StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The only carrier that matches the Wasp in displacement is the Charles de Gaulle, and we all know how retarded that design was.

CdG was problematic because it was too small to be effectively nuclear powered and the yard just was too short. 40,000 tons could give you a small conventional carrier that didn't suffer from all those problems (two older French CVs and HMS Ark Royal are pretty much in that size range).

The only thing I can suggest, is that create a category less than that of the super carrier. Ships such as the CVF, Kuznetsov and a few other vessels fit that bill quite handily.

CVF is a 65,000 ton carrier, which essentially makes it a supercarrier (if a smaller one). Kuznetsov is also pretty big.

phongn wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The only carrier that matches the Wasp in displacement is the Charles de Gaulle, and we all know how retarded that design was.

CdG was problematic because it was too small to be effectively nuclear powered and the yard just was too short. 40,000 tons could give you a small conventional carrier that didn't suffer from all those problems (two older French CVs and HMS Ark Royal are pretty much in that size range).

HMS Ark Royal is only a miserable 20000 tonnes and incapable of servicing aircraft like F/A-18 E/F. The same would apply to the old French CVs which were only 260m in length. Sure there were lots of light carriers, but operating Harriers at best.

Also, if we are going with conventional carriers that small, might as well just have a coastal defence fleet, and have long range aviation like the Su-34. Not much point with power projection anyhow. Let the big boys play their thing.

Updated to map thread with a rough sketch of San Dorado's layout.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Also, if we are going with conventional carriers that small, might as well just have a coastal defence fleet, and have long range aviation like the Su-34.

I'd say if anyone really wants a carrier that small they chalk it up as an LHD on the spreadsheet. After all, the LHD can launch Harriers as well. Not many, but then a proper carrier doesn't land marines, so it's a trade off.

Come to think of that...

FTO guys: Assuming for a minute that we're interested in running joint naval taskforces, we might want to look into what each of us is getting in terms of naval goodies?

How about this-- allow a smaller country to buy an older Carrier, say a WW2 era refit being retired from a larger country, and let them buy it at the price of a conventional assault ship.

It would not have up-to-date radar, commo, and the engines would be oil-burners, the deck would have two older catapults... really purchased more for the prestige factor of having a carrier than any expectation to stand up in real ops. A 'fleet in being' Carrier for regional powers to worry about.

Or, we could arbitrarily declare that a country must be of a certain size before they have the ability to provide support for any Carrier that is not being used as a "Naval academy" trainer or "museum" ship.

(Unless a coalition of countries wanted to go in and mutually pay to support a Carrier, that is).

Coyote, but what about LHD-sized ships that are just plain carriers? They'd have modern gear, just be really small. And, of course, more useful than an old WWII flattop

A Kingdom should be able to support a couple without much trouble. The UK is, after all, trying to field full-sized carriers and the only thing stopping them is their small defence budget.

1) Westchester and the PRSF are trying -not- to break into open land war; Westchester's Royal Army and the People's Army would simple get bogged down fighting in the passes through the West Highland mountains that the border follows.

2) I agree that a category beneath 'supercarrier' and above 'landing helicopter dock' should be created. For stuff like the Kuznetsov, CVF, the Vikramaditya (modified full-deck Kiev, about half the deck capacity of a Kuznetsov), refit WW2-era ships like the Midways eventually became or (if paid for with the Nuclear cost modifier) FS Charles de Gaulle.

3) Beneath those should be a 'CVS' ('sea control ship') smaller harrier-carriers like the Guiseppe Garibaldi, Principe de Asturias, and Invincible, which do not have the capacity for landign craft or troops but are of similar size to a common (read: not 45,000-ton Wasp) LHD.

PeZook brings up the same point as I do in point #3.

PeZook wrote:Coyote, but what about LHD-sized ships that are just plain carriers? They'd have modern gear, just be really small. And, of course, more useful than an old WWII flattop

A Kingdom should be able to support a couple without much trouble. The UK is, after all, trying to field full-sized carriers and the only thing stopping them is their small defence budget.

We probably can support 2 CVF on our own since we are more than prepared to spend more than double the % of the economy for defense spending compared to the UK.

PeZook wrote:Coyote, but what about LHD-sized ships that are just plain carriers? They'd have modern gear, just be really small. And, of course, more useful than an old WWII flattop

You mean like the Japanese Hyuga-class "Destroyer-Carrier"? I dunno; I suppose it could be done. But the Hyuga is pretty small as carriers go, it's not just deck space for landing & take-off, but storage space for fuel, ammo, and repairs that's limited.

A Kingdom should be able to support a couple without much trouble. The UK is, after all, trying to field full-sized carriers and the only thing stopping them is their small defence budget.

That, and a Parliament that keeps insisting on spending money on other things. Truth is, we're running extraordinarily efficient governments compared to the real world, we really don't role-play very much pork-barrel spending unless it's a plot device. In SDN World, a country and economy like England would easily field two full carrier/expeditionary task forces without question.

*points everyone to his post about needing a class for non-supercarrier carries and another class for harriercarriers*

Coyote wrote:

A Kingdom should be able to support a couple without much trouble. The UK is, after all, trying to field full-sized carriers and the only thing stopping them is their small defence budget.

That, and a Parliament that keeps insisting on spending money on other things. Truth is, we're running extraordinarily efficient governments compared to the real world, we really don't role-play very much pork-barrel spending unless it's a plot device. In SDN World, a country and economy like England would easily field two full carrier/expeditionary task forces without question.

Well, I tried with the point system, but it just wouldn't allow for it. Might have to downsize the army a fair bit.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: We probably can support 2 CVF on our own since we are more than prepared to spend more than double the % of the economy for defense spending compared to the UK.

I've got half the UK GDP and spend around 3% on the military, which means that I can't even start to dream about full-sized supercarriers.

I declared two Wasp-class LHDs in my OOB, but one will probably function at a permanently reduced readiness level, little more than a glorified marine transport.

Or I may scrap it altogether.

Czechmate wrote:*points everyone to his post about needing a class for non-supercarrier carries and another class for harriercarriers*

If you want a 'simple' carrier, use the LHD (large) points. For a helicarrier, I'd say LDH (small) would suffice. No need to introduce extra categories that way.

I've got one large LHD myself, which is the primary means for my marines to get around. Pretty much the entire marine corps and my entire Harrier air wing are tied up on that ship, so it's sort of a white swan... But then there's little use in a marine corps if you don't have some way to get them ashore en masse.

Czechmate wrote:3) Beneath those should be a 'CVS' ('sea control ship') smaller harrier-carriers like the Guiseppe Garibaldi, Principe de Asturias, and Invincible, which do not have the capacity for landign craft or troops but are of similar size to a common (read: not 45,000-ton Wasp) LHD.

I think this is reasonable; I was considering a smaller fleet with Guiseppe Garibaldi-class 'Cruiser'Carriers' at first but decided to go for the gold of a Kuznetsov + Wasp team. For a lot of smaller countries, these short-deck or through-deck Cruisers would be the best bet.

I think the Kiev-class Cruiser-Carrier would also fit in this category.

PeZook wrote:I've got half the UK GDP and spend around 3% on the military, which means that I can't even start to dream about full-sized supercarriers.

I declared two Wasp-class LHDs in my OOB, but one will probably function at a permanently reduced readiness level, little more than a glorified marine transport.

Or I may scrap it altogether.

I also have half the UK GDP as well (unless someone is willing to let me take the near breakpoint mark bonus), but I plan to spend like 6-10% of the economy making sure no nonsense happens on eastern border.

Also, I am weary of the remnants of the Shadow Empire giving trouble in the north east.

How about this, then?

nuclear supercarrier (CdG, enterprise, nimitz, gerald ford) - 32
supercarrier (forrestal, kitty hawk, CVF et al)- 24
fleet carrier (kuznetsov, vikramaditya, late Midway, et al)- 16
light carriers (principe de asturias, invincible, et al) - 12
large LHA/LHD - 8

SiegeTank wrote:

Czechmate wrote:*points everyone to his post about needing a class for non-supercarrier carries and another class for harriercarriers*

If you want a 'simple' carrier, use the LHD (large) points. For a helicarrier, I'd say LDH (small) would suffice. No need to introduce extra categories that way.

I've got one large LHD myself, which is the primary means for my marines to get around. Pretty much the entire marine corps and my entire Harrier air wing are tied up on that ship, so it's sort of a white swan... But then there's little use in a marine corps if you don't have some way to get them ashore en masse.

The Wasp class cannot possibly cart more than one Marine Expeditionary force.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Also, I am weary of the remnants of the Shadow Empire giving trouble in the north east.

You don't need carriers to fight superchechnyans, though

Damn, those land borders are a bitch.

I literally spend three times as much on the army+air force than the navy part of my forces...

Yeah, and air defence. 800 various AA sets, from light SHORADs to heavy SAMs

Building a proper air defence network out of that will be a real bitch, though...

Coyote wrote:

Czechmate wrote:3) Beneath those should be a 'CVS' ('sea control ship') smaller harrier-carriers like the Guiseppe Garibaldi, Principe de Asturias, and Invincible, which do not have the capacity for landign craft or troops but are of similar size to a common (read: not 45,000-ton Wasp) LHD.

I think this is reasonable; I was considering a smaller fleet with Guiseppe Garibaldi-class 'Cruiser'Carriers' at first but decided to go for the gold of a Kuznetsov + Wasp team. For a lot of smaller countries, these short-deck or through-deck Cruisers would be the best bet.

I think the Kiev-class Cruiser-Carrier would also fit in this category.

Yes, but not the Kiev's modified model, the Vikramaditya, which is modified with a full deck and a skijump for operation of (about two dozen) navalized MiG-29s. That'd be a normal carrier.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The Wasp class cannot possibly cart more than one Marine Expeditionary force.

No, but have you looked at my marine corps? It's all of three battalions large. Hell my army consists of a mere three brigades. What need would I have for landing an entire expeditionary force?

I think he meant Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is a reinforced battallion.

EDIT: ...which is also about as much as a Wasp can carry by itself, and they usually need to be accompanied by an LSD and an LPD to carry everything and everybody.

I could help you out with Super Chechnya, PeZook. A forward Shroomanian AF airbase?

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Also, I am weary of the remnants of the Shadow Empire giving trouble in the north east.

You don't need carriers to fight superchechnyans, though

Damn, those land borders are a bitch.

I literally spend three times as much on the army+air force than the navy part of my forces...

Yeah, and air defence. 800 various AA sets, from light SHORADs to heavy SAMs

Building a proper air defence network out of that will be a real bitch, though...

Don't some of these buggers have coast lines?

As for anti-air weapons, THAAD, land based SM-2/3 and S-300s are on the shopping list, though I will start out with 8 brigades of S-300PMU/V around. More to come, to be assured.

It would be great if we tie our Command and Control networks together for air defence.

SiegeTank wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The Wasp class cannot possibly cart more than one Marine Expeditionary force.

No, but have you looked at my marine corps? It's all of three battalions large. Hell my army consists of a mere three brigades. What need would I have for landing an entire expeditionary force?

Er yeah, but the Wasp can't fit 3 battalions. You will need either another Wasp, or some smaller LHD or LST, or some strategic prepositioning vessel.

SiegeTank wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The Wasp class cannot possibly cart more than one Marine Expeditionary force.

No, but have you looked at my marine corps? It's all of three battalions large. Hell my army consists of a mere three brigades. What need would I have for landing an entire expeditionary force?

Er yeah, but the Wasp can't fit 3 battalions. You will need either another Wasp, or some smaller LHD or LST, or some strategic prepositioning vessel.

Czechmate wrote:I think he meant Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is a reinforced battallion.

As I understand it the Wasp can carry 1,871 embarked troops. My marine corps is composed of only roughly 2,500 soldiers. One LHD will do quite nicely for the sort of light raiding I expect to be doing with that ship.

EDIT:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Er yeah, but the Wasp can't fit 3 battalions. You will need either another Wasp, or some smaller LHD or LST, or some strategic prepositioning vessel.

Dude, I'm not going to fit my entire corps aboard that ship. There'll presumably be guys off doing other things as well. The LHD is just for when I want to take over some shithole's shoreline for a while, or to ferry Harriers to where I need them. I might be building a support ship ingame, but I don't expect to conduct gigantic military ops with my Duchy-sized military.

SiegeTank wrote:

Czechmate wrote:I think he meant Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is a reinforced battallion.

As I understand it the Wasp can carry 1,871 embarked troops. My marine corps is composed of only roughly 2,500 soldiers. One LHD will do quite nicely for the sort of light raiding I expect to be doing with that ship.

From navy-technology.com:

The vehicle storage area typically accommodates five M-1 tanks, 25 light armoured vehicles, eight M-198 guns, 68 military trucks (HMMVVVs), ten logistics vehicles, 12 5t trucks, two water trailers, a fuel service truck, four rough terrain forklifts and two generator trailers. These vehicles can be loaded aboard landing craft, and the majority can be rigged for transportation to the beach by helicopter.

Light raiding? How light do you want? At best hold the beach for a few hours, until the roving main army comes along.

And if the beach has coastal artillery....

Edit:

SiegeTank wrote:Dude, I'm not going to fit my entire corps aboard that ship. There'll presumably be guys off doing other things as well. The LHD is just for when I want to take over some shithole's shoreline for a while, or to ferry Harriers to where I need them. I might be building a support ship ingame, but I don't expect to conduct gigantic military ops with my Duchy-sized military.

Oh ok. I thought you are going to land heck of a lot of men in the form of light infantry, minus the vehicles...