NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Krazakistan]

And Space Gavins escorted by Orions shall lead the way.

I have you covered.

The freedom!

[Mitheldalond]

I have you covered.

The freedom!

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of APCs;
Of thee I sing.
Land where M-one-one-threes
Shoot down all of the Migs!
From low earth orbit high
Let Gavins reign!

[Krazakistan]

The freedom!

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of APCs;
Of thee I sing.
Land where M-one-one-threes
Shoot down all of the Migs!
From low earth orbit high
Let Gavins reign!

My favorite APC,
Bringer of democracy,
Thy name I love;
I love thy tracks and grills,
Thy guns and blackened shields,
My heart is freedom filled,
Like that above.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I've heard this said a couple of times. (Including in response to one of my designs.) And I've always wondered what is so bad about it. I get that its adds complexity, but I do know that the Russian's Ulyanovsk Class was planned on having both, so I don't think that it would be as a significant issue as some people have said.

Whoever has been saying this is full of shit. The only bad idea about it is you don't save any money or personnel by still having the catapult. Otherwise there is no problem. Simultaneous flight ops gets mentioned a lot but not even the USN makes use of this anymore. In fact in wartime operations the USN can't even conduct simultaneous flight ops because the foredeck is packed with planes.

Not to suddenly play Devil's advocate here, but... isn't that in itself a justifiable reason to use catapults instead? i.e., you can pack a flat foredeck with planes, but not a sloped one. But I'm the one asking for advice here, so I half-expect there's some reason why this isn't an issue.

And speaking of advice: I'm feeling aesthetically inclined to place the island toward the bow of the carrier rather than the aft, so it's right across from where the diagonal landing area ends. I suspect, however, that this would cause problems with taxiing planes to the fore catapults during high-intensity operations. Would these problems be acceptable, or a severe hindrance? Or is it even that major an issue, if in wartime the foredeck is typically packed with planes?

[Rich and Corporations]

I've heard this said a couple of times. (Including in response to one of my designs.) And I've always wondered what is so bad about it. I get that its adds complexity, but I do know that the Russian's Ulyanovsk Class was planned on having both, so I don't think that it would be as a significant issue as some people have said.

Whoever has been saying this is full of shit. The only bad idea about it is you don't save any money or personnel by still having the catapult. Otherwise there is no problem. Simultaneous flight ops gets mentioned a lot but not even the USN makes use of this anymore. In fact in wartime operations the USN can't even conduct simultaneous flight ops because the foredeck is packed with planes.

if there isn't enough space
you need more tonnage

[Lyras]

Whoever has been saying this is full of shit. The only bad idea about it is you don't save any money or personnel by still having the catapult. Otherwise there is no problem. Simultaneous flight ops gets mentioned a lot but not even the USN makes use of this anymore. In fact in wartime operations the USN can't even conduct simultaneous flight ops because the foredeck is packed with planes.

if there isn't enough space
you need more tonnage

This, actually.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Reading up on Skylab 2, thinking about Gravity.

Apparently, the force of deploying the solar panel was enough to fling two of the three astronauts off the station, leaving them hanging/whiplashed by their tethers.

Also, the docking-system failed. Oh, and the CSM's manuvering thrusters were pretty much broken-on-launch... they came pretty close to doing a 'rescue mission' of yet another Apollo on Aug 4, 1973.

America had no idea what it was doing n space, but dangit, mission control was ready to deal with just 'bout anything.

Skylab 3 tested a lil backpack that would later be the Manned Manuvering Unit... in 1973.

if there isn't enough space
you need more tonnage

This, actually.

IIRC, 'wartime operations' of a Nimitz class intentionally overloaded their flight capacity because they were expecting WW2 levels of aircraft-attrition for the first-wave to free-up some deck-space.

That said, peacetime flight-wings are about half the size of theoretical/wartime maximums. About 65 planes in the case of Nimitz, wich is a far cry and a half from the proposed capacity of 95-115 planes (the upper figure if it carried nothing but F-18Es). Which brings it [94 kiloton Nimitz class] operationally to the exact same level as the 42 kiloton Charles DeGaulle's max of 40 (although operationally it only carries 16 to 22 plus some helicopters).

[The Soodean Imperium]

if there isn't enough space
you need more tonnage

This, actually.

I'm feeling an urge to make some kind of Longsword reference...

[The Akasha Colony]

Not to suddenly play Devil's advocate here, but... isn't that in itself a justifiable reason to use catapults instead? i.e., you can pack a flat foredeck with planes, but not a sloped one. But I'm the one asking for advice here, so I half-expect there's some reason why this isn't an issue.

It all depends whether you actually need that space. Packing a carrier that tightly will generally lead to a loss of efficiency due to crowding. In any event, if your aircraft are capable of CATOBAR and you're already using at least a few catapults, there isn't a big reason why you shouldn't just go all-catapult, since it allows full-weight launches.

And speaking of advice: I'm feeling aesthetically inclined to place the island toward the bow of the carrier rather than the aft, so it's right across from where the diagonal landing area ends. I suspect, however, that this would cause problems with taxiing planes to the fore catapults during high-intensity operations. Would these problems be acceptable, or a severe hindrance? Or is it even that major an issue, if in wartime the foredeck is typically packed with planes?

If it's directly across from where the angled deck ends and assuming Nimitz-class proportions, it'll be rather close to the takeoff path of any aircraft taking off over the bow. Taxiing itself wouldn't be a problem though. The optimal configuration is either fore or aft of the elevators, so they can function as one bank without the island separating them and impeding movement. This is why the island and the starboard aft elevator on the Ford-class are being switched. As you can see in the diagram, EL 3 is basically useless during landing ops since aircraft brought up to the deck cannot be moved to the bow without being towed through the landing area.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Whoever has been saying this is full of shit. The only bad idea about it is you don't save any money or personnel by still having the catapult. Otherwise there is no problem. Simultaneous flight ops gets mentioned a lot but not even the USN makes use of this anymore. In fact in wartime operations the USN can't even conduct simultaneous flight ops because the foredeck is packed with planes.

Not to suddenly play Devil's advocate here, but... isn't that in itself a justifiable reason to use catapults instead? i.e., you can pack a flat foredeck with planes, but not a sloped one. But I'm the one asking for advice here, so I half-expect there's some reason why this isn't an issue.

Not being the best idea does not make it a bad idea.
It's not a bad idea. But there is no point.

[The Soodean Imperium]

This, actually.

IIRC, 'wartime operations' of a Nimitz class intentionally overloaded their flight capacity because they were expecting WW2 levels of aircraft-attrition for the first-wave to free-up some deck-space.

That said, peacetime flight-wings are about half the size of theoretical/wartime maximums. About 65 planes in the case of Nimitz, wich is a far cry and a half from the proposed capacity of 95-115 planes (the upper figure if it carried nothing but F-18Es). Which brings it [94 kiloton Nimitz class] operationally to the exact same level as the 42 kiloton Charles DeGaulle's max of 40 (although operationally it only carries 16 to 22 plus some helicopters).

Given that :NS:-scale attrition tends to reach massive levels even against a reasonable opponent, and Soodean doctrine is generally geared towards fighting a technologically superior force (and thus taking heavy losses), I'm highly intrigued by this idea. I think I may aim for 48 as the basic load plus 24 extras on the deck, though these are rough estimates as of now.

Not to suddenly play Devil's advocate here, but... isn't that in itself a justifiable reason to use catapults instead? i.e., you can pack a flat foredeck with planes, but not a sloped one. But I'm the one asking for advice here, so I half-expect there's some reason why this isn't an issue.

It all depends whether you actually need that space. Packing a carrier that tightly will generally lead to a loss of efficiency due to crowding. In any event, if your aircraft are capable of CATOBAR and you're already using at least a few catapults, there isn't a big reason why you shouldn't just go all-catapult, since it allows full-weight launches.

And speaking of advice: I'm feeling aesthetically inclined to place the island toward the bow of the carrier rather than the aft, so it's right across from where the diagonal landing area ends. I suspect, however, that this would cause problems with taxiing planes to the fore catapults during high-intensity operations. Would these problems be acceptable, or a severe hindrance? Or is it even that major an issue, if in wartime the foredeck is typically packed with planes?

If it's directly across from where the angled deck ends and assuming Nimitz-class proportions, it'll be rather close to the takeoff path of any aircraft taking off over the bow. Taxiing itself wouldn't be a problem though. The optimal configuration is either fore or aft of the elevators, so they can function as one bank without the island separating them and impeding movement. This is why the island and the starboard aft elevator on the Ford-class are being switched. As you can see in the diagram, EL 3 is basically useless during landing ops since aircraft brought up to the deck cannot be moved to the bow without being towed through the landing area.

So...
Using that image as reference (I've been staring at it all day looking for a solution), let's say I move the island from its current position to "Point," then shift the first two elevators back a bit. That wouldn't cause any severe problems? I don't like to do impractical things for the sole sake of aesthetics, but I just can't stand the look of the Ford with its island all the way in the back.

[Rich and Corporations]

If you're really concerned about aircraft attrition, convert supertankers into aircraft carriers and use a skijump ramp for takeoff.
Naturally the supertankers won't have any ability to have planes land on it.

[Krazeria]

I feel like all of these problems could be fixed by the nation states equivalent of ducktape and WD40

MAKE THE FUCKER BIGGER!

[Svendborg-]

Best carriers have air wings under twenty aircraft.

Preferably all Harriers and Wessexes.

[Roski]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/287/b/9/Victory_by_Panzerfire.jpg

Just going to leave this here

[Krazeria]

Best carriers have air wings under twenty aircraft.

Preferably all Harriers and Wessexes.

*Weak aircraft carriers

Stonk aircraft carriers have wings of twenty AC-130's!

[Svendborg-]

Poland stronk.

Best carriers have air wings under twenty aircraft.

Preferably all Harriers and Wessexes.

*Weak aircraft carriers

Stonk aircraft carriers have wings of twenty AC-130's!

*Anti-submarine carriers.

Which, to be honest, are the only ones that really matter.

[Oaledonia]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/287/b/9/Victory_by_Panzerfire.jpg

Just going to leave this here

western tanks dont need bridges

they have nuclear weapons anyway so they're not going to exist by the time they reach moscow

fap fap

You're too slow.

[Roski]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/287/b/9/Victory_by_Panzerfire.jpg

Just going to leave this here

fap fap

You're too slow.

Damn, I thought it was on the Ground Vehicles one.

[Krazeria]

Poland stronk.

*Weak aircraft carriers

Stonk aircraft carriers have wings of twenty AC-130's!

*Anti-submarine carriers.

Which, to be honest, are the only ones that really matter.

Stronk Aircraft carriers are not in fact ships, they are ekronoplans!

[Krazeria]

You're too slow.

Damn, I thought it was on the Ground Vehicles one.

What the picture fails to capture is Putin single handedly preparing to beat the nato dogs back with his own dog tied to the leg bones of an enemy of the state

[Lyras]

If Taiwan (???) ever buys any F-35s, I'll post in NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #999 from the nursing home and publicly proclaim that the Longsword is a well thought out and practical design.

I saw this, and see it a bit, but just thought that I'd draw collective attention to something.

I just sunk 5,000 Stevidian ships. Because I had a Longsword in my fleet. I could see, and target, the Stevidian 5th Fleet, due to the Longsword's OTH radar. A piece of equipment that I could otherwise not utilise, due to the size of the over-the-horizon radar. Its a capability I can't replicate with anything smaller. Which is, of course, why I make such large ships.

I lost nothing, save the cruise missiles I fired to sink that fleet. 5,000 ships sunk, and over two million personnel lost, if I calculate correctly. 0 Lyran losses.

This is why Longswords exist.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

[Svendborg-]

Poland stronk.



*Anti-submarine carriers.

Which, to be honest, are the only ones that really matter.

Stronk Aircraft carriers are not in fact ships, they are ekronoplans!

The only ekranoplanes are the ones forged in the fire and flames of the Moscow Metro by Lenin himself.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Over-the-horizon radar ship turned into missilespam destroyer.

#NSLogic

[Krazeria]

Stronk Aircraft carriers are not in fact ships, they are ekronoplans!

The only ekranoplanes are the ones forged in the fire and flames of the Moscow Metro by Lenin himself.

Fueled by the collective tears of the Chechnyaians