NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[The Corparation]

It is capable of operating 20 Harrier or F-35B fighters from its deck and it doesn't have a well deck (which the Marines bitched and moaned about QUITE a lot) so I'd say it does. The primary benefit I see from it is cheaper construction and operating costs, allowing me to have more of them, allowing them to take up some other positions and reducing the strain on my super-carriers.

I ask because it seems to me like her primary purpose isn't to launch aircraft, but helicopters. This is quite unlike the older light carriers who were still dedicated aircraft carriers. I dunno. I'm not an expert. For what it's worth Wikipedia lists the America as a helicopter carrier. Also, the general definition of a light carrier, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
"The precise definition of the type varies by country; light carriers typically have a complement of aircraft only one-half to two-thirds the size of a full-sized fleet carrier. A light carrier was similar in concept to an escort carrier in most respects, however light carriers were intended for higher speeds to be deployed alongside fleet carriers, while escort carriers usually defended convoys and provided air support during amphibious operations." So, I think that's one thing to consider. Y'know, ignoring the fact that the twin concepts of light and escort carriers is pretty outdated.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

And, on an unrelated note, is your nation at all related to the Honorverse?

America's main role is amphibious assault, but her job she needs significant aviation capabilities. There's no reason that her aviation capabilities can't be used for things other amphibious assault. If needed it would be easy to switch her mission from amphibious assault to that of light aircraft carrier. Ditch the troops than swap out the transport helicopters for more F-35s and some ASW helicopters and you have an Instant light carrier. F-35s are a bit gimped compared to flying them off something like the QE due to the lack of a ski jump but beyond that it wouldn't have any difficulty doing the job.

[The Manticoran Empire]

It is capable of operating 20 Harrier or F-35B fighters from its deck and it doesn't have a well deck (which the Marines bitched and moaned about QUITE a lot) so I'd say it does. The primary benefit I see from it is cheaper construction and operating costs, allowing me to have more of them, allowing them to take up some other positions and reducing the strain on my super-carriers.

I ask because it seems to me like her primary purpose isn't to launch aircraft, but helicopters. This is quite unlike the older light carriers who were still dedicated aircraft carriers. I dunno. I'm not an expert. For what it's worth Wikipedia lists the America as a helicopter carrier. Also, the general definition of a light carrier, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
"The precise definition of the type varies by country; light carriers typically have a complement of aircraft only one-half to two-thirds the size of a full-sized fleet carrier. A light carrier was similar in concept to an escort carrier in most respects, however light carriers were intended for higher speeds to be deployed alongside fleet carriers, while escort carriers usually defended convoys and provided air support during amphibious operations." So, I think that's one thing to consider. Y'know, ignoring the fact that the twin concepts of light and escort carriers is pretty outdated. Interestingly enough, escort carriers were the most numerous of the three types of carriers in the US Navy during World War II.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

And, on an unrelated note, is your nation at all related to the Honorverse?

To deal with your first paragraph, the Wiki article on Light Carriers only really deals with World War II carriers. While the America is a Helicopter Carrier, it can be reconfigured for the Light Carrier Role and would be used essentially to just tell small fry that I'm watching.

For your second question, my navy is one of the more powerful in my region. In the lore of my region, I had a sort of UK like overseas Empire that I'm not 100% wanting to let go of, sort of like France.

For the final question, no. It's not. Honorverse is why I named it the way I named it but it's not related. It used to be. But I moved away from that when I went solidly into modern tech roleplay.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I ask because it seems to me like her primary purpose isn't to launch aircraft, but helicopters. This is quite unlike the older light carriers who were still dedicated aircraft carriers. I dunno. I'm not an expert. For what it's worth Wikipedia lists the America as a helicopter carrier. Also, the general definition of a light carrier, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
"The precise definition of the type varies by country; light carriers typically have a complement of aircraft only one-half to two-thirds the size of a full-sized fleet carrier. A light carrier was similar in concept to an escort carrier in most respects, however light carriers were intended for higher speeds to be deployed alongside fleet carriers, while escort carriers usually defended convoys and provided air support during amphibious operations." So, I think that's one thing to consider. Y'know, ignoring the fact that the twin concepts of light and escort carriers is pretty outdated.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

And, on an unrelated note, is your nation at all related to the Honorverse?

America's main role is amphibious assault, but her job she needs significant aviation capabilities. There's no reason that her aviation capabilities can't be used for things other amphibious assault. If needed it would be easy to switch her mission from amphibious assault to that of light aircraft carrier. Ditch the troops than swap out the transport helicopters for more F-35s and some ASW helicopters and you have an Instant light carrier. F-35s are a bit gimped compared to flying them off something like the QE due to the lack of a ski jump but beyond that it wouldn't have any difficulty doing the job.

I'm not really intending it to do much more than support Marine operations and keep poor former colonies from getting too many ideas regarding their sovereignty.

[Yan Dynasty]

I ask because it seems to me like her primary purpose isn't to launch aircraft, but helicopters. This is quite unlike the older light carriers who were still dedicated aircraft carriers. I dunno. I'm not an expert. For what it's worth Wikipedia lists the America as a helicopter carrier. Also, the general definition of a light carrier, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
"The precise definition of the type varies by country; light carriers typically have a complement of aircraft only one-half to two-thirds the size of a full-sized fleet carrier. A light carrier was similar in concept to an escort carrier in most respects, however light carriers were intended for higher speeds to be deployed alongside fleet carriers, while escort carriers usually defended convoys and provided air support during amphibious operations." So, I think that's one thing to consider. Y'know, ignoring the fact that the twin concepts of light and escort carriers is pretty outdated.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

And, on an unrelated note, is your nation at all related to the Honorverse?

America's main role is amphibious assault, but her job she needs significant aviation capabilities. There's no reason that her aviation capabilities can't be used for things other amphibious assault. If needed it would be easy to switch her mission from amphibious assault to that of light aircraft carrier. Ditch the troops than swap out the transport helicopters for more F-35s and some ASW helicopters and you have an Instant light carrier. F-35s are a bit gimped compared to flying them off something like the QE due to the lack of a ski jump but beyond that it wouldn't have any difficulty doing the job.

True. True. I just wanted to bring a little debate to the table. My overall point was just that the America and her "classmates" (can I get a bud-dum-tshh) weren't designed to be dedicated light carriers, a type of ship that basically became obsolete after World War II for the US Navy. Or, at least, that was my read of the situation.

[Greater Cesnica]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=gre ... /id=860859

Just wanted your guys opinions on the feasibility of mass-producing and giving this to our soldiers, with our economy and tech level considered. That is, if it's even possible to create something like the rifle pictured, that wouldn't fail at 10000+ rounds fired.

[The Manticoran Empire]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=greater_cesnica/detail=factbook/id=860859

Just wanted your guys opinions on the feasibility of mass-producing and giving this to our soldiers, with our economy and tech level considered. That is, if it's even possible to create something like the rifle pictured, that wouldn't fail at 10000+ rounds fired.

In 2018? Not even close. We can make Gauss rifles, yeah. But they are practically useless and VERY bulky, not to mention heavy. Now something like that weapon would probably have rather substantial recoil and power requirements, requiring a very small, powerful, and efficient generator as well as something to reduce the recoil.

[Yan Dynasty]

I ask because it seems to me like her primary purpose isn't to launch aircraft, but helicopters. This is quite unlike the older light carriers who were still dedicated aircraft carriers. I dunno. I'm not an expert. For what it's worth Wikipedia lists the America as a helicopter carrier. Also, the general definition of a light carrier, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
"The precise definition of the type varies by country; light carriers typically have a complement of aircraft only one-half to two-thirds the size of a full-sized fleet carrier. A light carrier was similar in concept to an escort carrier in most respects, however light carriers were intended for higher speeds to be deployed alongside fleet carriers, while escort carriers usually defended convoys and provided air support during amphibious operations." So, I think that's one thing to consider. Y'know, ignoring the fact that the twin concepts of light and escort carriers is pretty outdated. Interestingly enough, escort carriers were the most numerous of the three types of carriers in the US Navy during World War II.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

And, on an unrelated note, is your nation at all related to the Honorverse?

To deal with your first paragraph, the Wiki article on Light Carriers only really deals with World War II carriers. While the America is a Helicopter Carrier, it can be reconfigured for the Light Carrier Role and would be used essentially to just tell small fry that I'm watching.

For your second question, my navy is one of the more powerful in my region. In the lore of my region, I had a sort of UK like overseas Empire that I'm not 100% wanting to let go of, sort of like France.

For the final question, no. It's not. Honorverse is why I named it the way I named it but it's not related. It used to be. But I moved away from that when I went solidly into modern tech roleplay.

I feel like that could be more easily achieved with cheaper surface ships like guided-missile destroyers. I don't know the specifics of your world, but I imagine very few nations, so-called small fry, would be unintimidated by a ship like the Arleigh Burke or the Ticonderoga. 1 billion USD for the Ticonderoga compared to almost 2 billion USD for the Arleigh Burke and 10 billion USD for the America.

We all know how that went for France.

Aww. That's a shame.

[The Manticoran Empire]

To deal with your first paragraph, the Wiki article on Light Carriers only really deals with World War II carriers. While the America is a Helicopter Carrier, it can be reconfigured for the Light Carrier Role and would be used essentially to just tell small fry that I'm watching.

For your second question, my navy is one of the more powerful in my region. In the lore of my region, I had a sort of UK like overseas Empire that I'm not 100% wanting to let go of, sort of like France.

For the final question, no. It's not. Honorverse is why I named it the way I named it but it's not related. It used to be. But I moved away from that when I went solidly into modern tech roleplay.

I feel like that could be more easily achieved with cheaper surface ships like guided-missile destroyers. I don't know the specifics of your world, but I imagine very few nations, so-called small fry, would be unintimidated by a ship like the Arleigh Burke or the Ticonderoga. 1 billion USD for the Ticonderoga compared to almost 2 billion USD for the Arleigh Burke and 10 billion USD for the America.

We all know how that went for France.

Aww. That's a shame.

Well my versions of the Arleigh Burke and the Ticonderoga are nuclear powered and escort my super carriers. Also, the USS America is NOT 10 billion. That was the PROGRAM cost. The ship itself is 3.4 billion. Plus, guided missiles just don't have the same precision or scalability as air dropped munitions. My primary deterrent munition is the Small Diameter Bomb. It is very accurate and has a small blast radius, making it excellent for dealing with upstart anti-Manticoran factions.

France does maintain influence over several countries in Africa (though China is starting to out-bid them).

Yeah. Sorry. Honorverse is great, though.

[Yan Dynasty]

I feel like that could be more easily achieved with cheaper surface ships like guided-missile destroyers. I don't know the specifics of your world, but I imagine very few nations, so-called small fry, would be unintimidated by a ship like the Arleigh Burke or the Ticonderoga. 1 billion USD for the Ticonderoga compared to almost 2 billion USD for the Arleigh Burke and 10 billion USD for the America.

We all know how that went for France.

Aww. That's a shame.

Well my versions of the Arleigh Burke and the Ticonderoga are nuclear powered and escort my super carriers. Also, the USS America is NOT 10 billion. That was the PROGRAM cost. The ship itself is 3.4 billion. Plus, guided missiles just don't have the same precision or scalability as air dropped munitions. My primary deterrent munition is the Small Diameter Bomb. It is very accurate and has a small blast radius, making it excellent for dealing with upstart anti-Manticoran factions.

France does maintain influence over several countries in Africa (though China is starting to out-bid them).

Yeah. Sorry. Honorverse is great, though.

The destroyers would still be significantly cheaper, but I can see your point. Although, one wonders who and for what purpose you'd need to drop bombs on neutral nations.

I was mostly referencing the riots in the streets of French cities and the numerous bloody wars for independence carried out by France's colonial possessions.

It really is.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well my versions of the Arleigh Burke and the Ticonderoga are nuclear powered and escort my super carriers. Also, the USS America is NOT 10 billion. That was the PROGRAM cost. The ship itself is 3.4 billion. Plus, guided missiles just don't have the same precision or scalability as air dropped munitions. My primary deterrent munition is the Small Diameter Bomb. It is very accurate and has a small blast radius, making it excellent for dealing with upstart anti-Manticoran factions.

France does maintain influence over several countries in Africa (though China is starting to out-bid them).

Yeah. Sorry. Honorverse is great, though.

The destroyers would still be significantly cheaper, but I can see your point. Although, one wonders who and for what purpose you'd need to drop bombs on neutral nations.

I was mostly referencing the riots in the streets of French cities and the numerous bloody wars for independence carried out by France's colonial possessions.

It really is.

You know, trying to assert their sovereignty, denying me mineral rights to their oil, gems, and other resources. Stuff like that.

Now that you mention it, I have spent the last couple decades fighting multiple insurgencies in several former colonies.

[Dostanuot Loj]

If cost is a concern, why are you using America over something like PdA? Their aircraft compliments are not too far off for Harriers, and PdA will be cheaper in almost every way.

[Manokan Republic]

For what duties?

Light carriers are meant for situations, geographies or operations where the deployment of a supercarrier, or otherwise 'normal' size carrier is impossible, dicey or wasteful for political or other reasons.

Well the region I'm in has about 4 continents and I attempt to project my power to all four of them. I currently have 13 super-carriers, with 3 deployed at all times. Because there are only 3 deployed at any one time, the area that they can influence is limited. So I'm considering creating carrier groups around light carriers intended to maintain the projection of power in areas that the Super Carriers can't get to during their 9 month deployments. However, I'm wanting to know if it would just be more cost-effective to build more super-carriers, rather than going through the process of developing smaller, conventionally powered ships.

The main advantage of super carriers rests in just how big they are, so they can launch full sized planes, and their independent autonomous nature so you don't need constant refueling. An aircraft carrier is not subject to siege, so it can remain out on the sea indefinitely although the aircraft will eventually run out of fuel, and soldiers out of food unless they fix. Water is infinite due to the ocean, and nuclear power being used to desalinate it.

A smaller carrier makes a lot of sense with certain options, such as the F-35, which is a very good short take off or vertical take off aircraft. Such a plane is as good as a large one and has stealth capabilities but can be launched from a tiny aircraft carrier, eliminating a lot of the problems. A small carrier for a few harrier jump jets or helicopters would do fine as long as it was intended for a very specific role, that is for helicopters and short range bombing.

Most of the U.S.'s destroyers and such are also nuclear powered, such as the Zumwalt destroyer, so a small aircraft carrier that is nuclear would be better, and then if you designed it only to use certain types of aircraft, then it would do okay. As a replacement to an aircraft carrier it's not really worth it, but for supporting a low intensity engagement it's not a bad idea. So, you might park a submarine and a destroyer outside a navy seal operation or something for a few months, with a handful of F-35's and helicopters available for the time being, or harrier jump jets depending on your technology level.

[Manokan Republic]

Basically the story is, do you use F-35's or not. An F-35 is luanchable off the back of a small destroyer or cruiser, even a coastguard boat, so the size issue goes out the window. Small nuclear power plants make sense, as opposed to diesel, which is a major logistics hassle especially since diesel boats are easy targets to be shot down and reliably give away the position of your other craft. Logistics troops are more likely to die than front line combat troops, so you reduce casualties and complications by doing this. A great aircraft carrier is worthless if it's fuel boat is not protected as well. Because of the raw size needed by fuel boats, they usually are not armored or outfitted with many guns. You'd need a carrier to carry fuel for other carriers for it to be protected essentially, which probably isn't even possible. You run in to the infinity paradox when you want an armored fuel boat or truck, as if you could armor a truck to be that big with all that fuel you'd just use it as your tank as opposed to a smaller tank. A fuel truck for your armored fuel truck basically doesn't work. Super dense fuel might solve that issue, though, but that's essentially what nuclear power is.

The problem with a harrier jump jet is low range and power, carrying a 500 pound bomb unless it's upgraded to carry a single, 2000 pound bomb. The F-35 can carry 8, and still have 4 missiles ready if you wanted. This is a considerable amount of power to have, and it's also potentially stealthy and won't as easily be shot down by missiles or other planes. So, if you can get a VTOL like the F-35, than yes it works. I recommend a nuclear powered mini-carrier though for water desalination and indefinite operation purposes. It's still smaller, so you get three small carriers with 1/3rd the nuclear power per one, instead of one big carrier.

For a nation the size of the U.S., I recommend just using bigger one's, but if your medium sized than small carriers make sense.

[The Akasha Colony]

How feasible would light carriers such as USS America be?

It is physically possible.

But America is very poorly suited to the role, and light carriers in general are not suited to the work that large carriers are expected to do.

If you can buy a supercarrier, buy one. Unless your needs are limited to nothing more than basic fleet defense and local ASW in waters not too far from the homeland (like Japan).

When considering the use case for a carrier (or any other asset, really), radius of action needs to be considered. How large of a radius can a given ship cover in a given response time? Say, 72 hours? A nuclear supercarrier can cover quite a large distance in that time in a flat out sprint (provided her escorts can keep up). A slow 20-knot amphibious assault ship cannot. A ship sprinting at 30 knots can cover 2,160 just over 4,000 km. A ship traveling at 20 knots can travel under 2,700 km. That doesn't sound like a tremendous difference, but that means the total surface area a fast carrier force can control is more than twice as large as the area covered by a slower carrier. So you will need twice as many carriers and twice as many escorts for those carriers to cover something approaching the same area as a single fast carrier.

The slow speed also makes the ship more vulnerable to submarines. Speed is protection: a ship sprinting at 30+ knots is basically immune to submarine attack unless it happens to accidentally run right over one (but this is what the screen is for!). No submarine can catch it without making so much noise it both deafens itself and reveals its position to everything in a 200+ mile radius.

America as presently designed is also limited to VTOL designs, which significantly reduce aircraft operational radius and payload. A ski jump would help, but a full CATOBAR installation would be better.

This is why when the USN flirted with smaller conventional carriers after the cost scare from CVN-65, they all had speeds approaching 30 knots (rather than 20 knots), had catapults (though only 2, rather than 4) and full angled flight decks. They were actual carriers, not helicopter carriers with a few VTOL planes crammed onboard.

If you have thirteen heavy fleet carriers, I'm surprised you would only have three deployed at any one time.
Additionally, I'm surprised you recognise the hole this leaves between capability and flexibility, and then instead consider plugging this gap with light carriers.

Why are ten supercarriers inactive? Why not activate more of the fleet (I would say having 10 deployed and three not deployed would be a sensible use of 13), or pare it down in the first place?

This is generally in line with USN practice. Ships need surprising amounts of maintenance and crews need time in port. Soviet ships during the Cold War generally had even lower readiness rates.

Generally the cycle is that for every ship deployed, one has just returned from that patrol station and another is working up to relieve the one on station. In the wider fleet, at least one carrier is undergoing RCOH and is out of commission for several years, and the rotation schedule usually means that one ship is underway to replace another at a deployment station.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

Larger carriers are more efficient at operating large numbers of aircraft than a bunch of smaller carriers. If your nation needs to be able to operate large numbers of aircraft at sea, supercarriers are a natural extension of this need.

I feel like that could be more easily achieved with cheaper surface ships like guided-missile destroyers. I don't know the specifics of your world, but I imagine very few nations, so-called small fry, would be unintimidated by a ship like the Arleigh Burke or the Ticonderoga. 1 billion USD for the Ticonderoga compared to almost 2 billion USD for the Arleigh Burke and 10 billion USD for the America.

Cruise missiles and a 5" deck gun do not usually scare tinpot dictators.

[Yan Dynasty]

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

Larger carriers are more efficient at operating large numbers of aircraft than a bunch of smaller carriers. If your nation needs to be able to operate large numbers of aircraft at sea, supercarriers are a natural extension of this need.

That's why I asked if Manticore's navy is the most powerful in the world. If you look at other countries these days, most nations have trouble finding the funding and political willpower to service even one fleet carrier. Let alone multiple fleet carriers or even one supercarrier. France, I think, is a prime example of this. Russia, too. Their attempts to build a supercarrier have seemingly been put on the backburner.

[Spirit of Hope]

Larger carriers are more efficient at operating large numbers of aircraft than a bunch of smaller carriers. If your nation needs to be able to operate large numbers of aircraft at sea, supercarriers are a natural extension of this need.

That's why I asked if Manticore's navy is the most powerful in the world. If you look at other countries these days, most nations have trouble finding the funding and political willpower to service even one fleet carrier. Let alone multiple fleet carriers or even one supercarrier. France, I think, is a prime example of this. Russia, too. Their attempts to build a supercarrier have seemingly been put on the backburner.

France and the UK both operate carriers, they may not be super carriers but they exist. Both, plus Germany, could almost certainly afford more/larger carriers if they were willing to put more money into their navies. None of them are really willing to do so, for largely political reasons, mainly that they are allies of the US, generally share very similar foreign policies as the US, and the US has a rather large supply of carriers that meets the needs.

[Yan Dynasty]

That's why I asked if Manticore's navy is the most powerful in the world. If you look at other countries these days, most nations have trouble finding the funding and political willpower to service even one fleet carrier. Let alone multiple fleet carriers or even one supercarrier. France, I think, is a prime example of this. Russia, too. Their attempts to build a supercarrier have seemingly been put on the backburner.

France and the UK both operate carriers, they may not be super carriers but they exist. Both, plus Germany, could almost certainly afford more/larger carriers if they were willing to put more money into their navies. None of them are really willing to do so, for largely political reasons, mainly that they are allies of the US, generally share very similar foreign policies as the US, and the US has a rather large supply of carriers that meets the needs.

They both operate one carrier and the French have recently announced plans to build no more carriers. They chose, instead, to more tightly integrate its partnership with the Royal Navy. Thirteen supercarriers would be out of the question both politically and financially.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well the region I'm in has about 4 continents and I attempt to project my power to all four of them. I currently have 13 super-carriers, with 3 deployed at all times. Because there are only 3 deployed at any one time, the area that they can influence is limited. So I'm considering creating carrier groups around light carriers intended to maintain the projection of power in areas that the Super Carriers can't get to during their 9 month deployments. However, I'm wanting to know if it would just be more cost-effective to build more super-carriers, rather than going through the process of developing smaller, conventionally powered ships.

The main advantage of super carriers rests in just how big they are, so they can launch full sized planes, and their independent autonomous nature so you don't need constant refueling. An aircraft carrier is not subject to siege, so it can remain out on the sea indefinitely although the aircraft will eventually run out of fuel, and soldiers out of food unless they fix. Water is infinite due to the ocean, and nuclear power being used to desalinate it.

A smaller carrier makes a lot of sense with certain options, such as the F-35, which is a very good short take off or vertical take off aircraft. Such a plane is as good as a large one and has stealth capabilities but can be launched from a tiny aircraft carrier, eliminating a lot of the problems. A small carrier for a few harrier jump jets or helicopters would do fine as long as it was intended for a very specific role, that is for helicopters and short range bombing.

Most of the U.S.'s destroyers and such are also nuclear powered, such as the Zumwalt destroyer, so a small aircraft carrier that is nuclear would be better, and then if you designed it only to use certain types of aircraft, then it would do okay. As a replacement to an aircraft carrier it's not really worth it, but for supporting a low intensity engagement it's not a bad idea. So, you might park a submarine and a destroyer outside a navy seal operation or something for a few months, with a handful of F-35's and helicopters available for the time being, or harrier jump jets depending on your technology level.

No US destroyers or cruisers currently in service are nuclear powered. The Zumwalts use electric generators and both the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke have conventional engines. Only carriers and submarines have nuke power.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How feasible would light carriers such as USS America be?

It is physically possible.

But America is very poorly suited to the role, and light carriers in general are not suited to the work that large carriers are expected to do.

If you can buy a supercarrier, buy one. Unless your needs are limited to nothing more than basic fleet defense and local ASW in waters not too far from the homeland (like Japan).

When considering the use case for a carrier (or any other asset, really), radius of action needs to be considered. How large of a radius can a given ship cover in a given response time? Say, 72 hours? A nuclear supercarrier can cover quite a large distance in that time in a flat out sprint (provided her escorts can keep up). A slow 20-knot amphibious assault ship cannot. A ship sprinting at 30 knots can cover 2,160 just over 4,000 km. A ship traveling at 20 knots can travel under 2,700 km. That doesn't sound like a tremendous difference, but that means the total surface area a fast carrier force can control is more than twice as large as the area covered by a slower carrier. So you will need twice as many carriers and twice as many escorts for those carriers to cover something approaching the same area as a single fast carrier.

The slow speed also makes the ship more vulnerable to submarines. Speed is protection: a ship sprinting at 30+ knots is basically immune to submarine attack unless it happens to accidentally run right over one (but this is what the screen is for!). No submarine can catch it without making so much noise it both deafens itself and reveals its position to everything in a 200+ mile radius.

America as presently designed is also limited to VTOL designs, which significantly reduce aircraft operational radius and payload. A ski jump would help, but a full CATOBAR installation would be better.

This is why when the USN flirted with smaller conventional carriers after the cost scare from CVN-65, they all had speeds approaching 30 knots (rather than 20 knots), had catapults (though only 2, rather than 4) and full angled flight decks. They were actual carriers, not helicopter carriers with a few VTOL planes crammed onboard.

If you have thirteen heavy fleet carriers, I'm surprised you would only have three deployed at any one time.
Additionally, I'm surprised you recognise the hole this leaves between capability and flexibility, and then instead consider plugging this gap with light carriers.

Why are ten supercarriers inactive? Why not activate more of the fleet (I would say having 10 deployed and three not deployed would be a sensible use of 13), or pare it down in the first place?

This is generally in line with USN practice. Ships need surprising amounts of maintenance and crews need time in port. Soviet ships during the Cold War generally had even lower readiness rates.

Generally the cycle is that for every ship deployed, one has just returned from that patrol station and another is working up to relieve the one on station. In the wider fleet, at least one carrier is undergoing RCOH and is out of commission for several years, and the rotation schedule usually means that one ship is underway to replace another at a deployment station.

Putting that aside, why does your nation have supercarriers? Is your navy the most powerful force in the world? Politically speaking, I think that's the only real justification one could have for constructing and operating thirteen of the monstrosities.

Larger carriers are more efficient at operating large numbers of aircraft than a bunch of smaller carriers. If your nation needs to be able to operate large numbers of aircraft at sea, supercarriers are a natural extension of this need.

I feel like that could be more easily achieved with cheaper surface ships like guided-missile destroyers. I don't know the specifics of your world, but I imagine very few nations, so-called small fry, would be unintimidated by a ship like the Arleigh Burke or the Ticonderoga. 1 billion USD for the Ticonderoga compared to almost 2 billion USD for the Arleigh Burke and 10 billion USD for the America.

Cruise missiles and a 5" deck gun do not usually scare tinpot dictators.

Any USN designs that you see as feasible? My basic purpose for incorporating light carriers is to cover more space than the super carrier can and use the Supercarroer to deter more powerful nations, leaving the small fry to lighter, cheaper vessels.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Basically the story is, do you use F-35's or not. An F-35 is luanchable off the back of a small destroyer or cruiser, even a coastguard boat, so the size issue goes out the window. Small nuclear power plants make sense, as opposed to diesel, which is a major logistics hassle especially since diesel boats are easy targets to be shot down and reliably give away the position of your other craft. Logistics troops are more likely to die than front line combat troops, so you reduce casualties and complications by doing this. A great aircraft carrier is worthless if it's fuel boat is not protected as well. Because of the raw size needed by fuel boats, they usually are not armored or outfitted with many guns. You'd need a carrier to carry fuel for other carriers for it to be protected essentially, which probably isn't even possible. You run in to the infinity paradox when you want an armored fuel boat or truck, as if you could armor a truck to be that big with all that fuel you'd just use it as your tank as opposed to a smaller tank. A fuel truck for your armored fuel truck basically doesn't work. Super dense fuel might solve that issue, though, but that's essentially what nuclear power is.

The problem with a harrier jump jet is low range and power, carrying a 500 pound bomb unless it's upgraded to carry a single, 2000 pound bomb. The F-35 can carry 8, and still have 4 missiles ready if you wanted. This is a considerable amount of power to have, and it's also potentially stealthy and won't as easily be shot down by missiles or other planes. So, if you can get a VTOL like the F-35, than yes it works. I recommend a nuclear powered mini-carrier though for water desalination and indefinite operation purposes. It's still smaller, so you get three small carriers with 1/3rd the nuclear power per one, instead of one big carrier.

For a nation the size of the U.S., I recommend just using bigger one's, but if your medium sized than small carriers make sense.

The F-35 is my mainline multi-role fighter. In terms of land area, my nation is medium sized (though we haven't fully renounced our claims to our officially independent colonies) but population and economy wise it's close to the size of the US. I'm current involved in several overseas insurgencies and use my navy to intimidate the former colonies into maintaining a series of lopsided agreements and treaties.

[The Akasha Colony]

They both operate one carrier and the French have recently announced plans to build no more carriers. They chose, instead, to more tightly integrate its partnership with the Royal Navy. Thirteen supercarriers would be out of the question both politically and financially.

And yet the growing economies in Asia, namely India and China, are both determined to build ever-larger aircraft carriers. Maybe they won't get to 13, but their conclusions are the same as everyone else's: bigger is better.

Any USN designs that you see as feasible? My basic purpose for incorporating light carriers is to cover more space than the super carrier can and use the Supercarroer to deter more powerful nations, leaving the small fry to lighter, cheaper vessels.

All of them worked. At least on paper.

But on the other hand, all of them had the same compromises that made the USN pass on them in the first place. They were only considered because the USN thought they wouldn't be able to get any more nuclear carriers out of the Carter administration given the huge costs of the first three Nimitz-class ships approved under Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Then Ronald Reagan entered office and was willing to sign the checks for more nuclear carriers, so suddenly the compromise carriers weren't needed anymore.

As I pointed out, smaller, non-nuclear carriers have a smaller radius of action and are less survivable than larger carriers. And the support costs weren't much lower. At this time the USN was still operating a number of smaller conventional carriers including leftover WWII Essexes and the immediate post-war Midways and still chose to build nuclear carriers when given the choice.

[The Manticoran Empire]

They both operate one carrier and the French have recently announced plans to build no more carriers. They chose, instead, to more tightly integrate its partnership with the Royal Navy. Thirteen supercarriers would be out of the question both politically and financially.

And yet the growing economies in Asia, namely India and China, are both determined to build ever-larger aircraft carriers. Maybe they won't get to 13, but their conclusions are the same as everyone else's: bigger is better.

Any USN designs that you see as feasible? My basic purpose for incorporating light carriers is to cover more space than the super carrier can and use the Supercarroer to deter more powerful nations, leaving the small fry to lighter, cheaper vessels.

All of them worked. At least on paper.

But on the other hand, all of them had the same compromises that made the USN pass on them in the first place. They were only considered because the USN thought they wouldn't be able to get any more nuclear carriers out of the Carter administration given the huge costs of the first three Nimitz-class ships approved under Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Then Ronald Reagan entered office and was willing to sign the checks for more nuclear carriers, so suddenly the compromise carriers weren't needed anymore.

As I pointed out, smaller, non-nuclear carriers have a smaller radius of action and are less survivable than larger carriers. And the support costs weren't much lower. At this time the USN was still operating a number of smaller conventional carriers including leftover WWII Essexes and the immediate post-war Midways and still chose to build nuclear carriers when given the choice.

So just build more nuclear carriers?

[Connori Pilgrims]

So just build more nuclear carriers?

If you are THAT determined to maintain presence anywhere (which you seem to be, given that you already have a number of carriers).... YES.

[The Manticoran Empire]

So just build more nuclear carriers?

If you are THAT determined to maintain presence anywhere (which you seem to be, given that you already have a number of carriers).... YES.

OK.

[Anemos Major]

A broad outline of/concerning yet another Anemonian family of AFVs (but this time, I'm using this to replace the entire MA9 family of vehicles to allay accusations that I'm hoarding armoured vehicles).

- Programmatyr MA12 (FYr/R M.12) -
- MA12 WMAV Program -

The MA12 WMAV program was initiated with the objective of introducing into Anemonian service a family of 6x6 wheeled armoured vehicles that will provide the Anemonian Parachute Forces with a credible armoured capability in the 15-20t weight range, optimised for use by lighter role forces and complementing the MA11 family of tracked armoured vehicles currently in service with mechanised and armoured forces across the Crown Army.

The MA12 is broadly separated into two automotive configurations; a low-profile rear-engined variant for heavy weapons carriage, and a high-profile forward-engined variant for transport and utility purposes. Unlike the MA11 family, variants are intended to be kept to a reasonable minimum in order to allow airborne armoured assets to deploy a full range of capabilities in a relatively limited number of vehicles.

Listed below are the current planned variants.

Configuration A. | Low Profile, Rear Engine
- Combat Reconnaissance: 45mm CTA, Modular Ordnance Arrays
- Direct Support: 105mm smoothbore or 75mm HV automatic (under consideration)
- Indirect Support: 120mm gun mortar

Configuration B. | High Profile, Forward Engine
- Personnel Carrier: 15mm RWS
- Command and Control: 15mm RWS
- Engineering: 15mm RWS

Modularity and flexibility in basic designs will allow vehicles to be optimised for given roles. Examples are given below:

a. Air Defence: Combat Reconnaissance vehicles can be retrofitted with mission-specific optronics suites, SAMs in MOAs, and 45mm airburst loadouts.
b. Medical Evacuation: Personnel Carriers are fitted with flexible seating mounts, which can be replaced with stretchers for medical taskings.

---

Project Concept:

At present, the armoured capabilities of the Imperial Army are primarily provided by three families of vehicles: the HT9/10 series of heavy AFVs, the MA11 series of modular tracked vehicles for medium footprint/mechanised roles, and the MA9A2/A3 series of wheeled modular armoured vehicles currently in use by expeditionary role forces (light mechanised and parachute formations).

While original policy planning documents for the decade between FY 2010 and 2020 called for the gradual replacement of the MA9A2 family with MA9A3 replacements alongside the expanding deployment of the MA11 family, the prioritisation of the latter has resulted in significant delays to the MA9A3 replacement schedule. It is the opinion of the Army Technical Directorate that the postponement of the MA9A3 program provides the service with an opportunity to reconsider the role played by wheeled armoured vehicles within our doctrinal context.

The newest iteration of the MA9 family of vehicles expands upon its predecessor in every conceivable fashion, providing it with extensive protection, mobility, and armament updates that put it on par with any competing 8x8 AFV in service internationally today. However, the expansion of the vehicle's capabilities have also come at the expense of a higher weight envelope. The intended role of the MA9 family of vehicles was to provide the Anemonian military with an armoured mechanised option with deployability advantages over the primary mechanised assets (that would become the MA11 family of vehicles); at ~20t and rising, the MA9A3 series no longer provides significant enough advantages on this front over the MA11 to justify separate utilisation.

As such, the recommendation of the Directorate is the immediate commencement of conceptual and technical work on a more suitable successor to the MA9A2 towards the provision of a more suitable vehicle to the Army in light of the doctrinal requirements that such a vehicle will be expected to fulfill. Emphasising the deployability and footprint of such a vehicle while taking into consideration the effective weight constraints inherent in a wheeled AFV, we propose that the successor vehicle be scaled back to a ~15-20t weight range emphasising ease of deployment, tactical and strategic mobility, and a fundamental reconsideration of the purpose of such vehicles. The legacy strategy and shift to the MA9A3 platform effectively indicate an attempt to move these light role forces closer to the capability range of the regular mechanised forces. The new vehicle's change of emphasis will ensure that the strengths of integrating vehicles into light role forces are fully explored, retaining both strategic and tactical deployability advantages while providing the forces in question both with mobile platforms for a diversity of equipment and personnel as well as light armoured and firepower support to provide superiority in engagements with equivalent forces.

The proposed new vehicle will incorporate a number of design elements and technologies that will maximise the weight efficiency of the platform, effectively minimising the design compromises necessary to remain within the desired weight range. The use of an electro-mechanical powertrain and a 6x6 in-hub motor layout will provide significant weight and space savings over legacy mechanical transmissions. Light materials and extensive armour modularity will ensure that, should the need arise, the new generation vehicle can be up-armoured and modified to respond to changes in the combat environment and advances in protection technology. The use of a dual-recoil turret for large calibre weapons will be explored as a means by which to implement an effective direct fire armament on the new family of vehicles. The employment of two drivetrain layouts in the family of vehicles will ensure optimal placement of components depending on the vehicle's intended use; the rear-engining of the combat variants will provide them with comparatively low profiles and stable weapons recoil closer to the vehicle's centre of gravity, while the forward engining of the support variants will provide them with extensive space at the rear of the vehicle for housing personnel, weapons, and other materiel.

The subsystems proposed for use on this new vehicle have already been explored and developed during the developmental cycles of previous Fiensietyr materiel. Pending approval by the relevant committees, full scale developmental work on the new vehicle can commence immediately.