Aircraft carriers of your country

[Awesomeland]

We use nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carriers (SSVN), which can launch both manned and unmanned naval aircraft using vertical launch tubes, and then recovering them from the ocean, so that the carrier does not need to remain surfaced to recover aircraft. This allows us to strike anywhere without warning and not present an obvious surface target for missiles.

[Grays Harbor]

We use nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carriers (SSVN), which can launch both manned and unmanned naval aircraft using vertical launch tubes, and then recovering them from the ocean, so that the carrier does not need to remain surfaced to recover aircraft. This allows us to strike anywhere without warning and not present an obvious surface target for missiles.

Because seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless ...

[Inutoland]

We use nuclear-powered submarine aircraft carriers (SSVN), which can launch both manned and unmanned naval aircraft using vertical launch tubes, and then recovering them from the ocean, so that the carrier does not need to remain surfaced to recover aircraft. This allows us to strike anywhere without warning and not present an obvious surface target for missiles.

Because seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless ...

Besides all the other reasons submersible carriers are failtastic, you mean?

[Awesomeland]

Because seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless ...

Radar doesn't exactly do a wonderful job at low altitudes for various reasons, and no one said these things were invincible.

Besides all the other reasons submersible carriers are failtastic, you mean?

Not as Failtastic as you'd think. The concept has popped up before, and continues to pop up over and over. And in a thread where people are posting monster-sized carriers, you're complaining that a concept that actually has historical and current backing is too out there?

The facts: Being on the surface is increasingly a death trap. As the saying goes, there are submarines, and there are targets. If you are not a submarine, then you are a sitting duck for one. This is the unpleasant truth that has come up in every military exercise to date.

[Gig em Aggies]

this is the GANS Maroon which is Maroon Class carrier

it is #1 of 14

[The Republic of Legantus]

The Republic of Legantus currently has one operational "True" Aircraft carrier, the RLNS Bastion, with two more of the same class under construction:

Also, we have six Kuznetsov-Class Aircraft Carrying Cruisers:

[Harkonna]

---

Heavy Aircraft Carrier; FHAAF Katerby-Ulntra [Manufacturing] Type-093HAC "Gladius." (KU-T093 HAC)

Armament; 28x KU-T144 S/MRSAMPs, 6x KU-T045 M/LRSAMPs
(Short/Medium Range Surface to Air Missile Platforms [Anti-Ballistic Ship Missile Defense],
Medium/Long Range Surface to Air Missile Platforms [Anti-Ballistic Ship Missile Defense]).

---

Standard Carrier Air Wing; 25x Type-072AF (KU-T072 AF) Attack Fighters, 20x SF-Series, Model-147 (JSF-M147) Strike Fighters,
15x CF-Series, Model-98 (JCF-M98) Assault Fighter, 15x Type-127AH (LBT-127 AH) Attack VTOLs,
5x Type-0019 L SA (ST-0019L SA) Recon Aircraft.

[Ainin]

Aircraft Carriers in History... REPUBLIC OF AININ
WWII: 2 (ANS Liberty, ANS Freedom)
Cold War Beginning: 5 (ANS Liberty, ANS Freedom, ANS Democracy, ANS Equality, ANS Justice)
Cold War End: 17 (ANS Static, ANS Jasper Hill, ANS Smarts, ANS Cookie, ANS Neutrality, ANS Guide, ANS Boy Scout, ANS Peace, ANS Democracy)
Currently: 14 (too long to name...)

[Orussia]

The Imperial Orussian Navy operates 2 classes of pure carriers and one class of cruiser-carriers.

The Saphir-class CVN is the first true supercarrier operated by the ION, and will remain so for the near future. Able to carry nearly 100 aircraft in an emergency, the standard air wing is 72 (6 squadrons).

Units of the Saphir-class:
- ION Saphir (CVN 24)
- ION Sanya Litvyak (CVN 25)
- ION Nikolas Romanov (CVN 26)
- ION Alexandra Poryshkin (CVN 27)
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CVN 28)
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CVN 29)
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CVN 30)
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CVN 31)
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CVN 32)
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CVN 33)

The Kuznetsov-class CVGNs were originally built in the 1980s to fulfill an expanding role for naval aviation. While not as large as some of its contemporaries, it is still able to embark 4 squadrons of aircraft.

Units of the Kuznetsov-class:
- ION Kuznetsov (CVGN 18)
- ION Varyag (CVGN 19)
- ION Novgorod (CVGN 20)
- DECOMMISSIONED (CVGN 21)
- DECOMMISSIONED (CVGN 22)
- DECOMMISSIONED (CVGN 23)

First put to sea in the early 1980s, the Kiev-class CVGN has recently seen a change in roles, from a heavy escort to a dedicated Witch carrier. There are currently 4 in service, each capable of embarking 48 Strikers.

Units of the Kiev-class:
- ION Kiev (CVGN 14)
- ION Minsk (CVGN 15)
- ION Kharkov (CVGN 16)
- ION Baku (CVGN 17)

[Albion Rhodesia]

Because seeing aircraft landing in the open ocean then going underwater wouldn't be at all obvious, or that MAD and Sonar don't exist, or that ASW weapons are completely useless ...

Radar doesn't exactly do a wonderful job at low altitudes for various reasons, and no one said these things were invincible.

Besides all the other reasons submersible carriers are failtastic, you mean?

Not as Failtastic as you'd think. The concept has popped up before, and continues to pop up over and over. And in a thread where people are posting monster-sized carriers, you're complaining that a concept that actually has historical and current backing is too out there?

The facts: Being on the surface is increasingly a death trap. As the saying goes, there are submarines, and there are targets. If you are not a submarine, then you are a sitting duck for one. This is the unpleasant truth that has come up in every military exercise to date.

No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier. It's a terrible idea, due to the simple fact that any third rate naval power with a marginal ASW capability can blow that impractical naval aviation platform out of the water, long before it can even launch a flight in response. Also it's been proven that in both practical and on ex. that though subs may prove to be a threat, a good ASW capability with a combination of aircraft, helos and frigates rigged up for ASW duties can quickly send most subs to the bottom, or make them think twice about sending their fish.

[Fransikania]

These are some Aircraft carriers in the Imperial Federation of Fransikania

[United Marxist Nations]

The UMN-Navy currently operates 17 Aircraft Carriers that are largely based on the Nimitz-Class Carrier of the US Navy.

[Legokiller]

Legokiller possess nine super aircraft Carriers each representing a value of Ponyism.

One General Ford Class named LKS Princess Cadance


The rest of the supper aircraft carriers are Nimitz class are named Princess Celestia, Princess Luna, Magic, Laughter, Honest, Loyalty, Kindness, and Generosity.

[New Neoria]

The Andrew Cole Class SuperCarrier is named after the 47th Prime Minister of New Neoria, Prime Minister Andrew J. Cole. The first of the class, NNS Andrew Cole was commisioned into the Neorian Naval Command on July 19th, 2011. A total of 20 Andrew Cole Class SuperCarriers is expected to enter service with the NNC by the end of 2030. As of May 15th, 2012, there are 3 SuperCarriers in service: (CVN 37) NNS Andrew Cole, (CVN 38) NNS Peter Talitto and (CVN 39) NNS Roger Marricks...

[Northwest Slobovia]

Radar doesn't exactly do a wonderful job at low altitudes for various reasons, and no one said these things were invincible.

Not as Failtastic as you'd think. The concept has popped up before, and continues to pop up over and over. And in a thread where people are posting monster-sized carriers, you're complaining that a concept that actually has historical and current backing is too out there?

The facts: Being on the surface is increasingly a death trap. As the saying goes, there are submarines, and there are targets. If you are not a submarine, then you are a sitting duck for one. This is the unpleasant truth that has come up in every military exercise to date.

No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier.

Eh? Not since WW2, no, but the Japanese had a handful then.

[La Espanol Medita]

We have 5 Principe de Asturias-class Aircraft Carriers and 5 U.S. Nimitz Aircraft Carriers

[Orussia]

No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier.

Eh? Not since WW2, no, but the Japanese had a handful then.

Yes, the I-400 class. However, due to their very function, they were quite mercilessly hunted. America wanted to make sure those things were DEAD.

[Inutoland]

No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier.

Eh? Not since WW2, no, but the Japanese had a handful then.

Carrying one or two WW2 floatplanes in a semi-jury-rigged hangar does not a submarine aircraft carrier make.

One of the big problems with the idea is internal hangar space. Submarines have to resist seriously large amounts of pressure, and the needs of resisting pressure (lots of bulkheads and small compartments) are diametrically opposed to those of handling aircraft efficiently (large hangar space, unobstructed access to planes). The large empty space required by your hangars, refueling and servicing areas creates what is in effect a giant crumple zone in your submarine. And it will, unless you are severely restricted in your dive depth, in which case you are incredibly vulnerable to detection and termination by ASW platforms. In which case your large and very expensive asset (Subs and carriers are probably the two most expensive types of naval warship, and you're proposing to combine the two into one) is a wet and very sunken sarcophagus.

Submarine carrier combinations are a bit like mechs. Rule of Cool, sounds great, but ultimately self-defeating and pointless.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Eh? Not since WW2, no, but the Japanese had a handful then.

Carrying one or two WW2 floatplanes in a semi-jury-rigged hangar does not a submarine aircraft carrier make.

One of the big problems with the idea is internal hangar space. [etc]

Right, which is why they designed them for just one or two seaplanes with folding wings. It seems the Japanese understood the problem well enough, and decided to work within the limitations of the their technology. I don't see what's wrong with calling them submarine carriers if that's the biggest practical size that could be built.

But you'll note I'm not suggesting current navies build any. Technology changes, and operational needs change to match (hopefully).

[Saurisisia]

True, though I can imagine you'd be able to build only a handful of those babies due to how expensive and complex it is to construct just one.

[The Seven Realms]

What if it was a submarine carrier that launched UCAVs?

[Awesomeland]

No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier.

Not true at all, in fact. All major militaries have experimented with the use of submarine carriers. The Americans, the British, the Japanese, the French, the Italians, the Germans, all have either built, or attempted to build, aircraft-carrying submarines.

It's a terrible idea, due to the simple fact that any third rate naval power with a marginal ASW capability can blow that impractical naval aviation platform out of the water, long before it can even launch a flight in response.

Funny, this is exactly the problem that happens in reverse when a standard aircraft carrier is put up against a third-rate naval power. So far, the US military has basically "lost" carriers in wargames and exercises to fearsome naval adversaries like Canada, China, and "Iranistan".

Also it's been proven that in both practical and on ex. that though subs may prove to be a threat, a good ASW capability with a combination of aircraft, helos and frigates rigged up for ASW duties can quickly send most subs to the bottom, or make them think twice about sending their fish.

Fielding all these things involves considerably more effort than fielding a single submarine which can doom an entire carrier. Even if you nail that submarine after the fact, your expensive carrier is now an expensive scrapheap at the bottom of the sea.

One of the big problems with the idea is internal hangar space. Submarines have to resist seriously large amounts of pressure, and the needs of resisting pressure (lots of bulkheads and small compartments) are diametrically opposed to those of handling aircraft efficiently (large hangar space, unobstructed access to planes).

Indeed, all these are true, but not insurmountable with modern material science. Which is why it has not been practical before to build giant aircraft-carrying submarines before...and it still might not be. Of course, we never said that we did. You will note that the exact numbers of planes carried per submarine was not, in fact, specified. Hint: It's not a very big number.

What if it was a submarine carrier that launched UCAVs?

Damn, you noticed? I mentioned just that very thing in the part about "unmanned" aircraft.

[The Seven Realms]

What if it was a submarine carrier that launched UCAVs?

Damn, you noticed? I mentioned just that very thing in the part about "unmanned" aircraft.

I mean ONLY UCAV. It has been proposed before IIRC.

They had problems with take off and recovery, though. Since they wanted to launch them from tubes below the water.

[The UK in Exile]

No military has ever actually suggested the use of a submersible carrier.

Not true at all, in fact. All major militaries have experimented with the use of submarine carriers. The Americans, the British, the Japanese, the French, the Italians, the Germans, all have either built, or attempted to build, aircraft-carrying submarines.

It's a terrible idea, due to the simple fact that any third rate naval power with a marginal ASW capability can blow that impractical naval aviation platform out of the water, long before it can even launch a flight in response.

Funny, this is exactly the problem that happens in reverse when a standard aircraft carrier is put up against a third-rate naval power. So far, the US military has basically "lost" carriers in wargames and exercises to fearsome naval adversaries like Canada, China, and "Iranistan".

Also it's been proven that in both practical and on ex. that though subs may prove to be a threat, a good ASW capability with a combination of aircraft, helos and frigates rigged up for ASW duties can quickly send most subs to the bottom, or make them think twice about sending their fish.

Fielding all these things involves considerably more effort than fielding a single submarine which can doom an entire carrier. Even if you nail that submarine after the fact, your expensive carrier is now an expensive scrapheap at the bottom of the sea.

One of the big problems with the idea is internal hangar space. Submarines have to resist seriously large amounts of pressure, and the needs of resisting pressure (lots of bulkheads and small compartments) are diametrically opposed to those of handling aircraft efficiently (large hangar space, unobstructed access to planes).

Indeed, all these are true, but not insurmountable with modern material science. Which is why it has not been practical before to build giant aircraft-carrying submarines before...and it still might not be. Of course, we never said that we did. You will note that the exact numbers of planes carried per submarine was not, in fact, specified. Hint: It's not a very big number.

What if it was a submarine carrier that launched UCAVs?

Damn, you noticed? I mentioned just that very thing in the part about "unmanned" aircraft

the fact that modern military's still have chaplains but no-one has sub-craft carriers suggest that they consider prayer to be a more effective weapon of war.

[Synaxis]

As of 2012, the Holy Empire of Synaxis possesses eight Temerarious Class supercarriers as well as four of the older Imperator Class assault carriers.

Temerarious Class Aircraft Carrier
Introduction: 2007
Unit Cost: 43.6 Million Ducats ($7.1 Billion)
Length: 1,192 ft. (363.3 m.)
Beam: 255 ft. (77.7 m.)
Depth: 42 ft. (12.8 m.)
Displacement: 104,500 Tons (94,802.4 Tonnes)
Main Armament: 2 x RIM Mk. V Rolling Airframe Missiles, Rail-Launched
Secondary Armament: 8 x Phalanx Mk. XI CIWS
Armor: 3 in. (7.6 cm.) Reinforced Steel
3 in. (7.6 cm.) Titanium
Propulsion: 2 x Westinghouse A8W Nuclear Reactors powering 4 Steam Turbines driving 6 Shafts producing 262,000 hp
Top Speed: 35 knots (40.3 mph [64.7 km/h])
Crew: 3,000 (Air Wing: 840)
Air Wing: 100 Fixed Wing Aircraft, 20 Helicopters
Ships in Class: Temerarious, Illustrious, (Courageous, Victorious), (Glorious, Furious), (Virtuous, Valorous)

Imperator Class Assault Helicopter Carrier
Introduction: 1977
Unit Cost: 27.6 Million Ducats ($4.5 Billion)
Length: 725 ft. (221 m.)
Beam: 188 ft. (57.3 m.)
Depth: 22 ft. (6.7 m.)
Displacement: 24,500 Tons (22,226.4 Tonnes)
Main Armament: 24 x Cruise Missiles (12 x Tomahawk Mk. VI, 12 x RIM Mk. V Rolling Airframe), Vertical-Launched
Secondary Armament: 12 x Phalanx Mk. XI CIWS
Armor: 2 in. (5.1 cm.) Reinforced Steel
2 in. (5.1 cm.) Titanium
Propulsion: 1 x Westinghouse A4W Nuclear Reactor powering 4 Steam Turbines driving 4 Shafts producing 105,550 hp
Top Speed: 32 knots (37 mph [59.5 km/h])
Crew: 1,700 (Air Wing: 420)
Air Wing: 70 Helicopters, 50 VTO/L, or 50 STO/L Aircraft
Ships in Class: Imperator, Sovereign^, Monarch^, (Grand Duke^, Crown Prince), (Sultan, Vizier)

As of 2012 only four Imperator Class carriers are in active service: HIMS Imperator (CVN-17), HIMS Crown Prince (CVN-21), HIMS Sultan (CVN-22), and HIMS Vizier (CVN-23).

The Imperial Navy is also currently developing the Allegiance Class Submersible Aircraft Carrier; the prototype HIMS Allegiance (CVS-1) was destroyed in combat in April, yet there are three others being constructed at various points around Synaxis.

Allegiance Class Submersible Aircraft Carrier
Introduction: 2011
Unit Cost: 33.8 Million Ducats ($5.5 Billion)
Length: 1,090 ft. (332.2 m.)
Beam: 164 ft. (50 m.)
Depth: 40 ft. (12.2 m.)
Displacement: 82,300 Tons (74,662.6 Tonnes)
Main Armament: 6 x Torpedo Tubes, 60 x Mk. XLI Torpedoes
Secondary Armament: None
Armor: 1 in. (2.5 cm.) Reinforced Steel over Vital Areas
1 in. (2.5 cm.) Titanium over Vital Areas
Propulsion: 1 x Westinghouse SS2B Nuclear Reactor powering 4 Steam Turbines driving 1 Turbofan producing 44,000 hp
Top Speed: 26 knots (29.9 mph [48.1 km/h])
Crew: 800 (375 Air Wing)
Complement: 50 x V/TOL Fighters, 10 x Helicopters
Ships in Class: Allegiance(X), (Adherence, Faithful), (Fidelity)