a sparrow hawk. The heavier generic one could launch anything in it.
Maybe put a disadvantage that the main ship could not be under thrust while using the tubes.
If you want to be nasty, a hit on a tube might do extra damage as they are not as reinforced for damage like another portion of the ship.
It would replace the ready 5 mode, since you could basically have a belt feed to move the fighters into place, and go faster then them trying to fit out the hangers used now.


If I recall right, the battlestar ones used the fighters thrust to launch, with the lights signaling when to launch. They always hit the turbo thrusters to launch. But anything could be used. Even something as wasteful as using compressed air. It just needs to move the fighter, not get it airborne as it will be in space. It would just allow more fighters to be launched faster. Not a full hanger bay.

This was put up to see if there is some support behind the design. Suggestions work well.
I guess coming up with more would be better done if there is a reason to do it. I know I would like it, but I don't know if others would be interested in it. Might be more involved then people would want with it.
CrayModerator
03/13/16 08:08 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The idea of limiting the amount of fighters a carrier could launch sounds backwards to me, atleast for those times when you know combat is coming up, ie before you jump into a known hostile environment.



The launch-capable door rules allow a standard carrier to launch 2 fighters per turn (minute) per door, so it's quite reasonable for a typical carrier to launch 16 fighters per minute. This can be expanded with pilot skill rolls to 4 fighters per turn per door pretty safely, so a big carrier could launch 32 fighters per minute. That's a pretty high rate compared to most real world naval carriers or science fiction space carriers.

But if you want high launch rates, why not carry fighters in external bays / clamps instead of burning tonnage on launch tubes? Pop the clamps and shed fighters by the hundreds, like chaff pods. The Combat Carriers of Orion's Arm carry thousands of ships along their central spines:
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/462a8029b2788
While the Lockheed OMFG carried a couple dozen fighters ready for launch under its wings:
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
ghostrider
03/13/16 09:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hate time outs when trying to post to the board... so try this again.

The idea of fighters being stored outside the main ship is a workable idea, but a few issues do come to mind.
The first being protection for the fighters.
Second is how to load up those fighters are well as work on them in the containers? Are the a full repair bay as well, or do you have to take the extra effort to load them afterwards?
I will also assume those ships have artificial gravity, which makes it a little easier to get into the ships.

Without risking conflict of interest, or confidentiality, do you have any ideas on weights and such?
I don't work for a company that may own anything that I come up with, so don't have to worry about that aspect.
As donkey suggested, pilots are NOT going to like being basically extra armor for the main ship by being stuck to the sides, but the one ship does look like it would be awesome at fighter deployment, as long as they head directly out from the ship when being deployed.

I know robotech has a type of pod launch bays for the veritechs they can launch, so it is not unheard of, though it is not a disposable unit thing. It is integrated in the ships design, not a removable idea. But then the ones you are explaining may be permanent attachments to the ship as well.
Akirapryde2006
03/14/16 08:32 PM
97.103.38.26

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ghost, I think the very best idea to make this work would be building on Cray's idea.

Before I explain what I am talking about. Check these two videos out. It will help for you to understand what I am talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTGBFY82Gik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWoEQRl8dCs

So here is my idea building off of Cray's idea.

During normal operations, a carrier would have a group of fighters aloft (these are referred to as the CAP or Combat Air Patrol). They also have a group of fighters on the flight deck ready to depart at any moment (known as the Ready One Fighters, or Ready One). The remainder of the fighters would be below decks with their pilots away from their fighters.

So knowing this, this is how the fighter rotation works. Once the CAP is done with their patrol, the Ready One fighters are deployed to their patrol locations. Once the Ready One takes over the CAP, the CAP fighters are brought back on to the carrier. A group of fighters from below decks are brought up and take over the Ready One slots. The fighters landing are taken below decks to allow the pilots to rest and the fighters to be serviced.

Here is how this could work within your, you have your fighters on CAP. You can have your Ready One Fighters deploy to these brackets. So you could side step the deployment rules as your fighters are already technically deployed already.

For large scale invasions, by adding a K-F Boom, you could actually have a number (beyond the ship's maximum) already deployed once your ship jumps in to system. This could give your ship an even larger deployment advantage than your original idea.

What do you think Ghost?

Akira
ghostrider
03/14/16 09:25 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was under the impression that all ships inside a kf boom had to be attached to the ship doing the jump, or be destroyed in the jump.

Now having fighters deployed while on patrol would be standard, I would think jumping into a system is the issue.
Now ready one is a term I have not heard. I thought it was ready 5, but then that is real carriers not sci fi ones, that might be ready to launch in under a minute. Just terms difference, probably the same thing.

The idea of having ships ready and able to launch in large numbers would be the best thing for any sort of space battles that use fighters. The idea of limiting the amount that can be launched to a few a turn sounds too restrictive.

I was more wondering why this line of thought was not addressed before now, or maybe it was, and I didn't see it. I would love so see/hear more about any ideas along these lines.
Because what good is a carrier if you can't get the ships it carries airborne (spaceborne) before the ship blows up?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/15/16 04:12 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I was under the impression that all ships inside a kf boom had to be attached to the ship doing the jump, or be destroyed in the jump.



You are correct. Anything that is not connected to a hard point or is not inside the jump/war ship would either be destroyed out right or heavily damaged if it has the armor and luck to survive.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Akirapryde2006
03/17/16 09:50 AM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually that is not completely correct.

There are a number of examples in the novels where Dropships were attached only to the K/F Boom and not the docking collar. The jumps took place and the dropships were cut loose and conducted their attacks. In these examples neither dropships nor jumpship were damaged.

The K-F Boom is what tells the jump computer what is here and how big it is, not the docking collar.

To further my point, I think the book took place during the clan invasion, there was an example of a dropship secured to the docking collar but the K-F boom was damaged by enemy fire. The dropship was destroyed when the jumpship started its jump. I think the damage was the nose of the dropship was cut off and the rest of the dropship remained behind as the jumpship and the nose vanished through the jump.
CrayModerator
03/17/16 10:04 AM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Hate time outs when trying to post to the board... so try this again.

The idea of fighters being stored outside the main ship is a workable idea, but a few issues do come to mind.
The first being protection for the fighters.



You can always enclose them behind an armor hatch but, yes, they are vulnerable compared to a buried hangar.

Quote:
Second is how to load up those fighters



Have them re-dock to the airlock in their davit, nacelle, nook, whatever you call it. You're in space - you don't need a landing strip, the shuttle didn't to dock with Mir or ISS. Since a BT space carrier would see high acceleration, after docking you'd want the davit to grab and secure the fighter to some hard points.

Quote:
are well as work on them in the containers? Are the a full repair bay as well, or do you have to take the extra effort to load them afterwards?



I'd have a separate repair bay.

Quote:
I will also assume those ships have artificial gravity, which makes it a little easier to get into the ships.



Orions Arm does not have artificial gravity except in the same fashion as BT: from spin or thrust.

That's not entirely true - some of the ultra-tech cultures in OA use very dense masses, like microscopic black holes, and those have "artificial" gravity around them. But they're also billions of tons, and any ship with such features is technologically way beyond the point where fighters matter.

Quote:
Without risking conflict of interest, or confidentiality, do you have any ideas on weights and such?



For an exterior fighter mount in your home game, an easy thing to do would be to up the weight to, say, 200 tons. Say that includes the armored hatch and airlock, plus the plumbing to transfer fuel. BT's robotics are advanced enough to justify ammo reloading in the dock, too, though repairs would need a conventional hangar area.

Quote:
As donkey suggested, pilots are NOT going to like being basically extra armor for the main ship by being stuck to the sides



I kinda figured they'd spend most of their time in the ship, not the fighter.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Reiter
03/18/16 10:06 AM
45.48.53.140

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Robotech uses a steam catapult system as seen on normal carriers. I can't begin to tell you why this wont work in space, but hey that is what Robotech uses.



Steam is plausible. Parody of Star Trek, like watching a silent film from the 20s....but the video is bad and I cannot find a decent one cause its 9 years old. Just go forward 1:20 and watch for a shape like the Enterprise 10seconds later to get the picture of it.

But you could theoretically launch a plane in space using steam, you are just pushing the plane off the carrier and the carrier is massive that "equal and opposite motion" would push it off. Key word, is to get it off the ship and not up to maximum thrust. Steam would be a waste of water though in space.

But a rail system would work better, just not a massive rail tube like the guns themselves. I cannot see anyone wanting to step into a large magnetic field lol. A type of system to get fighters off the ship, not to full combat speed and maybe fit an detachable booster pod of some kind to get the fighter going faster before going into their fuel reserves.
ghostrider
03/18/16 12:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Or just let the fighters exhaust do the work, like a missile tube.
As is pointed out, you are just trying to get the fighter away from the ship, not send it at light speed at a target, such as a ballistic weapon would do.

The armored containers would be an easy way to do this. I agree with cray on that.
It changes the feel of the ship, but effectiveness is the key.
I know they would not normally be manned unless combat is expected, though the main idea is to get the fighters airborne (spaceborne) as quickly as possible. Limiting the amount due to doors sounds like using half power to lasers to fire them. I can understand that opening the hanger doors means removing all the breathable air from the bays, which is not something you would want to do alot, even pumping it back out. Time and waste is a problem even with that method.
And I don't mind the small craft having limited access like shuttles.
They are supposed to take their time. But fighters need to be up and out quickly.

Now the questions come up.
Weights?
Air reserves?
Would there be heat to dissipate from the engines being fired? Or would it require a launch mechanism?
I can understand an airlock system to get to them as any missing containers would put the ship in jeopardy. Maybe one to a set of them, then the other at the container connection.
Do you have the fighters dock themselves, or have a transport or tug that puts them in. This sounds a little beyond needed, but if you want to deal with staying close to reality, using the fighters fuel to dock would limit it some in combat, as you would not have a full tank.

And yes, transporting a unit with fuel and weapons loaded is dangerous, but that is something you would have to deal with in all cases, as there is no time lag between getting jumped and launching the fighters themselves.
ghostrider
03/19/16 10:43 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the weight for normal fighter bays is set at 150 tons.
Not sure if that include the fighters weight, or just he housing for them.
As I lack updated aerotech rules, and barely found this information on the wiki, I will assume it does not include the fighters weight. And will use it as a base to adjust for the external fighter pods/containers. Since it will be nothing more then clamps to hold the fighters, and some structure to hold armor with an airless set up, which could be pressurized with added weight, I would assume keeping it low, with the size fighter being the base, and going from there.

I would think a general bay would weight more as it would need more clamps and even locking scaffolding to accomidate different size ships, with no shuttles or anything other the fighters being able to be stored in the unit.

As a side question, where is the rule dealing with the oversized vehicles and mech for storage cocoons? I seen the rules for up to 100 tons, but nothing bigger for ground vehicles. Do they use the small craft bays rules?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/20/16 03:57 AM
172.56.7.96

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The 150 tons include the weight of the fighter. If I was Writing the rules it would be 50 tons and then add the tonnage of the fighter but I'm not and it's not.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
CrayModerator
03/20/16 02:26 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
While Buck Rodgers and Battlestar both used magnetic launch systems. I don't know if the game universe allows for such technology to be used like this.



It's assumed to be part of a fighter bay / launch-capable door system, if needed. A fluff point.

Quote:
Robotech uses a steam catapult system as seen on normal carriers. I can't begin to tell you why this wont work in space, but hey that is what Robotech uses.



Steam would work fine in space, the problem would be a flat deck launch system. Using a steam bubble to eject objects up to 100 tons in an airless environment is old hat - SSBNs eject their ICBMs underwater that way.

Quote:
If memory serves, the traditional way of deploying fighters is to have the fighters expend their own fuel to get off of their carrier.



As noted in Strategic Operations, the fusion torch of a fighter can do severe damage to a carrier. Fighters thus tend to be ejected sideways, perpendicular to the movement of the carrier, with the assistance of catapults.

Quote:
My own answer to fuel was to add In-Space Refuelers



Also covered in Strategic Operations.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
CrayModerator
03/20/16 02:28 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

So the weight for normal fighter bays is set at 150 tons.
Not sure if that include the fighters weight, or just he housing for them.



It covers the fighter's mass. Doing so otherwise would screw up the mass calculations for thrust rating.

Quote:
And will use it as a base to adjust for the external fighter pods/containers. Since it will be nothing more then clamps to hold the fighters, and some structure to hold armor with an airless set up, which could be pressurized with added weight, I would assume keeping it low, with the size fighter being the base, and going from there.



Sounds reasonable.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
ghostrider
03/20/16 03:49 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
it is catching me off guard a little that it is only 50 tons for the bay itself, no matter the size of the fighter. The set the 100 ton max fighter setting, so that makes sense. Don't have to add the weight afterwards.
I originally thought to have the weight set for like 1/10th of the fighters, and adjust up from there. With a generic bay being maybe 20% of the max size the bay would fit, ie a max 30 ton fighter would be 6 tons.
Adding air into the bay might jump it up more, with fueling hoses adding some.
The issue is how much weight savings could you have with an external container to make the 50 tons of the internal bay look overweight to use the external bay. To light and it doesn't fit well. Too heavy and negate most of the benefits, except getting more fighters up at once.

Maybe 3 tons for fueling equipment no matter the fighter for a just an example. Don't know if ammo feeds should be including in that, or be separate as well.
After typing it, the ammo should be loaded in the main hanger areas, as to avoid issues as this one would NOT have all the equipment to deal with it. If not for being simple to fuel it, I might actually thing a fuel ship servicing them when parked might be the better way, as the internal structure would have more then a few fuel lines running to the external pods. That would actually force an increase in weight.

Though maybe a small topper fill tank might work. Say half ton of fuel in a half ton tank to top off the fuel cell. So a ton would be max. Just enough to cover the docking or loading fuel if not placed by a tug or something like it.

Not sure how integrated it should be with the main ship, as armor placement might be covered by the main armor of the mother ship.

Granted if the container opens from and back, and not pointed directly at the ship, the fighters thrust would be enough to send it into space without worries of torching the container, equipment, or mother ship.
A simple hydraulic (for example) could push the ship out of the container, maybe even be used to land and store the ship. Just need that push, not a gauss magnetic rail acceleration. Maybe the weights would be different depending on the type.

If you want to get technical, one could be safer deployment then the other. Depends on how deep you want to get into reality and rolling dice. Might be better to roll to dock then launch, as this IS supposed to be done to get more fighters in the air safely.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/20/16 05:53 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have found 50 tons to support a fighter or battle mech quite resalable.

10 tons for the pilots cabin (officers cabin), 7 tons for the techs cabin (crews cabin), then 33 tons for everything else to service a fighting machine.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
ghostrider
03/20/16 07:22 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will agree with that, but this is more designed to remove some of the weight and restrictions for getting fighters going.
I think a piloting roll to launch more fighters then safe out the doors as the rules now deal with defeats the purpose of a carrier.
Not something you want to start off with in a battle. Possibly having an accident that prevents anything from getting out. I believe cray stated you can get 32 fighter out per minute with the rolls, but that is dangerous to even attempt. One failed roll and you lose the ships that were using the door, as well as the hanger and other things. Not something a fully planned and operational carrier should have to worry about.

And these pods are not meant for anything but storage and launching in battle. They are not there to do repairs, and even reloads. They are lighter weight storage units designed to kick out fighters much faster then a normal hanger launch would do. The crew quarters is not part of this.

I am kinda of surprised there is anything support for it. I thought most would says not worth it, or breaks the rules so don't bother with it.
Karagin
03/20/16 11:52 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So pretty much Cray you are saying all of our ideas and areas of thought on this are covered by SO and IO books...nice to hear that you guys thought of everything.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
nightgaun7
04/17/16 01:02 AM
118.209.31.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now I want to see a fighter carrier dropship that only has tubes, gets the fighters in close and launches. Fighters return to their Thera or w/e afterwards.

I don't actually think it would be a good or particularly efficient idea, but it would be amusing to have a carrier dropship spit out 72 fighters or something.
Built for War: a new fan TRO featuring original art by Matt Plog and Anthony Scroggins
Visit our blog - http://builtforwar.blogspot.com/ - for updates
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 83 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 11447


Contact Admins Sarna.net