Terran Shipkiller Concept

What do you think

  • Total voters
    29
It's a pretty cool idea

ChrisReid said:
This again raises the same question that was posed to the creation of the Midway in the first place. If you make a ship-killer ship, all you have to do is destroy that and you've lost your primary asset.
Click to expand...

As was the case with the afforementioned Behemoth
 
TopGun said:
It's a pretty cool idea



As was the case with the afforementioned Behemoth
Click to expand...

Except the Behemoth really only had one purpose - kill planets. The Midway-class ships, as Paladin notes, are actually more economical to build and run than a fleet of smaller carriers and science ships to provide a similar level of power-projection - you've got one ship with three wings of fighters, which also has a MEU and a science division onboard. It's quite possibly cheaper than the Vesuvius which ahs more armor and four wings of fighters plus more direct anti-capship capability, and could be used to replace at least three wartime-era fleet carriers in a task force.

Whether one can justify the cost-benefit ratio of the ship-killer concept is another matter, especially given Confed's philosophy.
 
as much as i like the concept of the 'all your eggs in one basket' philosophy. the practicality of it....well, not so great. if you have four ships controlling an entire front, and you loose 2 of them and have nothing else to fill the gaps, you're kind of in trouble. all the advanced technology in the world isn't going to do you a whole lot against insane amount of numbers.
 
Haesslich said:
Except the Behemoth really only had one purpose - kill planets. The Midway-class ships, as Paladin notes, are actually more economical to build and run than a fleet of smaller carriers and science ships to provide a similar level of power-projection - you've got one ship with three wings of fighters, which also has a MEU and a science division onboard. It's quite possibly cheaper than the Vesuvius which ahs more armor and four wings of fighters plus more direct anti-capship capability, and could be used to replace at least three wartime-era fleet carriers in a task force.

Whether one can justify the cost-benefit ratio of the ship-killer concept is another matter, especially given Confed's philosophy.
Click to expand...

I meant that fact that it was the only one and once it was destroyed, we lost the advantage
 
I agree with Brad, I've never been a fan of the supercarrier concept. One ship can't be everywhere at once...sure it can field the firepower of 3 carriers but it can't be in three systems at the same time so even though you may have superior firepower you can let the enemy slip on by.
 
Just tossing this out as a matter of thought - but if you have a Midway class carrier at a jump point junction,couldn't you technically have "3 carriers worth of fighters" in multiple systems, depending on jump capabilities, fuel economy and time?
 
Well an organisation the size of confed has the option of balance, the Prophecy manual makes mention of there being escort carriers in service (although they may be retired when mega carrier production gets into full swing) so I'm guessing Confed would take the prudent route and have a fleet of smaller vessels to patrol the majority of their territory whilst holding the Megacarriers in reserve to deal with whatever problems emerge (Deaths comments about the versatility of the Midways design make a lot of sense in the peacetime Confederation)
 
I tihnk the model is pretty great, and I think that this ship could have its uses... As part of a fleet. The thing is, the plasma gun in the Midway was a dirty quick job made on site. They didn't have the time or resources to make it fully integrated and safe. But using the Nephilim tech together with Confed's previous experience with "big guns", it could be not only possible, but a better option than putting a gun in the Midway class Mega-Carriers. Then you will have two options for shooting things. Remember, in the course of WCP and SO the cap ships faced direct threats more than once, and the Big Gun was vital in helping the Midway escape a dire situation where they wouldn't be able to kill all enemy capships with bombers.

LOAF, why did you change back? the Eel flag was pretty cool.

VINMAN, I answered your pm, I'm ok with your idea! contact me at edmo.suassuna AT gmail dot com.
 
Eh, a man gets tired of eels. Perhaps they'll return someday... or maybe an even better avatar is in the works.

(I put the original eel flag that Marc made in my livejournal, if anyone ever needs to find it in the future.)
 
BradMick said:
as much as i like the concept of the 'all your eggs in one basket' philosophy. the practicality of it....well, not so great. if you have four ships controlling an entire front, and you loose 2 of them and have nothing else to fill the gaps, you're kind of in trouble. all the advanced technology in the world isn't going to do you a whole lot against insane amount of numbers.
Click to expand...

This is the same debate that rages in current naval circles. The US fleet of supercarriers is constantly being upgraded with newer and better technology, thus making some classes of support vessels obsolete. The upshot to the design is simple: Under full military power, an American supercarrier can deliver the full force projection power of the US to any location on Earth within ten to fifteen days of receiving the call. If the carrier is pre-positioned (as most are), then it may already be on the scene. As someone else pointed out, this multi-role capacity was demonstrated after the tsunami that destroyed much of India.

As a result, the single-supervessel design has been gaining even more momentum, with the next generation of carriers (the CVX class) to carry armament that is equivalent to that currently only seen in destroyers and battleships. Similarly, the next class of destroyer will be outfitted with weaponry capabilities previously only available on full battleships. This new class will effectively wipe out any differences that once existed between destroyers, cruisers, and battleships.

The downside to this issue is the growing concern of first strike capability. With more opponents gaining nuclear and orbital rocketry tech, the concern is that a surprise nuclear attack could be launched against our carrier fleet with the intention of knocking it out during the opening moves of the war. The destruction wrought by such an attack could easily eliminate the United States' ability to project power, thus leaving them impotent for a period of time. To counter this threat, the US has always tried to keep the exact position of its ships classified and has spent a large sum of money on anti-missile defenses. (i.e. Star Wars type programs.)

Relating this back to the WC universe, they are probably looking at the cost and difficulty of maneuvering so many support ships across their territory. By properly distributing their megacarriers, they can provide the full force of Confederation power projection in a very short period of time. This not only saves money, but eliminates the confusion caused by having to re-juggle ships into a fighting unit during an emergency.

In short One Carrier == Full force of the Confederation, anywhere, anytime.
 
Hey Loaf, do you have a higher resolution image of your current avatar? I'm just slightly intrigued as to what it is supposed to be and where it's from, as it seems to have been in use for quite a while prior to the "Eel" and enlarging the small image provides no clarity.

@Vinman: I really like your design/model. As you partly indicated, the superstucture appears to be an evolutionary progression from the Tallahassee cruiser design, while still maintaining a similarity with other ships (Murphy, etc) from the WCP era.

Regarding the whole shipkiller issue and whether or not it aligns with Confed's fleet doctrine, I would just like to throw the following idea out there. Instead of building dedicated, presumably expensive, "shipkillers" ala Vinman's design, which destroy enemy targets through a single, concentrated force, would it be plausible and more appropriate for Confed to rather implement a presumably cheaper design, whereby a large leech cannon or similar is mounted to an existing capship , with sufficient capability to disable a medium to large ship or installation in a single burst or multiple bursts dependant on size/displacement? The ships/installations could then be captured and analysed, destroyed, retooled for Confed use or simply deactivated beyond use and removed from any conflict.

Cheers,


BrynS
 
Edfilho said:
This post was very elucidative, but I think the scenario is quite different in RL and WC.
Click to expand...

"Elucidative"? And I thought I did well on my ACTs... ;)

I don't think the scenario is that different at all. We have been shown time and time again in the WC Universe how quickly a ship can move thanks to the Jump-point method of travel. In theory, movement would be even quicker if Confed were to abandon the practice of securing the area after each jump. (Which we have seen them do in times of emergency.) As a result, the same issues of fleet movement that apply to RL, appear to apply to the WC-verse as well. Which means that mobilizing and moving a single megacarrier is going to be faster and easier than attempting to mobilize and stage an entire fleet. Not to mention that a single megacarrier is going to have far more ability to analyze the situation upon arrival than a fleet of ships that may or may not have trained together.

Just my 2 cents. :)
 
Just another two cents to throw in...although the reference to modern America is very interesting, I don't think it's an equivalent comparison. Although America can have supercarriers in position around the word, it seems unlikely that America will ever have the need to blockade every port in the entire Pacific ocean (for example). Whereas, in Wing Commander, its very important to be able to blockade multiple jump points concurrently. Lehah's suggestion that a strategically placed supercarrier could project the power of 3 wings of fighters into possible 3 systems but logistics and supply would seem to be a difficulty there.
 
Well, now that you mention the Jump points, the situation is even more different. the Jump point system creates several chokepoint situations that are not present in the oceans...
 
AKAImBatman said:
"Elucidative"? And I thought I did well on my ACTs... ;)

I don't think the scenario is that different at all. We have been shown time and time again in the WC Universe how quickly a ship can move thanks to the Jump-point method of travel. In theory, movement would be even quicker if Confed were to abandon the practice of securing the area after each jump. (Which we have seen them do in times of emergency.) As a result, the same issues of fleet movement that apply to RL, appear to apply to the WC-verse as well. Which means that mobilizing and moving a single megacarrier is going to be faster and easier than attempting to mobilize and stage an entire fleet. Not to mention that a single megacarrier is going to have far more ability to analyze the situation upon arrival than a fleet of ships that may or may not have trained together.

Just my 2 cents. :)
Click to expand...

The problem with star travel in Wing Commander is not that it takes a long time to travel BETWEEN stars - not with jump points allowing almost-instantaneous access to different star systems; the part which takes the longest (hours if not days) is the crossing of space between jump points - which means fighter patrols can take hours, and cross-system travel can take days to move from jump point A to jump point B. The main advantage of the Megacarrier is that it's a jack of all trades, at least compared to most other WC craft prior to its development and deployment; in peacetime, it's the equivalent of a small task force itself, comprising a marine expeditionary unit, a science vessel, and several carriers. In wartime, it's the core of a task force. It's not meant to be a cruiser, or a battleship or a destroyer, and isn't equippped this way - but it IS designed to allow a heavy fighter presence in one system or any adjacent systems which jump buoys service (thus allowing fighters to jump without having the mothership carry them to the site).

And, unlike the proposed CVX carriers, the Midway and her sister ships is designed to do more than just carry fighters; most carrier-based machine shops, IIRC, cannot refit or upgrade munitions and fightercraft the way the Midway did during the original campaign. :D She's, as described in the manual, pretty much a mobile starbase, providing several functions in a platform designed to travel between systems.

And, as Maj. Striker noted, the problem with trying to barricade multiple systems with one megacarrier is mostly logistical in nature - either you control a 'key' jump point in a system which links to several others to do this, or else you end up sending patrols back and forth into multiple systems, which puts a strain on the pilots as well as the craft... since you have to send the fighters back so the pilots can get sleep and food, plus repairs.
 
AKAImBatman said:
This is the same debate that rages in current naval circles. The US fleet of supercarriers is constantly being upgraded with newer and better technology, thus making some classes of support vessels obsolete. The upshot to the design is simple: Under full military power, an American supercarrier can deliver the full force projection power of the US to any location on Earth within ten to fifteen days of receiving the call. If the carrier is pre-positioned (as most are), then it may already be on the scene. As someone else pointed out, this multi-role capacity was demonstrated after the tsunami that destroyed much of India.

As a result, the single-supervessel design has been gaining even more momentum, with the next generation of carriers (the CVX class) to carry armament that is equivalent to that currently only seen in destroyers and battleships. Similarly, the next class of destroyer will be outfitted with weaponry capabilities previously only available on full battleships. This new class will effectively wipe out any differences that once existed between destroyers, cruisers, and battleships.

The downside to this issue is the growing concern of first strike capability. With more opponents gaining nuclear and orbital rocketry tech, the concern is that a surprise nuclear attack could be launched against our carrier fleet with the intention of knocking it out during the opening moves of the war. The destruction wrought by such an attack could easily eliminate the United States' ability to project power, thus leaving them impotent for a period of time. To counter this threat, the US has always tried to keep the exact position of its ships classified and has spent a large sum of money on anti-missile defenses. (i.e. Star Wars type programs.)

Relating this back to the WC universe, they are probably looking at the cost and difficulty of maneuvering so many support ships across their territory. By properly distributing their megacarriers, they can provide the full force of Confederation power projection in a very short period of time. This not only saves money, but eliminates the confusion caused by having to re-juggle ships into a fighting unit during an emergency.

In short One Carrier == Full force of the Confederation, anywhere, anytime.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to US navy carriers in your claim that "carriers are being outfitted with weapons only seen on full battleships." And that it will wipe out the differences that existed between cruisers, destroyers, and battleships? If so I believe you are incorrect. I don't see the US navy putting an aegis system on a carrier, nor do i see them putting larger calibre guns. The primary offensive weapon of the carrier has been and will continue to be its air wing. In terms of other weapons, the Nimitz class carrier only has 4 Sea Sparrow SAM launchers, and between 3-4 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS depending on which ship of the class you are talking about. I don't see the US navy making a substantial change from that.

In addition "Star wars" type missile defenses would not be used to protect a aircraft carrier or other ships at sea. The Strategic Defense Initiative of the Reagan presidency, and the current national missile defense program are designed to shoot down ICBMS and SLBMs. These missiles are used against fixed targets, such as a city, military base or airbase, not a ship. In addition, even the airforce's airborne laser and navy's upper tier defense systems are designed to defend against theater ballistic missiles which target fixed sites.

Carriers would more likely be attacked by Torpedoes, shorter ranged surface or air launched missiles, and cruise missiles, any of these may or may not be nuclear tipped. These types of attacks are defended against by the carrier's air wing, its escorts, and its own close in defenses.
 
ck9791 said:
Are you referring to US navy carriers in your claim that "carriers are being outfitted with weapons only seen on full battleships." And that it will wipe out the differences that existed between cruisers, destroyers, and battleships? If so I believe you are incorrect. I don't see the US navy putting an aegis system on a carrier, nor do i see them putting larger calibre guns. The primary offensive weapon of the carrier has been and will continue to be its air wing. In terms of other weapons, the Nimitz class carrier only has 4 Sea Sparrow SAM launchers, and between 3-4 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS depending on which ship of the class you are talking about. I don't see the US navy making a substantial change from that.

In addition "Star wars" type missile defenses would not be used to protect a aircraft carrier or other ships at sea. The Strategic Defense Initiative of the Reagan presidency, and the current national missile defense program are designed to shoot down ICBMS and SLBMs. These missiles are used against fixed targets, such as a city, military base or airbase, not a ship. In addition, even the airforce's airborne laser and navy's upper tier defense systems are designed to defend against theater ballistic missiles which target fixed sites.

Carriers would more likely be attacked by Torpedoes, shorter ranged surface or air launched missiles, and cruise missiles, any of these may or may not be nuclear tipped. These types of attacks are defended against by the carrier's air wing, its escorts, and its own close in defenses.
Click to expand...

That only shows how different things are. The whole missile situation is another thing entirelly. There isn't the orbital missile threat, even though the ships have greater mobility, the theater is infinitelly larger than our oceans... I mean, an ICBMS or some orbital plataform could hit anything in a matter of hours, and such an availability is just impossible in the WC world.
 
Seems to me it would make more sense to rebuild the behemoth. If it can utterly destroy a planet, a capship wouldn't be a problem. . . . oh right. When you have all your eggs in one basket, what happens when the basket gets dumped?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top