Kassaran wrote:No need to go on and call me stupid here man, yes I know I'm being rather stubborn, but that is because I'm trying to build original vessels here, I don't want to simply say "This is my vessel, here is wiki link to RL counterpart: Link to Military Vessel." I understand what I'm doing is unfeasible, I'm trying to come to you guys to help me make it work, not to have me revert to something already established.
I don't believe I called you stupid. I said that taking away the ability of a carrier to do air traffic control for its own aircraft stupid. If I seem like I'm being condescending, I apologise. Now, if I may say here, I think we have found your problem. You want to be 'original' and hence, 'distinctive', which is perfectly understandable. Everyone wants that. However, you're going about it the wrong way, trying to be original by just changing things you see in RL military things to something that you feel is more aesthetically pleasing or 'cool'. Once again, that is fine too. In all honesty, if you: a) understand that your desire for aesthetic uniqueness is unfeasible, and b) are unwilling to change such things, then you are--quite frankly--wasting our time here. This is a realism thread, and we do exactly that: provide critique on the realism or lackthereof on the designs/ideas posted here. If you are coming in flat out saying that you're not going to be realistic, then you're missing the point. If you're going to be unrealistic, just accept it and run with it. Just say that this is how you do it, and write the story. As I said before, relatively few people on NS are going to start complaining about the kind of things we are here (though many will try and exploit your systems). If you want to do something Rule of Cool, then do something Rule of Cool. Don't try and pretend that your rule of cool is 'more realistic', when it has many issues.
Alright, if I have crossed landing approaches, why not stagger my inbound craft? Also the craft I launch are large in their own respect, think B-1B so when I say I have massive carriers, they quite literally are massive, even the super carriers only hold twelve of the PS-21's (my main-line engagement fighter) and yes I know I should probably default to some Lockheed "Insert remotely bird-like name here" or a Mig "Insert Russian numbers and Word for Polar Bear Here", but I'm trying to create something more than just a carbon copy of real-world crafts and vehicles.
This piles on to more of what I was saying. You want to be cool, interesting, and unique, but you're going about it in a bad way. I don't have anything to say on your choice to use fighters the size of strategic bombers other than it won't work, you know it won't work, so that's that. It wouldn't even be able to launch off a carrier in the first place, and you're overinvesting into building massive carriers. THis is completely unrealistic and pure rule of cool. There is no 'real' justification to it, and we can't make it more feasible, because the idea is--at its core--infeasible and unrealistic.
As for staggering your approaches, your making your problems worse. You have a carrier that is twice the size of a regular one, meant to operate twice the aircraft...but still has the same recovery rate. You're also introducing an additional point of failure. What if an air traffic controller messes up? Or someone doesn't talk to each other properly? Good engineering is about reducing the potential points of failure, not increasing them.
Yes, I understand lots of operations happen on the deck of a carrier, but when utilizing every craft onboard means you might have just over twenty-something planes in the air and perhaps two-to-three exotics (My name for VTOL Transports) at most. I realize that things pertaining to aircraft should stay with the Carrier, I never said to adjust where operations were being held, but rather I was hoping to change how things were happening on board by removing what I had thought was something superfluous, I came here wondering if removing or centralizing the tower was a possible idea.
You have your answer: no to both. The island is not superfluous, it is a vital piece of carrier operations.
In regards to the flight path problem, yeah, if I have crossing approach vectors for my planes that can be extremely dangerous and stupid, but what if all landing approaches were staggered and only two would be landing at a time because yes, stupid me is leaning towards a centralized tower alignment?
I've explained why even the 'staggered' approach is problematic above.
If I also made it so that the decks were separate (also note that as large as my carriers can be for holding their fighters, they would at most be slightly larger than a US Supercarrier), would the problem be solved with why you seem to think that I'm literally placing the structure in the middle of the runway? Perhaps utilizing a twin-hull design like the speculated soon-to-be-in-production Chinese supercarriers? In other words, catameran-type designs are what I've been wanting to use for the carrier if indeed I need a tower (and judging from the rather harsh response I've received, I assume I will need a tower).
Because catamaran/twin hulls are horrible for carriers, and I doubt China will actually be doing it. While they--theoretically--improve stability, the wide hull required reduces their speed by increasing drag, and having two seperate 'hulls' decreases your hangar capacity and flight deck area considerably when compared to a single hull carrier of the same size. Essentially, even if I used the same aircraft as you, I could match your capacity with a smaller more conventional design, and if I built a conventional design the same size as one of your double hulls, it would have more hangar capacity and flight deck area, that would thus be more capable of large scale air operations.
I'm not ignoring the advice given, but rather trying to find ways around the obstacles set in place by reality, and when I find I can't the alternate routes that do work, then yes, I'll go for RoC, but mostly I'm trying to create OC for usage by my nation.
Once again, here is our problem. You're trying to take something unrealistic because it is more original, and then introduce additional complexity trying to work around it, when the realistic solution is to default to the RL, unoriginal solution. There is a major disconnect here. We are almost always going to advise you go back to the realistic solution because that is what these kind of threads do.
Kassaran wrote:Why would I require maneuverability? Yes I understand that dogfights happen, but in PMT times, no one should actually be entering the same airspace as the enemy, most engagements would occur from BVR and then close to AAM fights if I remember enough from the "Your Nation's Airforce Thread MkII" Again, they also are Interceptors, meant to get airborne then move to engage as fast as possible in response to an attack, either that or I use them for extreme ground-strike missions, mostly because their projected speed cap is about Mach 5.4. That's beside the point though being that in PMT combat, dogfights shouldn't happen, or at least be a highly improbable statistic.
I get the feeling you're trying to go for the 'missile bus' idea, a strategic bomber carying loads of long range AAMs. You remember right that most engagement would involve BVR, but that's just the beginning. You would have cheaper fighters within visual range fighting each other with shorter ranged AAMs. In this kind of scenario, manuever is important for position yourself efficiently, suprising the enemy etc. Old school dogfights don't occur, but you're making a large scale jump from 'dogfights don't happen' to 'manueverability is unimportant'. Remember what happened when the US tried the same thing, and consider what happened from there. Oh yes, we kept some form of the heavy, BVR, air superiority fighters like the F-15, but we also developed fighters designed to be more manuverable and suitable for visual range enagement like the F-16.
) post in these types of threads. People who don't care about realism, people who care a little, and people who really really care. 
