Advertisement
by The Manticoran Empire » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:06 am
by Sleet Clans » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:31 am
The Manticoran Empire wrote:If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).
by The Manticoran Empire » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:42 am
Sleet Clans wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote:If the funds were available, would it be worth it to assign a Forrestal-class or similar carrier to Amphibious Ready Groups for operations involving Marine Expeditionary Forces? A maximum of 4-6 carriers is what I'm thinking about (my nation has 4 active MEFs and one reserve).
You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:28 pm
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Sleet Clans wrote:You'd want a nuclear carrier maybe just so it can stay on station until it needs to be rearmed and resupplied, and plus you'd want some very good escorts and/or protection for said carrier. Maybe an amphibious assault ship or two to tag along too for the extra support, but honestly I'd assign heavy flattops like Forrestals to carrier strike groups. But if the funding was available, then yes, it would be worth it to have that sort of firepower tagging along.
Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.
by The Manticoran Empire » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:32 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote:Well the MEFs are mainly just shipped around for major operations and exercises. The ARG already has 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, 1 Dock Landing Ship, and 1 Amphibious Transport Dock, with escort provided by 2-3 destroyers. The Forrestal would accompany a force of about 8-10 ARGs to carry most of the MEF's air wing.
This is basically what the primary carrier groups are for anyway, so why would you want separate carriers for this task?
by Pharthan » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:19 pm
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Kouralia wrote:What's a reasonable number of marines/naval fleet security bods/naval police to have on ships of different sizes? Does anyone know of any numbers for western navies atm?
Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT
by Rhinocera » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:06 am
Pharthan wrote:Taihei Tengoku wrote:Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.
In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
by Taihei Tengoku » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:11 pm
Pharthan wrote:Taihei Tengoku wrote:Usually "naval police" duties would be filled by sailors of the appropriate rating (in the USN it is the "master-at-arms"). In submarines there are very few, if any. Large surface ships like carriers would top out at a couple dozen.
In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
by Pharthan » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:41 am
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Pharthan wrote:In the US Navy, Security Forces onboard ships are predominantly filled by various sailors from various departments, usually excluding Reactor Department, as a Temporarily Assigned Duty.
Master-At-Arms on a ship even the size of a carrier are perhaps two dozen. I never counted, but I also never saw many of them. Most of Security was not made of MAs, but other random rates. Still, if this number broke a hundred, I'd be surprised.
Submarines don't have MAs. The smaller the vessel, the more diversity of one's job, to the point that on submarines you don't have Boatswain's Mates or MAs.
From my two days aboard a CVN the MAs were inadequate in number to stop us from ordering Chinese after hours and breaking into restricted areas
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT
by Gallia- » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:05 am
Pharthan wrote:maliciously
by Velkanika » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pm
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
by The Manticoran Empire » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:35 pm
by Velkanika » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:40 pm
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
by Pharthan » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:38 pm
'Cuz that's not their job to keep people out of restricted spaces? That's the job of people who run those spaces.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT
by Gallia- » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:30 pm
by Prosorusiya » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:50 pm
by New Chilokver » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:12 pm
About User Hong Kong-Australian Male Pro: Yeah Neutral: Meh Con: Nah | | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [HOI I - Peacetime conditions] Head of Government: President Sohum Jain Population: 195.10 million GDP (nominal): $6.39 trillion Military personnel: 523.5k IIWiki | There is no news. | | Other Stuff
|
by The Akasha Colony » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:11 pm
New Chilokver wrote:If, as I've been led to believe, spherical sonar arrays are superior to their U-shaped counterparts, why is the Virginia-class switching to LAB sonars?
by New Chilokver » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:56 am
About User Hong Kong-Australian Male Pro: Yeah Neutral: Meh Con: Nah | | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [HOI I - Peacetime conditions] Head of Government: President Sohum Jain Population: 195.10 million GDP (nominal): $6.39 trillion Military personnel: 523.5k IIWiki | There is no news. | | Other Stuff
|
by Post War America » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:58 am
New Chilokver wrote:Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.
by Crookfur » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:13 pm
New Chilokver wrote:Could you explain what you mean by a baseline for passive rangefinding please? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that concept.
by The Manticoran Empire » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:05 am
by Post War America » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:30 am
The Manticoran Empire wrote:What are the pros and cons of nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers? Also, would it be feasible to power amphibious warfare ships (LSD, LPD, LHD, LHA) with nuclear reactors and what costs and benefits could be seen?
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.
by The Corparation » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:02 am
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by The Manticoran Empire » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:15 am
The Corparation wrote:Another benefit that post war America missed is the fact that nuclear power doesn't just give you range it gives you the ability to go fast and keep going fast. A conventionally powered ship can get going fast but it can't maintain that speed without burning through all its fuel.
As for shorter lifespans, the main reason for many US Navy nuclear cruisers having short lives was that manning them was expensive (They require more crew than conventional warships), refueling them was expensive, and most of them needed weapons upgrades which is also expensive. It should be noted that the first 3 nuclear cruisers in US Navy service all served for more than 30 years and were slated for refit/refueling before it was decided to retire them. Had they not been retired and refueled as planned they'd easily have seen at least another decade of life.
Also the Soviet's nuclear Tu-95 didn't fly on nuclear power, it served roughly the same job as the American NB-36. A flying laboratory to see what its like to have a nuclear reactor in a plane prior to building a plane powered by a nuclear reactor.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Almonaster Nuevo, Ashuurasamalasiasharur, Marquesan
Advertisement