Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Charles Carroll]

I feel they started as casuals...with a couple of fighters. But once they
became War Carriers. They went from casual to full.

But that would be my take on them.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:20 AM Wayne Power <wdpower at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> I think most SRVs are casual carriers (so will not need an escort)?
>
> On Monday, 22 February 2021, 03:00:54 pm AEST, Charles Carroll via
> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>
> While it carries fighters, the SuperHawk command cruiser does not
> have a formal escort group.
>
> Year Escorts Fighters
> Y170-Y172 None 4xG-I, 4xG-F
> Y173-Y177 None 4xG-I or G-II,
> 4xG-F or G-SF
> Y178-Y179 None 4xG-II, 4xG-SF
> or 4xTrib or Trib-D
> Y180-Y182 None 4xG-II or G-III,
> 4xG-SF or G-FSF
> or 4xTrib or Trib-D
> or Trib-F or Trib-K
> Y183-Y189 None 4xG-III or G-III-K,
> 4xG-FSF or Glad-D
> or 4xTrib-K or Trib-F
> Y190+ None 4xG-III-K, 4xGlad-D
> or 4xTrib-K or Trib-F
>
> I would say this ship never is listed as having escorts. Now could you
> decide to send some? Maybe? But per 4.34 it states the above. Add to that
> the chart....which states specifically. None for escorts but shows all
> potential fighter groups. I would say that ship never needs an escort.
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 11:53 PM Matt <matt at mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>
> > Some Roms like SUP-As are always exempt since they never need escorts.
>
>
> This is a case where you need to determine what type of carrier they
> are. Looking at the Superhawk:
>
> - It has 8 fighters, that's more than two, so it's not a casual carrier
> (J4.62).
>
> - It has more than six fighters, so it's not a hybrid carrier (S8.322).
> That's a shame: I wanted it to fit here.
>
> - There is no flavor text or mention in other sources that claims it was
> intended for a specific role. The examples in (J4.62), the text of
> (R9.R4), or the flavor text of (R4.128) are examples of countervailing
> "other sources".
>
> - It has an escort table and the "V" note in the MSC. That pretty much
> nails it as a "true" carrier without the others to fall back on.
>
> So the Superhawk needs escorts.
>
>
> Some of the other heavy hawks (R4.N3) include the Killerhawk, Novahawk,
> and the Royalhawk, which have no fighters. This suggests that it was not
> an attempt to create a hull classification that traditionally carriers
> fighters simply for the firepower benefit (unlike the Farhawks.)
> However, the Thunderhawk,Superhawk-N (the "Sunhawk"), and the
> Superhawk-B are obviously intended as full carriers.
>
>
> --Matt
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210222/69a2c19f/attachment-0002.html>