NationStates

Atomic Utopia wrote:

The Red Star Union wrote:So I wanna make a new megacarrier design to sell on GE&T, but what is the point where you have so many planes that it is just ineffective logistically? And what would the said dimensions be?

What is the military use of a megacarrier?

It could probably be heard from miles away dependent on hull design, is a big friggin target that costs a metric shitton or two, and could not be in more than one place at a time. What exactly would be the benifit to a huge carrier over several (2-3) small ones?

to be a Noob magnet for more sales

So, NS doesnt really work like the real world. EVERYONE has armadas of supercarriers. Trying to RP with 15 escorts against 5 supercarriers? Thats about, what 450 planes vs 300planes. Assuming the small carriers have 20 planes each, and the supercarriers each have 90 planes, mental math gives me roughly equal price per plane (super is 4 bill, escort is 1 bill). But in NS, people focus on ONE main theatre most of the time. You would much rather have a large concentration of force. I see your arguement in the real world, but in NS? Huge fleets and megaships give all the more reason for megacarriers over escorts.

say one supercarrier is sunk, you just lost a lot of planes.

unlike in RL, NS nations do not have the sheer technical and military superiority that the US has.

Nachmere wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:What is the military use of a megacarrier?

It could probably be heard from miles away dependent on hull design, is a big friggin target that costs a metric shitton or two, and could not be in more than one place at a time. What exactly would be the benefit to a huge carrier over several (2-3) small ones?

Easier to maintain a high rate of operations due to larger work areas, more personnel and aircraft? Thinking out loud.

Then why not get several carriers in the same area, that way you can have the same amount of personnel and aircraft without putting all of your eggs in one basket.

One giant megacarrier is like the longs- I mean that-which-must-not-be-named, it is a target just begging to be nuked.

The Red Star Union wrote:So, NS doesnt really work like the real world. EVERYONE has armadas of supercarriers. Trying to RP with 15 escorts against 5 supercarriers? Thats about, what 450 planes vs 300planes. Assuming the small carriers have 20 planes each, and the supercarriers each have 90 planes, mental math gives me roughly equal price per plane (super is 4 bill, escort is 1 bill). But in NS, people focus on ONE main theatre most of the time. You would much rather have a large concentration of force. I see your arguement in the real world, but in NS? Huge fleets and megaships give all the more reason for megacarriers over escorts.

Concentration of force means concentration of targets. A submarine can sink both a "supercarrier" and a "megacarrier" all the same, but one leaves the target down $5 billion and a fraction of his air power, and the other leaves him down $50 billion and his entire theater's air contingent. The size of *NS* means that aircraft flying from a single point could not cover an entire theater effectively, in which case a carrier force capable of greater dispersal would be more useful.

Atomic Utopia wrote:What is the military use of a megacarrier?

It could probably be heard from miles away dependent on hull design, is a big friggin target that costs a metric shitton or two, and could not be in more than one place at a time. What exactly would be the benifit to a huge carrier over several (2-3) small ones?

Up to a point, a larger hull means more space for aircraft and the ability to operate larger aircraft more effectively. A single large carrier will also generally require fewer crew than a host of smaller ships since fewer positions would be duplicated. Of course, beyond a certain point increases in size bring diminishing returns, as the extra space is no longer as useful. This isn't a fixed point though.

Those mega carriers and superships are really giving me reason to have 12x 650mm tubes and 60x VLS for my submarine, and producing it exponentially.

New Vihenia wrote:Those mega carriers and superships are really giving me reason to have 12x 650mm tubes and 60x VLS for my submarine, and producing it exponentially.

no

just use a tungsten rod mounted on an ICBM.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

New Vihenia wrote:Those mega carriers and superships are really giving me reason to have 12x 650mm tubes and 60x VLS for my submarine, and producing it exponentially.

no

just use a tungsten rod mounted on an ICBM.

Just use an ICBM

Roski wrote:

Rich and Corporations wrote:
no

just use a tungsten rod mounted on an ICBM.

Just use an ICBM

Hell, considering the re-entry speed you could probably just fill up a traffic cone with concrete and it would still destroy the ship.

Tule wrote:

Roski wrote:
Just use an ICBM

Hell, considering the re-entry speed you could probably just fill up a traffic cone with concrete and it would still destroy the ship.

Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Tule wrote:
Hell, considering the re-entry speed you could probably just fill up a traffic cone with concrete and it would still destroy the ship.

Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

Well, kinetic orbital bombardment would work on a ship. Punch a hole right through it, and it would create a massive void beneath the ship from the cavitation effect on the water. And I think a projectile made up of a mass of small pellets or of a relatively soft metal, rather than a single large object, would work better for KOB because it would dissipate the impact better than just digging a REALLY big hole. Kinda like an orbital bean-bag round or hollow point bullet.

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Tule wrote:
Hell, considering the re-entry speed you could probably just fill up a traffic cone with concrete and it would still destroy the ship.

Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

Dear god no. I'm talking about ICBM's in sub-orbital flight.

Their re-entry speed is roughly Mach 20.

North Arkana wrote:Well, kinetic orbital bombardment would work on a ship. Punch a hole right through it, and it would create a massive void beneath the ship from the cavitation effect on the water.

There is no good reason to put anything in space that you plan on using to bombard the ground. None.

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Tule wrote:
Hell, considering the re-entry speed you could probably just fill up a traffic cone with concrete and it would still destroy the ship.

Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

The Lol-aircraft has mostly been just me, I did the same thing with my Orion. occasionally clutter the thread for advice on realisim for a what-if of questionable realism. The Long word which must not be named has always been here, but it has come up a lot recently. Not sure why, at any rate this fad will pass. Nukes are nukes, somebody always wants to use a nuke.

Tule wrote:

The United Remnants of America wrote:Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

Dear god no. I'm talking about ICBM's in sub-orbital flight.

Their re-entry speed is roughly Mach 20.

That's the speed for an orbital weapon as well.

The Corparation wrote:The Lol-aircraft has mostly been just me, I did the same thing with my Orion. occasionally clutter the thread for advice on realisim for a what-if of questionable realism. The Re Long word which must not be named has always been here, but it has come up a lot recently. Not sure why, at any rate this fad will pass. Nukes are nukes, somebody always wants to use a nuke.

Then let us start a new age of NNEMPs!

North Arkana wrote:

The Corparation wrote:The Lol-aircraft has mostly been just me, I did the same thing with my Orion. occasionally clutter the thread for advice on realisim for a what-if of questionable realism. The Re Long word which must not be named has always been here, but it has come up a lot recently. Not sure why, at any rate this fad will pass. Nukes are nukes, somebody always wants to use a nuke.

Then let us start a new age of NNEMPs!

How about an NNEMP cannon?

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Tule wrote:
Dear god no. I'm talking about ICBM's in sub-orbital flight.

Their re-entry speed is roughly Mach 20.

That's the speed for an orbital weapon as well.

The difference being that any orbiting weapon is a sitting duck.

Unlike ICBM's you can't harden it, you can't maneuver it and you can't hide it.

The Corparation wrote:

The United Remnants of America wrote:Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

The Lol-aircraft has mostly been just me, I did the same thing with my Orion. occasionally clutter the thread for advice on realisim for a what-if of questionable realism. The Long word which must not be named has always been here, but it has come up a lot recently. Not sure why, at any rate this fad will pass. Nukes are nukes, somebody always wants to use a nuke.

I've refrained from introducing my orbital bombardment stuff, but I've got packages and stuff drawn up already.

I've been heavily tempted to get into lolaircraft, but that means I'd have to make my megaships into lolmegaships to be able to land the lolaircraft.

Megacarriers:

Pros:

• Can field cargo aircraft, assisting in long range humanitarian and strike operations.
• Can field more fighters and larger bombers.
• Better crew services. Might actually be able to have a pool.
• Larger variety of crew services.
• More likely to be able to field aircraft 24/7.
  
  Cons:
• Can pull in to fewer ports
• ATC may not be able to manage full complement of aircraft
• Cost
• Improportional cost & material -to- aircraft complement
• Theoretically can go faster
• Larger target
• Less on-station durability.*

On station durability only really applies to long-term wars and such. You need 2-3 carriers for every carrier you intend to have deployed at a time, to account for maintenance periods and allowing your crews to actually spend some time with their families and whatnot.

Pharthan wrote:

The Corparation wrote:The Lol-aircraft has mostly been just me, I did the same thing with my Orion. occasionally clutter the thread for advice on realisim for a what-if of questionable realism. The Long word which must not be named has always been here, but it has come up a lot recently. Not sure why, at any rate this fad will pass. Nukes are nukes, somebody always wants to use a nuke.

I've refrained from introducing my orbital bombardment stuff, but I've got packages and stuff drawn up already.

I've been heavily tempted to get into lolaircraft, but that means I'd have to make my megaships into lolmegaships to be able to land the lolaircraft.

I have seen the package and it shines brightly in the face of those who see it.... You sir make all de best ships and aircraft

Pharthan wrote:

The Corparation wrote:The Lol-aircraft has mostly been just me, I did the same thing with my Orion. occasionally clutter the thread for advice on realisim for a what-if of questionable realism. The Long word which must not be named has always been here, but it has come up a lot recently. Not sure why, at any rate this fad will pass. Nukes are nukes, somebody always wants to use a nuke.

I've refrained from introducing my orbital bombardment stuff, but I've got packages and stuff drawn up already.

I've been heavily tempted to get into lolaircraft, but that means I'd have to make my megaships into lolmegaships to be able to land the lolaircraft.

I've just thought about making a flying aircraft carrier, but one of my Regionmates has it, and I've made equipment specifically designed to kill it.

So, if I can kill them, people can kill mine. Right?

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Tule wrote:
Hell, considering the re-entry speed you could probably just fill up a traffic cone with concrete and it would still destroy the ship.

Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

Well, I guess the next one in the cycle must be nukes, so to break the cycle I have a super-duper aircraft question.

While reading about in air refueling I came up with an idea for increasing the range of drones.

The idea is a large drone resupply aircraft. Drones would be capable of refueling on several booms on the airplane, however what makes it unique is the ability for the plane to re-arm the drones in several specially constructed bays. The drones would fly to the destination and then refuel and re-arm at the plane, thus reducing the distance they would have to fly to re-arm. Note, the drones would not be carried by the plane, instead they would be merely refueled and re-armed, to be repaired or land they would have to land on a naval aircraft carrier or an airfield. It would also contain RADAR to allow it to assist the drones.

And before you ask, yes it will be nuclear powered.

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Pharthan wrote:
I've refrained from introducing my orbital bombardment stuff, but I've got packages and stuff drawn up already.

I've been heavily tempted to get into lolaircraft, but that means I'd have to make my megaships into lolmegaships to be able to land the lolaircraft.

I've just thought about making a flying aircraft carrier, but one of my Regionmates has it, and I've made equipment specifically designed to kill it.

So, if I can kill them, people can kill mine. Right?

Only if you don't have counter measures

Why bother with nukes? Just take the 747 AAC concept and ditch the pilots of the micro fighters.In flight refueling is also a lot cheaper and easier than dealing with a nuclear plant. Then again you are Atomic Utopia.

Romic wrote:

The United Remnants of America wrote:I've just thought about making a flying aircraft carrier, but one of my Regionmates has it, and I've made equipment specifically designed to kill it.

So, if I can kill them, people can kill mine. Right?

Only if you don't have counter measures

But one flying carrier shouldn't be able to defend against an air force, should it?

Like, the reason they always die in the movies/games is because of the storytelling their inability to defend well, right?

The United Remnants of America wrote:

Romic wrote:Only if you don't have counter measures

But one flying carrier shouldn't be able to defend against an air force, should it?

Like, the reason they always die in the movies/games is because of the storytelling their inability to defend well, right?

Not only that but ground based SAMs and everything an aircraft must worry about. It's literally just a giant moving sky target.

The Corparation wrote:Why bother with nukes? Just take the 747 AAC concept and ditch the pilots of the micro fighters.In flight refueling is also a lot cheaper and easier than dealing with a nuclear plant. Then again you are Atomic Utopia.

The idea was to make a in air refuling vessel capable of also re-arming my drones, not a flying air craft carrier. I think I will drop the reactor due to the fact that it costs a lot more (dependent upon design) and will increase the size of the plane quite a bit.

However on the subject of AACs, how much would one of those cost compared to a conventional carrier, and what would the advantage be. Currently I think the reaction time of it would be a decent advantage, however the need for constant refueling would be a problem.