Advertisement
by Yugoshvanka » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:16 am
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
The Soviet Union by any other name
This nation is 1950's-60's past tech
by San-Silvacian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:20 am
Yugoshvanka wrote: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*
by Yugoshvanka » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:22 am
San-Silvacian wrote:Yugoshvanka wrote: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.
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
The Soviet Union by any other name
This nation is 1950's-60's past tech
by Stahn » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:24 am
by Stahn » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:25 am
Yugoshvanka wrote: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*
by Hasuut Inu Tlomaq » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:25 am
by Gallia- » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:25 am
by Oaledonia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:28 am
Stahn wrote:Oaledonia wrote: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.
The lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
by Rich and Corporations » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:31 am
Stahn wrote:Yugoshvanka wrote: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.
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by San-Silvacian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:35 am
Gallia- wrote: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.
by Yugoshvanka » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:38 am
Stahn wrote:Yugoshvanka wrote: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.
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
The Soviet Union by any other name
This nation is 1950's-60's past tech
by Stahn » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:40 am
Oaledonia wrote:Stahn wrote:
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.
Gallia- wrote: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.
by Organized States » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:42 am
Stahn wrote:Oaledonia wrote: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.
by Stahn » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:46 am
by Organized States » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:48 am
Stahn wrote:Launch them out of range of enemy missiles? Do you know how long a range a missile can have?
by Gallia- » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:48 am
Stahn wrote:Oaledonia wrote:
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.
Gallia- wrote: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.
by Stahn » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:50 am
by Stahn » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:51 am
Gallia- wrote:Stahn wrote:
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.
by Yugoshvanka » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:53 am
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO
The Soviet Union by any other name
This nation is 1950's-60's past tech
by Gallia- » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:55 am
by San-Silvacian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:58 am
Stahn wrote: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.
Stahn wrote:And probably to a lesser degree it also applies to the U.K. and even lesser to France.
Stahn wrote:But with satellites in the sky and land based
Stahn wrote: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.
Stahn wrote: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.
by Valloria » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:58 am
by Organized States » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:58 am
Stahn wrote:Organized States wrote: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.
by Oaledonia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:01 am
Stahn wrote:Yugoshvanka wrote: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 lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
by Oaledonia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:06 am
The lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Guild Commonwealth
Advertisement