Independence Class Light Carrier (CVL)

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
Independence Class Light Carrier
Designation: Light Fleet Carrier (CVL)
Manufacturer: Trojan IV Shipyards
Service Entry: 2692

Length: 660 Meters
Beam: 124 Meters
Draft: 95 Meters
Mass: 61,400 Tonnes
Velocity Cruise/Max: 190/250 kps
Y/P/R: 6/6/6
Acceleration: 81 kps/s
Hull Armor: 1,500 cm
Bridge Armor: 2,000 cm
Engine Armor: 1,750 cm
Launcher Armor: 1,500 cm
Hangar Armor: 1,450 cm
Core Strength: 24,690 cm
Armament: 12 Dual Laser Turrets, 6 Dual Mass Driver Turrets, 4 Anti Torpedo Turrets, 2 Dual Im-Rec Missile Turrets
Fighters: 60

Designed to do raiding in much the same way as ships like the Tarawa, she is rather well armed for her size but lacks armor to make up for speed. Her small fighter bays inhibit the use of very large bombers such as the Devastator. She would usually travel with a Plunkett and a few Murphy's for escort.


I designed this in response to comments that we really don't have a light/escort carrier in the post WCP era except the Eagle, which would be a 30 year old design at the time this is built. Comments?
 

TC

SubCrid
Yes... and?

You just posted a bunch of random numbers with absolutely no accompanying text. What are you expecting from the readers of this thread?
 

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
Here's a prelim side view. I think it fits in the WCP era well.
 

Attachments

  • Indie.JPG
    Indie.JPG
    36.9 KB · Views: 193

Haesslich

Spaceman
Sylvester said:
Here's a prelim side view. I think it fits in the WCP era well.

Does anyone else think it looks like a space sub?
 

Attachments

  • sylvester-Indie.JPG
    sylvester-Indie.JPG
    36.9 KB · Views: 157

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
The front is wide and boxy, it doesn't look like a sub. In fact, from the side, it reminds me of the Lexington class carriers.
 

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
These vessels cost roughly 1/6 of a standard fleet carrier like Midway. If you build 6 of these ships, you get a faster, more manuverable and cheaper group of vessels that carries 100 more fighters (combined) than a Midway but costs the same and isn't as hard if you lose on. I imagine that about 12 could be built every 3 years.

2692 Batch:
TCS Independence CVL-1 (Restarted the Number Sequence)
TCS Victory CVL-2
TCS Liberty CVL-3
TCS Infoulable CVL-4
TCS Saratoga CVL-5
TCS Freedom CVL-6
TCS Invincible CVL-7
TCS Rightous CVL-8
TCS Indomitable CVL-9
TCS Lexington CVL-10
TCS Unity CVL-11
TCS Confederation CVL-12
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Sylvester said:
These vessels cost roughly 1/6 of a standard fleet carrier like Midway. If you build 6 of these ships, you get a faster, more manuverable and cheaper group of vessels that carries 100 more fighters (combined) than a Midway but costs the same and isn't as hard if you lose on. I imagine that about 12 could be built every 3 years.

Just to nitpick, but given that the Midway costs more than a regular fleet carrier does, shouldn't a light carrier cost less than a sixth of the Midway? Remember, the Midway was a megacarrier, and the equivalent of several fleet carriers plus science vessels, plus armament ship, plus Marine transport and intelligence unit, but it's a lot easier to defend and is less expensive to maintain or build than the seperate ships for all the above functions.

So, in this context, you could probably get at least a dozen light carriers for the same money, if not another 4-5 on top, at the cost of fewer fighters per craft and a lot less versatility in terms of mission roles. Remember, the quote for light/escort carrier cost comes from the WC4 novel, where Blair notes that it was for the price of a regular carrier and not one of the Vesuvius-class vessels.
 

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
These vessels could also travel with science vessels to supplement their limited scientific capabilities. I imagine that with the advancement of technology, it woudn't be too difficult to have a intelligence section onboard these ships. While not as massive as Midway's, they could still be more than adequete for the group.

A Light Carrier Group would look like this:

2 Independence CVL
2 Plunkett Cruisers,
3 Murphy Destroyers
Other mission needed ships.

This could be a very economical concept:

1 Midway equals about 15 Light Carriers
Midway: 250 fighters _ Light Carrier: 60 Fighters
1 x 250 = 250 _ 15 x 60 = 900 fighters, a difference of 650 fighters.

So these 15 small, cheap, but well put together carriers carry over 3x as many fighters combined as a Midway, and can route ships on scouting missions and patrols and still retain a large fighter complement combined and cost the same if not less than Midway.
 

Iceman16

Vice Admiral
Howdy, I was just wondering if the cost of the fighters and bombers was included in the total cost for the carrier? If not then wouldnt the light carriers be a bit more expensive than the Midway since fighters cost alot of money to build and maintain?
 

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
The cost of a fighter is still miniscule to the cost of a carrier. About 1000 fighters cost as much as a carrier, so it still has the Light Carriers being more cost-effective.

They can build 1,000 fighters in a few months. It takes 3-5 years on average to build a Fleet Carrier.
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Iceman16 said:
Howdy, I was just wondering if the cost of the fighters and bombers was included in the total cost for the carrier? If not then wouldnt the light carriers be a bit more expensive than the Midway since fighters cost alot of money to build and maintain?

No, that price wouldn't include fighters given that they're effectively expendable assets in a capship context - you don't NEED them for the ship to run, so they're considered seperately. The same number of fighters will cost you the same amount to maintain, whether you're flying off the deck of a light carrier or a megacarrier. However, the light carriers would in turn require more maintenance costs of their own, at least compared to a megacarrier like Midway - on there, you've got only one set of engines to worry about, effectively, and one hull. You're looking at a hull and set of engines per light carrier, which is one reason they went onto the Megacarrier concept in the first place, post-WC4. One still needs larger ships, which is why we have the megacarriers and supercarriers in the first place - there is no substitute for these heavy strike platforms in time of war, even with smaller ships having enough fighters to harry an enemy.

However, as I've also noted, light carriers are a lot cheaper to build and replace, and they are more cost-effective than the old-style Fleet Carriers are in many missions, especially when one considers the fact that there are supercarriers and megacarriers out there to provide a similar number of fighter craft for larger battles. In a setting where one's not engaged in a shooting war, this makes a lot of sense given that these smaller carriers are just as capable for patrol as larger (and more expensive) fleet carriers are. In wartime, the megacarriers and supercarriers provide larger decks for fleet-sized strikes and are somewhat easier to defend than four fleet carriers. On the downside, you lose the whole platform for three or four wings if the ship goes down.

As far as a strike group goes, I'd probably throw in an extra destroyer escort, especially with that second carrier present.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Perhaps someone could use some names of the War of the Triple Alliance. Lots of naval battles on rivers. In fact, by that time, one of them was the largest naval battle ever fought on the Americas. So, what about TCS Riachuelo?

fot029.jpg


Hey Eder, what about Standoff?
 

Eder

Mr. Standoff
Delance said:
Hey Eder, what about Standoff?
Pick a name from the war, you mean? If so, that could work, even if not for a carrier... any suggestions in particular?
 
Top