Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Yugoshvanka]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

[San-Silvacian]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

VLS is very heavy and fucks around with the displacement.

You can't simply move x and place y on warships.

[Yugoshvanka]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

VLS is very heavy and fucks around with the displacement.

You can't simply move x and place y on warships.

I would think it would balance out, given that the superstructure is pushed to the front.

but hey.

[Stahn]

It's true. You can fire missiles from everywhere that can detroy a carrier. And what is the carrier going to do against that but explode?

It's not true. It's so wrong.

As well argued and insightful your comments were, they failed to change my mind on this. But it goes without saying that you are welcome to your own opinion.

Carriers still are a nice thing to have if you have a huge budget and go around the world invading nations that are technologically and militarily way behind but if the US would send its carriers against a nation like China in a full conventional war scenario, it is going to end in disaster.

Carriers now are like the battleships of WW2. It is not going to be of much help against a nation of power that knows what it is doing.

[Stahn]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

The Soviets had ships like that. Part missile cruiser, part carrier. They were cool in the 80's.

[Hasuut Inu Tlomaq]

We don't have what you would really call a navy but we do have a Coastal Patrol which is actually a unit of the Wildlife Police. Its mission is to prevent illegal fishing and shoot poachers (eg. illegal whalers). We don't really have warships. If our coast were attacked, our coastal artillery batteries would be activated and they can do a lot of damage.

[Gallia-]

If that were true, the USN wouldn't have carriers.

Sadly it isn't. Carriers are exceptionally helpful in everything except for a couple very niche roles such as keeping the Suez Canal free of SWARMING ATTACKS.

[Oaledonia]

It's not true. It's so wrong.

As well argued and insightful your comments were, they failed to change my mind on this. But it goes without saying that you are welcome to your own opinion.

Carriers still are a nice thing to have if you have a huge budget and go around the world invading nations that are technologically and militarily way behind but if the US would send its carriers against a nation like China in a full conventional war scenario, it is going to end in disaster.

Carriers now are like the battleships of WW2. It is not going to be of much help against a nation of power that knows what it is doing.

It's like you're telling me that aircraft aren't relevant.

[Rich and Corporations]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

The Soviets had ships like that. Part missile cruiser, part carrier. They were cool in the 80's.

The Soviets were bound by the Montreux Convention.

[San-Silvacian]

If that were true, the USN wouldn't have carriers.

Sadly it isn't. Carriers are exceptionally helpful in everything except for a couple very niche roles such as keeping the Suez Canal free of SWARMING ATTACKS.

Thats why China invaded it in BF4 rite.

[Yugoshvanka]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

The Soviets had ships like that. Part missile cruiser, part carrier. They were cool in the 80's.

I'm the soviets in the 60's, so I'm just ahead of the curve

[Stahn]

As well argued and insightful your comments were, they failed to change my mind on this. But it goes without saying that you are welcome to your own opinion.

Carriers still are a nice thing to have if you have a huge budget and go around the world invading nations that are technologically and militarily way behind but if the US would send its carriers against a nation like China in a full conventional war scenario, it is going to end in disaster.

Carriers now are like the battleships of WW2. It is not going to be of much help against a nation of power that knows what it is doing.

It's like you're telling me that aircraft aren't relevant.

Aircraft are relevant. So is infantry. But if you put 500 men in a blimp so they can go invade the U.S. it is not going to end well.

If that were true, the USN wouldn't have carriers.

Sadly it isn't. Carriers are exceptionally helpful in everything except for a couple very niche roles such as keeping the Suez Canal free of SWARMING ATTACKS.

Well, obviously if because the U.S.N. is doing it, it is the definitive and final argument, I can't be right.

The U.S. should not have invested in a new class of carrier is my opinion but their carriers are useful for them in scenarios like the Iraq Invasion and such.

And probably to a lesser degree it also applies to the U.K. and even lesser to France.

These are nations with a powerful military and lots of overseas interests. They will most likely be sending forces over the world to fight against nations that are no match for them technologically and militarily.

But with satellites in the sky and land based, boat based and submarine based missiles more than capable of destroying a super carrier with one hit, carriers have nowhere to hide and no defense capable of dealing with a powerful missile attack.

It is not so much a concern for the real world as such a large conventional war is perhaps not that likely to happen (it will probably turn nuclear), but on the planet of NationStates with lots of these conventional wars between huge and technologically advanced nations, carriers would be the first ship the enemy goes for. And I don't see how a navy can protect its carriers from such an attack.

[Organized States]

It's not true. It's so wrong.

As well argued and insightful your comments were, they failed to change my mind on this. But it goes without saying that you are welcome to your own opinion.

Carriers still are a nice thing to have if you have a huge budget and go around the world invading nations that are technologically and militarily way behind but if the US would send its carriers against a nation like China in a full conventional war scenario, it is going to end in disaster.

Carriers now are like the battleships of WW2. It is not going to be of much help against a nation of power that knows what it is doing.

Carrier or land based tankers. Problem solved. You can use your carrier aircraft, launch them out of range of enemy missiles. Refuel in flight. Repeat.

[Stahn]

Launch them out of range of enemy missiles? Do you know how long a range a missile can have?

[Organized States]

Launch them out of range of enemy missiles? Do you know how long a range a missile can have?

Depends on the missile. DF-21 or the likes, you are screwed. But, with most cruise missiles, you stand a decent chance.

[Gallia-]

It's like you're telling me that aircraft aren't relevant.

Aircraft are relevant. So is infantry. But if you put 500 men in a blimp so they can go invade the U.S. it is not going to end well.

If that were true, the USN wouldn't have carriers.

Sadly it isn't. Carriers are exceptionally helpful in everything except for a couple very niche roles such as keeping the Suez Canal free of SWARMING ATTACKS.

Well, obviously if because the U.S.N. is doing it, it is the definitive and final argument, I can't be right.

Good, at least you recognise that.

[Stahn]

Launch them out of range of enemy missiles? Do you know how long a range a missile can have?

Depends on the missile. DF-21 or the likes, you are screwed. But, with most cruise missiles, you stand a decent chance.

Yeah, it just depends on the enemy you are fighting. Iran or North Korea are probably not going to have anything that poses a great threat to your carriers (but you can never be sure) but there are plenty of nations in the world I would not use carriers against.

[Stahn]

Aircraft are relevant. So is infantry. But if you put 500 men in a blimp so they can go invade the U.S. it is not going to end well.



Well, obviously if because the U.S.N. is doing it, it is the definitive and final argument, I can't be right.

Good, at least you recognise that.

Like it has never made mistakes before.

[Yugoshvanka]

Good, at least you recognise that.

Like it has never have made mistakes before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

*Cough*

[Gallia-]

Good, at least you recognise that.

Like it has never made mistakes before.

I think the sole carrier navy in the world (soon to be joined by Britain when/if the QEs are ever built) knows a lot about carriers, so I'd defer to them unless you have some sort of extensive background in the subject.

[San-Silvacian]

The U.S. should not have invested in a new class of carrier is my opinion but their carriers are useful for them in scenarios like the Iraq Invasion and such.

As time goes on, carriers undergo this thing called age, allot of stuff goes though it. After so long it will actually cost more to operate an older design than a newer one.

And probably to a lesser degree it also applies to the U.K. and even lesser to France.

Both nations are cornerstones of NATO, also have a number of overseas interests.

But with satellites in the sky and land based

Land-based satellites.

wat.

Also satellites aren't good at looking for ships.

boat based and submarine based missiles more than capable of destroying a super carrier with one hit, carriers have nowhere to hide and no defense capable of dealing with a powerful missile attack.

You are literally saying carriers are outdated because a few chinese made some targets for airstrikes and submarines that can pwned by a helicopter. Oh I'm sorry I just said their counters.

Fuck it I guess its time to go back to BBs again, NS is right.

It is not so much a concern for the real world as such a large conventional war is perhaps not that likely to happen (it will probably turn nuclear), but on the planet of NationStates with lots of these conventional wars between huge and technologically advanced nations, carriers would be the first ship the enemy goes for. And I don't see how a navy can protect its carriers from such an attack.

Two bad a conventional war wouldn't automatically go nuclear, unlike what many like to believe. NATO nor the former PC aren't chomping at the bit to fucking nuke each other.

[Valloria]

OOC: Since Valloria is set in the late 2100's, we have some... interesting weaponry.

IC:

Fleet Size: 2,000,000 men operate a total of 1,000 warships, including:

• 200 J-Class 3,000-ft. Battleship warships with 300 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 600 six-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as eight nuclear warheads and 100 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 150 C-Class 1,600-ft. Battlecruiser warships with 160 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 320 six-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as five proton warheads and 56 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 150 O-Class 1,000-ft. Destroyer warships with 100 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 200 six-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as three proton warheads and 32 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 100 D-Class 800-ft. Cruiser warships with 80 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 160 six-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as two proton warheads and 28 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 100 P-Class 550-ft. Corvette warships with 55 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 110 six-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as one proton warhead and 20 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 100 N-Class 650-ft. Submarine warships with 40 proton warheads and 150 submarine thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 90 G-Class 500-ft. Monitor warships with 50 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 100 six-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as 16 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 40 B-Class 5,000-ft. Aircraft Carrier warships with 1000 5-dm. artillery barreled cannons and 2000 eight-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as 300 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.
• 25 L-Class 3,500-ft. Medic warships with 500 4-dm. artillery barreled cannons.
• 12 Z-Class 7,500-ft. Command warships with 1500 7.5-dm. artillery barrelled cannons and 3000 sixteen-barrel miniguns using exploding rounds as well as 20 proton warheads and 400 assorted surface-to-air/submarine/surface-to-surface thermoplasmanuclear missiles.

[Organized States]

Depends on the missile. DF-21 or the likes, you are screwed. But, with most cruise missiles, you stand a decent chance.

Yeah, it just depends on the enemy you are fighting. Iran or North Korea are probably not going to have anything that poses a great threat to your carriers (but you can never be sure) but there are plenty of nations in the world I would not use carriers against.

*cough china cough. North Korea is going to take a pounding from Carrier Aviation.

[Oaledonia]

I got this idea last night and I'd like you guys to hear it out:

Have a warship, bit larger then everyone's favorite Kirov-class, with the super structure pushed to the front, and a very large bed of VLS tubes covering most of the ships aft, but in the same way that there are missile tubes in the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov have a large flight deck over the whole thing for helicopters and VTOL fighters.


I know its a stupid idea, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it

*think of it as a mating of the kirov and the Moskva-classe*

The Soviets had ships like that. Part missile cruiser, part carrier. They were cool in the 80's.

It also failed.

[Oaledonia]

Stahn is obviously an expert. Of course carriers are completely defenseless against missiles....Oh wait..... Aegis