NationStates Jolt Archive

2 of this type of battle group.
Attack carrier battle group, consisting of:
10 cruisers (AEGIS)
10 frigates
15 destroyers
10 tankers
1 battleship
1 carrier, with:
40 su37 carrier launch fighters
5 sea stallion helos
10 F/A 18E hornets
10 Prowlers
10 Intruders
10 Hawkeyes
3 modified wasp, with
20 Sea Stallions
2,000 marines.
100 LSDs. (not involved with wasp)
500 TD-3000
1,000 modified hummers

1 of this type of battle group
Defense carrier battle group, consisting of:
10 cruisers
10 frigates
15 destroyers
1 battleship
5 tankers
1 carrier, with:
40 su37 carrier launch fighters
5 sea stallion helos
10 F/A 18E hornets
10 Prowlers
10 Intruders
10 Hawkeyes

1 of this type of battle group
Super carrier battle group, consisting of:
10 cruisers
10 frigates
15 destroyers
10 tankers
1 super carrier with:
40 su37 carrier launch fighters
20 f14
30 F/A 18 hornets
10 prowlers
10 Intruders
10 Hawkeyes
4 modified wasp, with
20 Sea Stallions
2,000 marines.
100 LSDs. (not involved with wasp)
500 TD-3000
1,000 modified hummers

I would like some feedback on this. Is this godmodding, etc. wanted your opinion on this. i don't get on much, so i don't really understand what is comparable to what.
keep in mind I'm a June nation, and I haven't spent a penny on military until i got my nation back. (really! :oops: )
I was resurrected.

bump

I personally buy them all in trades and keep track of them as I go along. I suppose if you're creating your own ships it's not such a big thing though.

My navy currently consists of two ships :D

The two things that stand out in my mind are these:

1) Battleships are not cheap to build or maintain... especially not 15 battleships. Currently, the US Navy only has two in reserve and these are modified WWII-era vessels.

2) Your carriers are trying to be aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships all-in-one. That isn't a very easy thing to accomplish and, more than likely, these multi-role carriers would be slightly less capable in both tasks than having separate, dedicated aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships. Another thing to consider is that multi-role carriers like what you seem to be suggesting are logistical and structural nightmares.

I bought some of these ships
I built 2 regular carriers and a few of each other ship Nobody knows, huh :(

It's not too bad, although it looks to run to the heavier ships a bit more than advisable. It depends on what sort of battleships, in large part; generally speaking, a 40,000 ton displacement modernized nuclear version somewhat similar to the Iowa costs a lot less than a carrier to run - but several times a modern cruiser.

EDIT: Note to ACS:

The reason the USN runs only two battleships in reserve has little to do with cost and more to do with preference. The USN runs on a carrier-based fleet with a dozen or so carriers; this fellow has a bigger country with lower percentage spending ratings, and his four carriers plus fifteen battleships would probably run similar to ten Nimitzes in annual operating costs.

Frankly, though, I don't see the reason to have them operating in packs of 5 within three carrier groups; I'd have no more than one on supplemental escort duty in any group and the rest deployed in other battle groups, perhaps with escort carriers for a light screen or in areas where you can bring in allied air support from land bases. Battleships aren't really meant for escort roles as much as bombardment and anti-shipping warfare (some modern capital non-carrier vessels, such as the Kirov heavy cruiser, are designed to fill anti-submarine and anti-air support roles for a fleet.)

It's not too bad, although it looks to run to the heavier ships a bit more than advisable.
thanks. I'll take out some cruisers and frigates.

You cannot launch a F-22 off of a carrier irregardless of the extent of modification.

You cannot launch a F-22 off of a carrier irregardless of the extent of modification.
whoops. wrong plane :oops:

EDIT: Note to ACS:

The reason the USN runs only two battleships in reserve has little to do with cost and more to do with preference. The USN runs on a carrier-based fleet with a dozen or so carriers; this fellow has a bigger country with lower percentage spending ratings, and his four carriers plus fifteen battleships would probably run similar to ten Nimitzes in annual operating costs.

While I would generally agree with that, I do remember reading somewhere that the massive crew and maintenance requirements of the battleships are becoming prohibitive. There are more costs to consider than just the actual operating costs of the vessels themselves.

Frankly, though, I don't see the reason to have them operating in packs of 5 within three carrier groups; I'd have no more than one on supplemental escort duty in any group and the rest deployed in other battle groups, perhaps with escort carriers for a light screen or in areas where you can bring in allied air support from land bases. Battleships aren't really meant for escort roles as much as bombardment and anti-shipping warfare (some modern capital non-carrier vessels, such as the Kirov heavy cruiser, are designed to fill anti-submarine and anti-air support roles for a fleet.)

Agreed.

The two things that stand out in my mind are these:

1) Battleships are not cheap to build or maintain... especially not 15 battleships. Currently, the US Navy only has two in reserve and these are modified WWII-era vessels.

2) Your carriers are trying to be aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships all-in-one. That isn't a very easy thing to accomplish and, more than likely, these multi-role carriers would be slightly less capable in both tasks than having separate, dedicated aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships. Another thing to consider is that multi-role carriers like what you seem to be suggesting are logistical and structural nightmares.
what is an "amphibious warfare ship?"

The Navy can say it better than I can.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lha.html

More fighters.

The idea of an AIRCRAFT carrier.

10 on each isnt much good.

The Navy can say it better than I can.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lha.html
as in "modified wasps" that i have? they aren't the carriers, they just sail with the carriers.

Holy crud!!!!

a sep 24th nation with nearly 700 million!!!

can somene say population bug

More fighters.

The idea of an AIRCRAFT carrier.

10 on each isnt much good.
85 on my regular carriers, 125 on my supercarrier. 10?

Holy crud!!!!

a sep 24th nation with nearly 700 million!!!

can somene say population bug
i was resurrected. :roll:
that is what everyone says, though.

More fighters.

The idea of an AIRCRAFT carrier.

10 on each isnt much good.
85 on my regular carriers, 125 on my supercarrier. 10?

Oops. I only saw the F/A-18's, not the Su-37's :oops:

While I would generally agree with that, I do remember reading somewhere that the massive crew and maintenance requirements of the battleships are becoming prohibitive. There are more costs to consider than just the actual operating costs of the vessels themselves.

This was a very hot topic in the forums a few months ago, actually..

Well, consider maintainence; maintaining and running a 60 year old battleship (conventionally powered at that) is going to take a good bit of cash, but that wouldn't be as much a problem for a relatively newly built battleship. Crew requirements would also go down substantially with a modern design built from the hull up with modern efficiency standards, but the current operating crew of a bit over 1500 is well under the total crew of 5,680 that the Nimitz requires (that includes the air wing, but you see why ACs are so expensive to manage? Fact is, a full sized carrier tends to run nearly twice the displacement of battleships people are willing to consider these days).

On the down side, battleships tend not to be able to provide any reasonable air cover for themselves - perhaps a seaplane or two, perhaps a couple helicopters, and they are one big target for enemy aircraft. But everybody knows that these days, right? Same as everybody knows that the US has an unusually large number of full sized carriers compared to normal nations? And battleships, however cheaper to operate, require still good sized chunks to build in the first place. We're talking generally a billion or three.

The Navy can say it better than I can.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lha.html
as in "modified wasps" that i have? they aren't the carriers, they just sail with the carriers.

Pardon me, I didn't see that... I was under the impression your carriers were carrying both the combat aircraft and the amphibious troops. It would be a little easier to read if you indented the lines indicating the fighters and amphibious troops.

thanks. i'll do that. :wink:

On the down side, battleships tend not to be able to provide any reasonable air cover for themselves - perhaps a seaplane or two, perhaps a couple helicopters, and they are one big target for enemy aircraft. But everybody knows that these days, right? Same as everybody knows that the US has an unusually large number of full sized carriers compared to normal nations? And battleships, however cheaper to operate, require still good sized chunks to build in the first place. We're talking generally a billion or three.

Yup. Battleships are damned effective at what they do... but are increasingly difficult to defend. In my opinion, that's why the Navy is shifting towards developing fast, well-armed littoral attack craft.

I'll have the AEGIS cruisers do close support along with fighters and such. the battleships don't sail alone

I'll have the AEGIS cruisers do close support along with fighters and such. the battleships don't sail alone

That is just that many more air defense resources that have to be diverted, though. Unless you intend to build more air defense assets to protect both the carriers and battleships?

the battleships are mostly for softening up the target before the land attacks, and long-range defense.