PopsiclePete
Mission programmer
LOAF, got tired of your new "Eel Flag" Avatar ? I liked it... better that the old one anyway.
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.
TopGun said:It's a pretty cool idea
As was the case with the afforementioned Behemoth
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.
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.
Edfilho said:This post was very elucidative, but I think the scenario is quite different in RL and WC.
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.
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.
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.