Spreading your resources awfully thin...

[Concordia]

In WCP, I'm noticing a trend that's rather disturbing...

1.) Fighters are becoming very specialized = less multi-role capacity = not good for a fighter. Fighters should be specialized enough to have a specific role, but should be able to do others well too. Remember in war, nobody knows what's going to happen next.

2.) Capital Ships are becoming very multi-role: Midway's more than just a carrier. She can do multitudes of roles. Hades-Class is more of an escort carrier than a cruiser. Carriers are becoming rarities (only 10 Midway-Classes to be built).

I have some ideas...

1.) Make a Waterloo-Like cruiser. One with significant fighter compliment but sufficient capabilities as a cruiser. My proposal I call the Waterloo Mk.II-- It's what the waterloo would be like 2680 edition.

I jokingly call it a "Flight-Cruiser" considering that it has a flight-wing onboard. It actually is an idea that's springing up from my "pet scifi-project". Which entails a cruiser that is designed for multi-role ops and carries 40 (45?) fighters.

The idea entails at least 4 AMG's, 12 Lasers, and some missile defenses. Speed should be fast like the old Waterloo. Not as fast as the Hades, but pretty fast.

The idea is to provide a more versatile-cruiser to the fleet. It also has another advantage. It can solve the carrier shortage. Only having 10 huge carriers can be problematic when you have hundreds of systems where a crisis can break out in any one of them.

Cruisers are more plentiful, even these suckers, and it would be pretty nice to be able to use them as light-carriers in a stretch.

The Plunkett does not possess a sufficient fighter-compliment to be useful as such a design.

-Concordia

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Concordia
In WCP, I'm noticing a trend that's rather disturbing...

1.) Fighters are becoming very specialized = less multi-role capacity = not good for a fighter. Fighters should be specialized enough to have a specific role, but should be able to do others well too. Remember in war, nobody knows what's going to happen next.

I really haven't seen any negative impacts from the specialization of fighters. They aren't incredibly specialized, just slightly more so than in previous games.

2.) Capital Ships are becoming very multi-role: Midway's more than just a carrier. She can do multitudes of roles. Hades-Class is more of an escort carrier than a cruiser. Carriers are becoming rarities (only 10 Midway-Classes to be built).

The Midway is what she is because of peacetime lack of funds. However, she's been proven combat effective.

One cannot say the Hades is designed in such a way that she's crippled due to being spread in many different directions. She's designed to be able to operate on her own in hostile situations, move in and move out quickly. She does this rather well. I'll also point out that cruisers carrying fighters is well established in Wing Commander history. Carrying fighters in no way makes her an escort carrier. Her role is much closer to that of the Bengal class, but she's less focused on being a carrier, which makes the designation Quick Strike Cruiser quite fitting.

Next, 10 Midway class ships doesn't even begin to approach making carriers rarities. When combined with the Vesuvius Class ships that are in commission, and some of the Concordia class ships that will probably no longer be decommissioned due to the new threat of the Nephilim, Confed has a huge number of Carriers, especially when compared to any point in the Kilrathi war.

The idea is to provide a more versatile-cruiser to the fleet. It also has another advantage. It can solve the carrier shortage. Only having 10 huge carriers can be problematic when you hav
e hundreds of systems where a crisis can break out in any one of them.

I like how your solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist is to create a multi-role ship, which you were just complaining about above.

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Spreading your resources awfully thin...

To expand on what TC said...

Originally posted by TC
Next, 10 Midway class ships doesn't even begin to approach making carriers rarities. When combined with the Vesuvius Class ships that are in commission, and some of the Concordia class ships that will probably no longer be decommissioned due to the new threat of the Nephilim, Confed has a huge number of Carriers, especially when compared to any point in the Kilrathi war.

I suppose a not-unreasonable estimate would be 15+ carriers when all ten Midways are on-line. What this means, if anything, is that Confed has more carriers than it ever had before. Remember that in the late '60s, they were down to... well, I can't remember the exact figure quoted in End Run, but it was between 4 and 8, IIRC.
Now, this figure was probably an underestimate in some regards (it seems that there must have been at least a few inactive carriers that came on-line/returned on-line later), but it was also an overestimate, since at least one Waterloo-class cruiser was included in the count.

 

[TC]

Re: Re: Re: Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Originally posted by Quarto
To expand on what TC said...

I suppose a not-unreasonable estimate would be 15+ carriers when all ten Midways are on-line. What this means, if anything, is that Confed has more carriers than it ever had before. Remember that in the late '60s, they were down to... well, I can't remember the exact figure quoted in End Run, but it was between 4 and 8, IIRC.
Now, this figure was probably an underestimate in some regards (it seems that there must have been at least a few inactive carriers that came on-line/returned on-line later), but it was also an overestimate, since at least one Waterloo-class cruiser was included in the count.

End Run began with 8 carriers, including any Waterloo-class cruisers they may have been counting. It seems unlikely that any ships were 'offline' at this point in the war. They were slightly desperate, and they would have pulled everything they had out for their one big fight. 3 Carriers are destroyed during the fighting and the Gettysburg is crippled. The peaks that we know of during the war are 16 carriers (including, one expects, the Waterloo class ships) leading up the the large losses before End Run, and once again 16 leading into Fleet Action. Considering one generally steps up production during a war, so a larger navy exists, having heavy carriers (rather than the lower capacity carriers used during the war) numbering in, at least, the high teens is doing rather well in peace-time.

 

[Aries]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Originally posted by TC
Considering one generally steps up production during a war, so a larger navy exists, having heavy carriers (rather than the lower capacity carriers used during the war) numbering in, at least, the high teens is doing rather well in peace-time.

just to give a real world example to what TC said, take the US navy now and during WW2. in WW2 we had god knows how many carriers (IIRC it was above 40) and now we have only 12, IIRC

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Originally posted by TC
It seems unlikely that any ships were 'offline' at this point in the war.

Well, what I mean is carriers that had taken too much damage to be used, but that could conceivably be repaired - like the Lexington after FA, or the Tiger's Claw after Custer's Carnival.

 

[Dominator]

Originally posted by Concordia
In WCP, I'm noticing a trend that's rather disturbing...

1.) Fighters are becoming very specialized = less multi-role capacity = not good for a fighter. Fighters should be specialized enough to have a specific role, but should be able to do others well too. Remember in war, nobody knows what's going to happen next.

It is strange because in real world (WWII, Cold War and today) trend is totally different. During war fighters were becoming more and more specialized, many different types were created (for example German Sturmbock Fockewulfs created only to intercept allied bombers, F-14 whose only purpose until recently was interception of incoming soviet naval bombers and anti ship missiles). During peace it is easier and much cheaper to maintain universal fighters - for example after 2010 US carriers will carry only one type of combat aircraft - F/A-18, F-22 wich originally were to carry only air to air armament (design from cold war),now are redesigned to carry also some air to ground armament (they`ve even changed designation - F/A-22). I know that it was explained in such way in WCP manual but designers obviously haven`t checked real history.

 

[Quarto]

Eh, that argument doesn't really apply, Dominator... history also tells us that military thinking changes over time. Right now the US thinks multi-role fighters are good, in a few decades it might think otherwise. Indeed, this is virtually inevitable, because the obvious response to multi-role fighters is to design extremely specialised fighters, whose sole purpose is to defeat the multi-role fighters.

 

[Maniac II]

Re: Re: Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Originally posted by Dominator
It is strange because in real world (WWII, Cold War and today) trend is totally different. During war fighters were becoming more and more specialized, many different types were created (for example German Sturmbock Fockewulfs created only to intercept allied bombers, F-14 whose only purpose until recently was interception of incoming soviet naval bombers and anti ship missiles). During peace it is easier and much cheaper to maintain universal fighters - for example after 2010 US carriers will carry only one type of combat aircraft - F/A-18, F-22 wich originally were to carry only air to air armament (design from cold war),now are redesigned to carry also some air to ground armament (they`ve even changed designation - F/A-22). I know that it was explained in such way in WCP manual but designers obviously haven`t checked real history.

yeah... but your missing one thing... The F-22 is going to eventually become the main aircraft for all branches (they will be different for each branch, i.e. the Navy's F-22 will be designed to land on a carrier, the Marine's F-22 will include VTOL, and so on)

 

[Aries]

Re: Re: Re: Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Originally posted by Maniac II
yeah... but your missing one thing... The F-22 is going to eventually become the main aircraft for all branches (they will be different for each branch, i.e. the Navy's F-22 will be designed to land on a carrier, the Marine's F-22 will include VTOL, and so on)

i think your refering to the JSF. IIRC, only the air force is planing on using the f-22, while the JSF is for everyone

 

[Maniac II]

the JSF is the F-22... im almost sure it is... if not what is? (please tell me Joint Strike Fighter is not the designation... no way it is)

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Maniac II
the JSF is the F-22... im almost sure it is... if not what is? (please tell me Joint Strike Fighter is not the designation... no way it is)

The Joint Strike Fighter (based off the Lockheed Martin X-35 design) is a project that was intended to replace the F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8 Harriers, and the F-16s currently in service with the US Navy, US Marine Corps, and the USAF. The F-22 Raptor was a seperate project, and it won the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) competition between it and the YF-21 because the F-22 had more 'stealthy' characteristics than the YF-21.

The big thing about the JSF is that it's supposed to reduce costs in supporting it (the parts are standard across all three services, reducing logistical issues and allowing savings in parts acquisition), and to be able to support the F-22, along with handling ground-attack missions. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter, while the JSF is more of an all-around plane.

Think the difference between a Vampire and a Tigershark from WCP, if it helps. Or the WC4 Bearcat versus the bog-standard heavy fighters or Excaliburs.

Next time, do a little reading up?

 

[Dominator]

Few months ago it was decided to modify F-22 (at least some later production batches) to become more like F-15E version - long range ground strike fighter - F/A-22 designation appeared then. USAF came to conclusion that having air to air only capable fighter is too expansive. As to differences between F-35 and F-22 there is one more and probably biggest - F-22 is about 3 times more expensive (maybe even more - I don`t remember exact price).

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Dominator
Few months ago it was decided to modify F-22 (at least some later production batches) to become more like F-15E version - long range ground strike fighter - F/A-22 designation appeared then. USAF came to conclusion that having air to air only capable fighter is too expansive. As to differences between F-35 and F-22 there is one more and probably biggest - F-22 is about 3 times more expensive (maybe even more - I don`t remember exact price).

As I noted, the F-22 is primarily an air-superiority fighter, as the F-15 was originally designed to be, and for the most part is still used that way. The F-16 is preferred for ground-attack roles.

And yes, the F-22 is much more expensive than the JSF/F-35... sorta like the Seawolf class was for the US Navy: really capable and super-stealthy, but also super-expensive, especially considering that their mission is now seen as fairly limited. This is why there are now Virginia-class subs being built; they're pretty stealthy, are designed for littoral missions, and are MUCH cheaper. But the JSF was also designed to be cheap to maintain, since instead of having to get parts for several different fighter types... you've got only one fighter with variations.

Makes keeping track of inventory a little easier.

 

[Concordia]

My views on the matter

The Confederation is huge. Thousands of systems, at least hundreds.

The only reason there were a few carriers in Confed during the Kilrathi War was simple. They were all being eradicated faster than they were being built.

Since it's peace time, there is plenty of time to replenish.

First after any war, the first thing you do is recover, then rebuild.

Considering the size of Confed, a fleet of at LEAST 40 carriers should exist. I mean look at the size of earth now and we have 12 carriers roaming the waters of our planet.

Take 3,000 light years of space, and tell me that 12 carriers are enough...

There should be dozens of carriers, there were only a few during the final days of the Kilrathi war because they were being eradicated at a faster rate than they were being built.

It's peace time, so let's build up a fleet. At least build one up of a standard "peacetime size". Which by the way, was FAR bigger than the size of the fleet after the Kilrathi war (which was mostly battered down).

It would be foolish to scale-down.

After all, isn't that what happened at the start of the Kilrathi War... the military being scaled down... "wasteful military spending". Then they get socked in the face by an alien menace (the Kilrathi).

Now, they do the same thing!

Sayings like "Once bitten, twice shy" and "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" come to mind.

-Concordia

 

[Aries]

but remember, the war is over. nobody is going to start another war. we beat the kilrathi and only had a few carriers, so we don't need anymore than a dozen.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Aries
but remember, the war is over. nobody is going to start another war. we beat the kilrathi and only had a few carriers, so we don't need anymore than a dozen.

Yeah, remember though, a lot of ships were lost during the Kilrathi war. There were less ships in Confed at the end of the war, then there would be during an active-peacetime fleet.

I'd say rebuild up to the size of a peace-time fleet.

However, it would be nice to, in addition to 10 Midway-Class Carriers, to also have a couple dozen Cruiser-Carriers, which can perform the role of Ranger-Class carriers.

They'd have the same fighter-capacity, but would also have cruiser-properties too, such as the ability to engage capital ships.

I have 3 basic ideas...

1.) Souped-Up Waterloo: Basically a cruiser with a flight-deck. It is predominantly designed to operate as a cruiser, but carries a full 40-45 fighter capacity. The idea is to use the fighter-compliment to bolster the destructive power of a cruiser.

Think of it as a Cruiser-turned-carrier. Big Cruiser, little-carrier in role.

2.) Mini-Megacarrier: Hear me out. Basically it's like a Ranger/Eagle-Class - Sized carrier (slightly smaller actually), but fitted with several torpedo tubes, AMG's and other shield penetrating weapons. The idea is to basically make a small, but independantly operating carrier.

Think of this as Carrier turned Cruiser. Big Carrier, Little-Cruiser. However it would be classified as a Cruiser or something as to avoid politicians making a fuss over building more carriers.

3.) Mini-Dreadnought. Think of the Confederation-Class, but scaled down in half. It would only carry 60-fighters. Basically it would be sort of like a Fralthra with heavier AMG's. It would also carry considerable torpedo-compliment and a large-central gun (like the Murphy). It would be classified as a Super-Cruiser.

-Concordia

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Concordia
3.) Mini-Dreadnought. Think of the Confederation-Class, but scaled down in half. It would only carry 60-fighters. Basically it would be sort of like a Fralthra with heavier AMG's. It would also carry considerable torpedo-compliment and a large-central gun (like the Murphy). It would be classified as a Super-Cruiser.

You mean, like the pocket battleship concept? Heh, I like that idea. I don't know if it has any application in the WC universe, though. I mean, Germany developed pocket battleships because it allowed them to circumvent the size limitations imposed on them post-WWI.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Quarto
You mean, like the pocket battleship concept? Heh, I like that idea. I don't know if it has any application in the WC universe, though. I mean, Germany developed pocket battleships because it allowed them to circumvent the size limitations imposed on them post-WWI.

It IS sort of a pocket-battleship-design

It would be basically a big-giant self-sustaining cruiser with a big fighter compliment. Like a fralthra, with a murphy's gun.

-Concordia

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Concordia
It IS sort of a pocket-battleship-design

It would be basically a big-giant self-sustaining cruiser with a big fighter compliment. Like a fralthra, with a murphy's gun.

-Concordia

Problem with this is the 'eggs in one basket' situation - you put everything onto one ship in this fashion (anti-capship, anti-fighter), you're bound to run into issues if the ship gets damaged or destroyed. Better, at least in WC terms, to have a carrier and a cruiser with several destroyer escorts, so you can a) attack from multiple sides, and b) even if you lose one ship, you haven't lost all your capabilities.