NationStates Jolt Archive

ooc: This may possibly be the largest ship ever on NS. And I'm already aware that this thing's impossible.

Sea Dragon Class Ubercarrier

Description: Talk about force projection. This is force projection in the most painfully impossible way. Yes, it's impossible, but hey, this is NS

Crew: 12,000 sailors, 22,000 aircrew.

Displacement: 2.0 million tons.

Dimensions

Length: 1.8 km

Beam: 1000m

Draught: 60m

Runways: 3

Runway Dimensions: 1,600m x 200m

Speed: 21 knots (try to imagine the awfully long time it takes for this thing to turn)

Guns: 350 "Ineffable" System 30mm CIWS guns.

Missiles: 350 5x5 DLS (diagonal launch system) cells loaded with Hero IX SAMs

Torpedos: 300 countertorpedo tubes, reloadable from the inside.

Aircraft: 600 ASF-06 Coral Dragons, 50 G80 VTOL gunships, 400 ASF-04 Valkyries, 150 ASF-05 Eagle Drone Fighters.

Armor: 3 armored hulls, spaced, with watertight compartments between each hull.

Sensors: Radar, LADAR, LIDAR, MAD, Sonar, Radio wave sensors, Infrared, electric discharge, luminesence sensors, motion detectors.

Computers: Enough to absorb data from all the sensors and systems and compile an easy to understand report for the crew in a very short amount of time. In other words, really freakin' powerful.

Cost: $1 trillion.

ooc: Well, now I can feel safe knowing that i beat the Doujin for sheer size.

Yeah that ships big enough to get destroyed by mine.

ooc: Meh. Anyway, this still is the biggest ship ever.

ooc: Meh. Anyway, this still is the biggest ship ever.

I still give you props for a massive ship. Could you give me one but I want a reduced crew of 3000 men/women sailors. I'll pay 1.5 trillion USD. How about it.

What aircraft will it take.

Confirmed, and it will take almost any aircraft in existence. It can take off and land hypersoars. Oh by the way, the AI I deployed has customizable voices.

I do believe that the phrase is "accident waiting to happen" with regards to a thousand aircraft attempting to take off or land in situations that require full deck deployments.

ooc: *shrugs* and this is NS, things always seem to go off without a hitch, for example, I have no idea how a Doujin works either, but it does.

Confirmed, and it will take almost any aircraft in existence. It can take off and land hypersoars. Oh by the way, the AI I deployed has customizable voices.

I'm wire the money yetbut Some time ago, I bought Carriers from someone but forgot that they were light Carriers. Not much to carry a lot of Aircraft like my famous CVN-21 George H. W. Bush. I'll keep the carrier on reserve just in case I need the money back before you build it.

ooc: I already laid down the 3 keels 2 RL minutes ago. It should be done in 5 RL days.

This "thing" cannot turn, will have great difficulty changing speed, will require a dock that costs tens to hundreds of billions alone and the displacement is way too low. Add to that the fact that it actually carrier no more planes than 12 Nimitzes that, IRL, would cost $72bn and would not require the massive dockyards simply to refit and repair.

In short, this is a waste of money.

WEll it's the largeist surfice ship in NS history. But I am sure most of us spacy's got that beaten.

The Ineffable Imperial Dominion Of The Silver Turtle hereby nods it's head, having finally been surpassed as owner of The Biggest Frikkin' Surface Ship In NS, and in commemoration of this we are donating a muffin the size* of the Doujin SuperDreadNaught, which held the title until The Ineffable Empire took it with Cerberus class ubercarrier at 1034m.

*Diameter of muffin = length of Doujin

"Why thank you, we shall take this muffin and umm.... well, this should feed quite a few people... Where the hell did you find an oven for this thing?"-The Great Leader Li.

ooc: i'd love to get one of these, but as of yet my nation can't afford to buy or maintain that thing. got any pics? hell, i'd settle for a scaned drawing :)

ooc: to give you an idea of the size of the ubercarrier, here's a picture of Kansai intl. airport.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/kansai_ast_2003262.jpg

The image on the left should be about the right size.

Cover Mauna Loa with a tin lid and that'd prolly make a sufficiently sized oven...

[OOC: Too big!!!

Seriously thouhg, I think it's useless (but that's just me). It can't maneuver, and you would need the equivalent of the entire Novikovian Navy just to provide ASW duties. How do you plan on protecting this thing?

I think the major problem is that you just build a nice big steel target for every torpedo known to man. All someone has to do is get a good forty subs to attack this thing and it's helpless.

Anyway, enough ranting.]

[It may be bigger and have more aircraft than a Doujin, but sure as hell a Doujin would have a field day with this. I mean, this thing is so big that at the Doujin's max gun range it couldn't miss.]

ooc: I also have an uberbattleship. ;)

The Democratic Colonies would like to purchase two of these massive carriers. If possible, we would like to pay in steps of 200 billion dollars per year for 10 years inorder to avoid any unneeded straining of the Colonial defense budget.

- Secretary Robert Wolfe, Colonial Department of Defense
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/JC_Denton/NationStates/rc.jpg



OOC: These things are seriously too big. They'll likely end up "harbour queens", ships that never leave port because they're too valuable to risk losing, only pulled out after a conflict is over so they can parade around, be where the surrender is signed, and generally act more like an extension of the political PR machine then the military war machine.

Dammit, you beat me to making the biggest carrier. But...I shall purchase one of these, and slap on gigantic propellers.

how does it have less crew than aircraft?

My Nycton class was bigger than the Doujin.

Many bigger, but none better.

Look! It's a missle attractor, huge cost, and not that difficult to sink...

But if it makes you happy, go with it.

Look! It's a missle attractor, huge cost, and not that difficult to sink...

But if it makes you happy, go with it.

Yes. For it's size, you may as well just paint it red and broadcast its position on loudspeakers and over all known radio frequencies. Nobody is going to miss this thing.

Also, couldn't you fit like an entire infantry division on it's deck? Why not use it as an ubertransport?

come to think of it you could use it to physically push country's around so like when a nukes heading for you could move :)

Yes. For it's size, you may as well just paint it red and broadcast its position on loudspeakers and over all known radio frequencies. Nobody is going to miss this thing.
I find these such arguments rather silly. Ships aren't designed to dodge missiles... it's next to impossible... protection comes from armour, anti-missile systems and countermeasures and I'm sure this thing has a lot of those. I would still dispute its worth since you could have many smaller carriers carry the same number of planes. I suppose you could equally argue that many smaller battleships could do the same job as a Superdreadnaught, but then again a superdreadnaught can't be mission-killed by a single shell hit to the deck, and it can carry bigger guns than a normal battleship.

Torpedos are typcally avoided by using some from of defensive system and/or heavy turning on the part of the targeted ship. Without the ability to turn (at least not at any reasonable rate), the only defense becomes some form of anti-torpedo system which actually kills torpedos (dummies arn't going to do much considering the size of the sonar disturbance a mile-long vessel would cause and there is no change of avoiding detection all together), and deploying such a system in enough quantity to protect the full length of the ship is a design nightmare. And that is assuming the defese system works properly every time.

Secondly. This is a huge ship. How much weight can you pack on it (in the form of armor) before it gets too deep a draft tomove into port?

Thirdly. This is a money pit. It is a huge target, regardless of its defensive measures. As a huge target, it is very risky to even deploy.

3 hulls, each heavily armored. (the draft/draught is about 180 ft. anyway)

Many bigger, but none better.

I'd say mine rivaled it, but wouldn't dare to say better. I'd say 50-50 shot of blowing eachother out of the water. Mine was designed much like a Doujin though. He still gets the medal for the first to make a Super-Dreadnought.

I'd say mine rivaled it, but wouldn't dare to say better. I'd say 50-50 shot of blowing eachother out of the water. Mine was designed much like a Doujin though. He still gets the medal for the first to make a Super-Dreadnought.
So in otherwords, you copied the Doujin with bigger stats?

Confirmed Democratic Colonies

ooc: I usually just use the Nexus Class Battlecarrier, which isn't too much bigger than a Nimitz class and carries 125 airplanes. This thing's a phallic statement for the most part.

Confirmed Democratic Colonies


The Colonial Navy would like an estimate of how long it will take for the two Sea Dragons to be completed.

- Secretary Robert Wolfe, Colonial Department of Defense
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/JC_Denton/NationStates/rc.jpg




OOC: If this thing really is the biggest ship on the NS seas, then it'll have its uses. Image and PR mainly - I'm sure that they'd be useful tools of gunboat diplomacy.

"Well then, I suppose it is your soverign right to refuse our - oh, wait a minute! A huge, 1.8 Km long carrier with 1000 planes is now off your shore? Wow! Oh, what's that Mr. Foreign Ambassador? Your government has reconsidered our offer? Why, I'm glad you see the logic of our case then. See? Who says diplomacy never solves anything?"

Ofcourse, in actual combat, the Sea Dragon's utility might be a bit more limited.

ooc: 10 RL days.

Masspwnage how many of these things do you have?

ooc: It's classified.

OOCly

ooc: just IM me.

OOC:

I'm not entirely sure what I could land on a 1.6 Km long runway. I know C-130 Hercules' wouldn't have any trouble, but what about larger cargo transports, like C-5 Galaxies? Or VIP transports like Concordes? Any chance of either of those aircraft being able to make a landing on a Sea Dragon?

ooc: In short, yes. C5 Galaxies should have no trouble, nor should Concordes.

I find these such arguments rather silly. Ships aren't designed to dodge missiles... it's next to impossible... protection comes from armour, anti-missile systems and countermeasures and I'm sure this thing has a lot of those. I would still dispute its worth since you could have many smaller carriers carry the same number of planes. I suppose you could equally argue that many smaller battleships could do the same job as a Superdreadnaught, but then again a superdreadnaught can't be mission-killed by a single shell hit to the deck, and it can carry bigger guns than a normal battleship.

Prae, I could use up all my stupid (no active guidance) missiles on that behemoth - I can't miss. That's the point - it's so big, it doesn't take any brains to hit it. Heck, at that size, artillery is going to have a field day blowing it to pieces.

So in otherwords, you copied the Doujin with bigger stats?

Not exactly. It's my own design, but it was the main idea of the battleship. I took some happy ideas from his ship, but most of the idea is mine, and mine alone.

Torpedos are typcally avoided by using some from of defensive system and/or heavy turning on the part of the targeted ship.

The range of a torpedo is about 20 miles at most. Not only will it be extremely inaccurate at this kind of range, but it also runs the risk of detection from picketships and sonar-bouys dropped by helicopters. If you want to go any closer then you run into the escorts, which will almost certainly pick you up considering the numbers generally assigned to escort SDs.

Without the ability to turn (at least not at any reasonable rate), the only defense becomes some form of anti-torpedo system which actually kills torpedos (dummies arn't going to do much considering the size of the sonar disturbance a mile-long vessel would cause and there is no change of avoiding detection all together), and deploying such a system in enough quantity to protect the full length of the ship is a design nightmare. And that is assuming the defese system works properly every time.
Now, if for some reason you manage to get past the multitude of escorts (which is extremely unlikely) many nations, including mine (I dont know about MP) employ supercaviatating CIWS, sonar jamming etc etc which has a good chance of knocking your torpedo out of the water.

Now, assuming in the 1000:1 chance that you manage to hit said ship, if you even pierce the armour, you've just flooded one compartment in one hull of, as you say, a massive ship. You haven't really achieved anything anyway. Contrary to the popular myth, these things are bloody hard to destroy. On the other hand you can question the usefulness of the capabilities of such a ship compared to its cost, and it's true that these things should only really be built by large, economically powerful nations with a deep interest in sea power.

Secondly. This is a huge ship. How much weight can you pack on it (in the form of armor) before it gets too deep a draft tomove into port?

Normal draft won't allow these things to enter RL ports, and so you need to specially dredge them. It is extremely expensive, and the question as to whether it's worth it is for each individual nation to answer.

Thirdly. This is a money pit. It is a huge target, regardless of its defensive measures. As a huge target, it is very risky to even deploy.

As I've already discussed, I don't see what its size really has to do with anything. Ok, it's easy to hit, but aren't all ships? Ships are ot designed to dodge missiles - being at least 100m long and having a top speed of only about 55 mph at most makes it impossible. The survivability of a ship depends on how it is used, its active defence systems and how much armour it has, in that order.

EDIT: Vastiva: Why do you waste VLS cells with unguided missiles? If you mean missiles guided by passive radar, then they're probably just as good as missiles with active guidance against a sizeable battlefleet which can't afford missing something by not activating active radar.

EDIT: Vastiva: Why do you waste VLS cells with unguided missiles? If you mean missiles guided by passive radar, then they're probably just as good as missiles with active guidance against a sizeable battlefleet which can't afford missing something by not activating active radar.

VLS Cells? Hell no. Missile boats with stupid shot would work far cheaper. So would naval artillery (considering there's such a large footprint of a ship to actually hit - and each hit makes the carrier that much more useless). "Dumb" dropped bombs can hardly miss - why use the expensive ones?

Besides which, a reasonably plannet attack will take out this carrier-beast and make a nice new reef.

I doubt that anything you could fit on a missile boat (note also that they have too short a range to be used for anything other than coastal defence, and I don't see why this carrier would get too close to the coast) would do much damage to this... maybe a KE missile through the deck, but other than that... And naval artillery? The kind that can fire about 18km? I think you'd be engaged long before then by something in the escorting fleet.

Simply put, superdreadnaughts and the ilk ARE very hard to destroy, and people should accept that. On the other hand, they DO cost huge amounts of money for their capabilities, and so each nation considering building them has to think long and hard about why they are building them, and whether or not they are really worth it. For most nations I suspect that the answer is that they DON'T need them and they AREN'T worth it, but then again for some obviously they are. I don't think that this particular example is all that useful considering its massive price tag, and it's true (in my opinion) that far too many nations, especially small nations, are building massive ships.

A C-5 Galaxy can land on the runway, but it cannot take off with much of a payload. It would only be able to deliver cargo. Same holds true for the C-17 and most larger military transports.

A Concorde, if you're referring to the vaunted SST, requires over 2 km to land at maximum weight, and even light, it won't be able to land on this. And it needs 50% more runway to take off, so even if it did manage by some miracle, it wouldn't be going anywhere afterwards. In actuality, this carrier is still incapable of supporting any commercial aircraft, or military units based on them. Those are designed to be operated from 2.5-4 km runways.

If you have questions regarding runway requirements for specific aircraft, I can probably help you. Just ask.



As for the ship itself, it has some issues still. While that's a large crew and air wing, it's wholly insufficient for the number of aircraft provided. I would recommend at least doubling, probably tripling the air wing, and a signficant increase in the ship's crew should be there too. 10 personnel per aircraft is pretty shoddy, even with the best automation you can get. A Nimitz has 4 times that.

Also, with the size of the air wing, and the armor, I think that this is a bit too heavy on the missiles. 350 25-cell blocks is going to cost a huge amount of space and weight (not to mention provide an excellent target - they have to be on the outside due to the runway), and a great deal of that can be better used for supporting the aircraft. Also, diagonal launching systems are not really effective for this vessel. One of the key points of VLS was to eliminate the need for turning the ship or a trainable launcher, allowing any missile to be fired in any direction at any time. DLS should only be used for very large missiles such as the Yakhont/Moskit/Granit, which are engaging land or surface targets and could use the slight range boost due to their necessary flight profile.

1.8 km???

*has a heart attack looking at the other numbers, then while in hospital realizes that this was only a dream and goes back to looking at Sea Dragon Carrier stats*

ooc: wait up, i need to re-edit the stats.
And I wish i could scan the drawings in of the ubercarrier.

The DLS cells are built into the sloping terraced sides of the ubercarrier. (kinda like a pyrimidal shape)

Yah rotten bacon will take one so yah send me a message via a telegram on what i have to do to get it

Ankhmet would like to purchase one of this, if possible in installments of $100Bn. A huge strain on the military budget, but lacking a regular army we do not need much of it.

A Concorde, if you're referring to the vaunted SST, requires over 2 km to land at maximum weight, and even light, it won't be able to land on this. And it needs 50% more runway to take off, so even if it did manage by some miracle, it wouldn't be going anywhere afterwards. In actuality, this carrier is still incapable of supporting any commercial aircraft, or military units based on them. Those are designed to be operated from 2.5-4 km runways.

If you have questions regarding runway requirements for specific aircraft, I can probably help you. Just ask.


Yes, I was refering to the SST. I've been meaning to find a new VIP transport, but haven't gotten around to replacing the Concordes yet. Thank you for the assistance - I suppose if a VIP needs transport onto a Sea Dragon, they'll just have to take a smaller aircraft.

I don't have any other questions, but again, thank you for your assistance.

Confirmed Anhkmet, and Rotten Bacon, I never check or use my TG box, so IM me.

I doubt that anything you could fit on a missile boat (note also that they have too short a range to be used for anything other than coastal defence, and I don't see why this carrier would get too close to the coast)

We beg to differ here. See "Pegasus" for a general beginning to the train of thought.



would do much damage to this... maybe a KE missile through the deck, but other than that... And naval artillery? The kind that can fire about 18km? I think you'd be engaged long before then by something in the escorting fleet.


No, the sort which has a far longer range, and much more destructive capabilities. Heck, "deck guns" work.



Simply put, superdreadnaughts and the ilk ARE very hard to destroy, and people should accept that. On the other hand, they DO cost huge amounts of money for their capabilities, and so each nation considering building them has to think long and hard about why they are building them, and whether or not they are really worth it. For most nations I suspect that the answer is that they DON'T need them and they AREN'T worth it, but then again for some obviously they are. I don't think that this particular example is all that useful considering its massive price tag, and it's true (in my opinion) that far too many nations, especially small nations, are building massive ships.

If they want to build massive ships, so be it. The major use of a "OMFG WHAT IS THAT?!?" ship is politics - and they work.

We beg to differ here. See "Pegasus" for a general beginning to the train of thought.
Is this a thread? I'll search for it.

No, the sort which has a far longer range, and much more destructive capabilities. Heck, "deck guns" work.
A 12" gun has a range of around 12km. I don't see how you could get significantly higher than this without using an absolutely massive gun which in turn would require a super-dreadnaught of its own to mount it on.

If they want to build massive ships, so be it. The major use of a "OMFG WHAT IS THAT?!?" ship is politics - and they work.
I was refering mainly to the fact that their (relative) lackluster economies are unlikely to be able to build and support these things and still maintain the rest of their militaries.

ooc: Prae, a 12 inch gun has a range of.... well it's longer than 12km. Try 40-50km.

Errm... no, not quite. According to this site:

http://battleships.freewebsitehosting.com/14in45cal128.html

A 14" gun has a maximum range of approx. 35km. Note that this is maximum range and accuracy at this kind of range will be dire to say the least. For a 12" weapon, an effective range of 12km is not unreasonable, although you might theoertically get 20 - 25km. Needless to say, you will likely engage any battleship with airpower or missiles before it gets within gun range.

Errm... no, not quite. According to this site:

http://battleships.freewebsitehosting.com/14in45cal128.html

A 14" gun has a maximum range of approx. 35km. Note that this is maximum range and accuracy at this kind of range will be dire to say the least. For a 12" weapon, an effective range of 12km is not unreasonable, although you might theoertically get 20 - 25km. Needless to say, you will likely engage any battleship with airpower or missiles before it gets within gun range.
That depends on a bit.
First off, that's WWII 14", not really a modern weapon. There's a major difference. With some improvements with the fire control and propellant, and no ballistic or gun improvements, a 16"/50 cal Mk.7 can achieve a CEP of 140m at ranges of 31.9 km, as displayed during trials off of Crete in 1987. Improved propellant, shell, ang gun design can extend range and improve accuracy. As for the ranges, my information says that a WWII 14" gun has a maximum range of around 30-40 km, depdending on the specific weapon (for WWII, 40 km was more common), and similar ranges can be found in 11, 12, and 13" weapons. With that and the improved accuracy in mind, effective ranges exceeding 30 km with truly modern systems are hardly unlikely.

Also, improved propellants (ETC and LP), better gun construction, and ERGM type rounds will all improve range and/or accuracy, bringing things even further in. I would not be surprised if he could fire an ERGM salvo accurately at ranges in excess of 200 km, even with 12" weapons.

Finally, engaging a modern battleship with airpower is dicey at best. Carrier aircraft won't be lifting off with any missiles that could really hurt a battleship, and their damage potential will be limited mostly to free-fall weapons. But most NS battleships have a solid air defense capability, and those free-fall weapons are going to need to be dropped from altitude. The result would be rather unfavorable for the aircraft.

MassPwnage, I think your Aircraft Carrier is good. I did some thinking and research. Your carrier will withstand so much damage because of your 350 CIWS. If you put RIM-116 RAM missile boxes along with your CIWS, I think it will withstand the world's damage on you.

[OOC: I apologise for going off-topic, but RR can you please post on this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408045&page=2]

That depends on a bit.
First off, that's WWII 14", not really a modern weapon. There's a major difference. With some improvements with the fire control and propellant, and no ballistic or gun improvements, a 16"/50 cal Mk.7 can achieve a CEP of 140m at ranges of 31.9 km, as displayed during trials off of Crete in 1987. Improved propellant, shell, ang gun design can extend range and improve accuracy. As for the ranges, my information says that a WWII 14" gun has a maximum range of around 30-40 km, depdending on the specific weapon (for WWII, 40 km was more common), and similar ranges can be found in 11, 12, and 13" weapons. With that and the improved accuracy in mind, effective ranges exceeding 30 km with truly modern systems are hardly unlikely.

Also, improved propellants (ETC and LP), better gun construction, and ERGM type rounds will all improve range and/or accuracy, bringing things even further in. I would not be surprised if he could fire an ERGM salvo accurately at ranges in excess of 200 km, even with 12" weapons.

Finally, engaging a modern battleship with airpower is dicey at best. Carrier aircraft won't be lifting off with any missiles that could really hurt a battleship, and their damage potential will be limited mostly to free-fall weapons. But most NS battleships have a solid air defense capability, and those free-fall weapons are going to need to be dropped from altitude. The result would be rather unfavorable for the aircraft.

:D

We won't even get into the ELS guns most NS gunships mount - or the rocket-assisted rounds that have been used to spear ships at "extreme" ranges. Remember, if this carrier is 1.8 km long, then accuracy isn't that great a consideration, as you can "miss" a shot by .9 km and still hit the damned boat. That's a hell of lack of accuracy which could be acceptable and still land on the deck. And once the deck is a mass of holes, the carrier is effectively neutralized.

Actually, it's a little less forgiving than that, as you also have to figure in the beam. Remember, CEP measures in any direction. Still, it stands. If your gun has a range of 80 km and a CEP of 500m at that range (perfectly feasible with improved propellant, gun, and shell design), it that means that at that range, you can expect at least half your shells to strike the target. With high-angle shots, that's going to cause a ton of damage to the flight deck, and probably go straight through to nail the hangar deck as well. The result is not pretty, and I figure that if you factor out escorts, I'd only need two of my Toryu battleships to effectively disable this vessel. They wouldn't sink it, but they have enough SAMs to shoot down any aircraft that lifts off, and once they get close enough, their shells will guarantee that flight operations won't be going on for some time.

Hm, how about dropping a 30 meter tungsten rod on it? I mean, with a 1800m x 1000m ship its not like you can miss it...

Hm, how about dropping a 30 meter tungsten rod on it? I mean, with a 1800m x 1000m ship its not like you can miss it...

Yes, that would also effectively cripple it.

Hm, would depends actualy, it could shoot right through the carrier leaving you with a small hole in the deck...

Hm, would depends actualy, it could shoot right through the carrier leaving you with a small hole in the deck...

You are taking into account sheer kinetic damage and "vibration", not to mention "sonic boom"? A "small hole" is an impossible event when striking an armored ship - the resistance given is sufficient to impart significant KE damage.

Hm, how about dropping a 30 meter tungsten rod on it? I mean, with a 1800m x 1000m ship its not like you can miss it...
If you were able to hit, then this would work. However, dropping an unguided projectile 28,000km from orbit onto a comparatively tiny target is much more difficult than people in NS seem to think.

@EDIT: I still assert that naval artillery could not, with any accuracy, fire from outside the range of the escorting fleet.

Sorry Vastiva, I was thinking in the forms of a stone building not an armoured deck. Old stone buildings tend to give little resistance so the rod can just slice through...

Oh and Prae, while naval artillery is nice I don't like the fact that I have to put my battleships under the carriers wing of fighters, dropping a dozen 30m tungsten rods should do the trick, one after the other since you can achieve decent targetting and aiming to hit somewhere in a 1.5 kilometer circle.

If you were able to hit, then this would work. However, dropping an unguided projectile 28,000km from orbit onto a comparatively tiny target is much more difficult than people in NS seem to think.

@EDIT: I still assert that naval artillery could not, with any accuracy, fire from outside the range of the escorting fleet.

Do consider "naval artillery" can contain "naval rocket artillery", among others - and MRLS land systems have a range of 30 to 40 km. The VGAS system uses a 155mm gun, with a projected range of 100 nm using ERGM ammunition. Given the use of ETC weapons, even x1.5 that would not be beyond possibility - and few carriers have effective escorts at 150 nm.

In short - yes, you could hit from beyond the escorting fleet. Accuracy would be less a problem because of the size of the ship and the rate of fire, but hitting would not be an insurmountable problem.

Technically Speaking the OMP JMOBs are much bigger vessels...

if you cosnider them ships that is, the mobile part of the name is a bit of an over statement...

Rocket artillery and rocket-assisted artillery isn't at all accurate over that kind of range unless you add a guidance system and fins. Guess what you have now? A missile.

Rocket artillery and rocket-assisted artillery isn't at all accurate over that kind of range unless you add a guidance system and fins. Guess what you have now? A missile.

Prae, you're still missing :
a) Saturation
b) area of target

Because of the sheer area of the deck, you do not have to be fantasticly accurate - I don't care what part of the flight deck I hit, this is a carrier not a battleship. So pitting the flight deck means the carrier is effectively useless. The entire mission is "put holes in it so the flight deck is useless".

If you have a battleship that cna fire 40km, he has another that can also fire 40km that is 2km closer to it's intended target (not to mention that even 40km is in range of all his anti-battleship missiles). It's impossible just to waltz up to these things, fire off a few shots and go home for tea and medals. It's just as unlikely as the innumerable submarine kamikazi attacks often proposed on these threads.

Actually, ranges are more like 100 nm. And damage to my fleet is always an acceptable trade - particularly as it cripples and removes his air power to attack that monstrocarrier. We do not plan on "waltzing up" to it.

Dropping things on it, well yes that's an option.

The point being - because of its size, it has more vulnerability. Because it is a carrier that vulnerability is best exploited to remove it's usefulness from the theater.

If you have a battleship that cna fire 40km, he has another that can also fire 40km that is 2km closer to it's intended target (not to mention that even 40km is in range of all his anti-battleship missiles). It's impossible just to waltz up to these things, fire off a few shots and go home for tea and medals. It's just as unlikely as the innumerable submarine kamikazi attacks often proposed on these threads.
Ahh, but here's the thing:
Consider that the attacker is firing at a 2000x1000m target at 40 km. While his ship is 2 km closer, his target is probably only about 200x30m (consider a 12" armed battleship). Which one do you think will be hitting more often? 2 km isn't going to do much for compensating for such a dramatically smaller target.

...what he said.

I know what I want to say, it's the saying it thats the trick. :(

Ahh, but here's the thing:
Consider that the attacker is firing at a 2000x1000m target at 40 km. While his ship is 2 km closer, his target is probably only about 200x30m (consider a 12" armed battleship). Which one do you think will be hitting more often? 2 km isn't going to do much for compensating for such a dramatically smaller target.
And don't you think he has anti-battleship missiles that can engage at a great range and (since this is NS) will never miss (at least not in large enough numbers to make much difference). In fact, he does, because I've seen the thread.

Bluntly, it's far cheaper to saturate an area with dumb shells then attempting to attack with missiles - and more likely to make it through.

If you're going with the "NS Tech" arguement, the carrier loses. Target area assures this.

If you go with "mirror RL" arguement, the carrier loses. Target area assures this.

Either way, the carrier loses.

Plus, if he wants to put missiles in, I have 1000+ nm range hypersonic missiles (both gun and VLS-launched) that can be fired from battleships. They'll be mighty difficult to stop, will have an insane hit rate with a target that big, and can go right through the runway into the bowels of the ship. Same missiles would have some difficulty hitting said battleship due to limited guidance and maneuverability.

Advantage = battleship

:sniper: give me 1

Bluntly, it's far cheaper to saturate an area with dumb shells then attempting to attack with missiles - and more likely to make it through.

If you're going with the "NS Tech" arguement, the carrier loses. Target area assures this.

If you go with "mirror RL" arguement, the carrier loses. Target area assures this.

Either way, the carrier loses.
The carrier will ALWAYS have a greater striking range than the battleship, because of it's airwing. That's the whole point of a carrier. The carrier can (assuming all else being equal - Clan Smoke Jaguar to ensure a fair argument, you have to assume that he carries ICBMs on his ship too) engage the battleship inside missile range from at least the same range of the battleship (depending on whether the battleship carries missiles which outrage missiles carried by the airwing).

I really don't even know why I'm defending thsi thing anymore, because I think it's a waste of time. Maybe I'm just annoyed that everyone who touches SDs who doesn't use their own says:

a) This is godmod u nub. IGNOREd.

b) This is easy to kill u nub. PWNed.

Everyone, you spamming MassPwnage's thread. Thanks to all of you, he has not come back.

No, keep going, this is interesting and informative.

No, keep going, this is interesting and informative.

If you like it then. Stratch everything I said.

The carrier will ALWAYS have a greater striking range than the battleship, because of it's airwing. That's the whole point of a carrier. The carrier can (assuming all else being equal - Clan Smoke Jaguar to ensure a fair argument, you have to assume that he carries ICBMs on his ship too) engage the battleship inside missile range from at least the same range of the battleship (depending on whether the battleship carries missiles which outrage missiles carried by the airwing).

I really don't even know why I'm defending thsi thing anymore, because I think it's a waste of time. Maybe I'm just annoyed that everyone who touches SDs who doesn't use their own says:

a) This is godmod u nub. IGNOREd.

b) This is easy to kill u nub. PWNed.

Here's a difference.

A SD is a gunship. Even with an airwing, its primary weapon is guns. To take out the threat, you need to silence the guns - and that takes time.

A Carrier is a different animal. You can leave it entirely afloat - but screw up that hardtop, and it's as good as a rowboat. This takes far less damage, and as the flight deck is most of the top of the boat, whatever you hit means you've effectively injured the ability to get more planes up and down.

In other words - to wipe out an SD takes alot of firepower. To kibosh a carrier, you only need hurt one area of effectiveness.

Consider, if I lay a line of shells across the middle of a battleship, I've probably hit a bridge, maybe an engineering area, whatever - but the ship as a weapon is still dangerous.

Same line of shells on the carrier cuts runways - both in effectiveness (can't land on a jagged hole, or take off if the runway isn't long enough anymore) and usefulness (no planes - carrier is a rowboat).

And that is the difference.

The carrier will ALWAYS have a greater striking range than the battleship, because of it's airwing. That's the whole point of a carrier. The carrier can (assuming all else being equal - Clan Smoke Jaguar to ensure a fair argument, you have to assume that he carries ICBMs on his ship too) engage the battleship inside missile range from at least the same range of the battleship (depending on whether the battleship carries missiles which outrage missiles carried by the airwing).

I really don't even know why I'm defending thsi thing anymore, because I think it's a waste of time. Maybe I'm just annoyed that everyone who touches SDs who doesn't use their own says:

a) This is godmod u nub. IGNOREd.

b) This is easy to kill u nub. PWNed.
To be fair, this ship should not be carrying ICBMs, and few other ships should even consider such a thing. They are huge, ponderous, and will damage the vessel upon launch. And to be fair, anything he puts on the carrier, a battleship can carry just as well, but with a tendency toward greater numbers. And furthermore, an ICBM is not an antiship weapon without a nuke, and the retaliatory nuke that will certainly come at his group will do a heck of a lot more damage, so it's not worth it.

Now, lets get back to the basics. I never said it would be easy for a battleship to get within gun range, in fact, I would expect it to be difficult. I only pointed out things like the fact that the carrier's aircraft won't be effective against a battleship. I was more along the lines of IF it happens, the carrier's screwed. I was also refuting your statement as to the range of guns, which was clearly off. Then I pointed out the hole in your battleship escort, and we've gotten to the issue of missiles, which I'd really wanted to avoid from the get go, as it's irrelevent to the original argument.

Really, I've only been knocking down the holes in your arguments. I haven't stated that a battleship is a great way to fight this vessel, but rather I've been trying to point out how it capitalizes on the carrier's weaknesses. No offense, but all you seem to be doing is trying to come up with reasons why it wouldn't work, and that's not a smart way to look at it, because, if done right, it will work quite well. A weakness is a weakness, and all you can do is try and cover it up while hoping the enemy can't find a way to get through and capitalize on it. Instead of trying to state why a battleship (or as per the original argument, a vessel with a deck gun) couldn't possibly hurt the carrier, you're best looking into ways in which someone might manage to get it to do so, and try and set up counters. Nothing's set in stone here.

On the other hand, MassPwnage probably greatly appreciates the insight into the limitations and weaknesses of his vessel, as he can now work to cover them. Too bad I haven't stated anything about tactics that might be used to get a battleship within range, and those are what's important . . .

To be fair, this ship should not be carrying ICBMs, and few other ships should even consider such a thing. They are huge, ponderous, and will damage the vessel upon launch. And to be fair, anything he puts on the carrier, a battleship can carry just as well, but with a tendency toward greater numbers. And furthermore, an ICBM is not an antiship weapon without a nuke, and the retaliatory nuke that will certainly come at his group will do a heck of a lot more damage, so it's not worth it.
I was actually refering to your massive 1,000nm range missiles of death, as they are effectively ICBMs and will be almost as large.

Now, lets get back to the basics. I never said it would be easy for a battleship to get within gun range, in fact, I would expect it to be difficult. I only pointed out things like the fact that the carrier's aircraft won't be effective against a battleship. I was more along the lines of IF it happens, the carrier's screwed. I was also refuting your statement as to the range of guns, which was clearly off. Then I pointed out the hole in your battleship escort, and we've gotten to the issue of missiles, which I'd really wanted to avoid from the get go, as it's irrelevent to the original argument.
Well actually no the comment is right, refering to a WWI 12" gun without rocket-assisted shells (which mean you need a guidance system for any decent accuracy which means you have a gun fired missile), and it's simple common sense that if a battleship is escorting this at any distance (and there will be several battleships in a half-decent SD escort) then it will enter gun-range first, especially if your battleship is picked up on AWAC-style radar (which has a range far greater than that of your guns) and the escort battleship is dispatched to intercept.

Really, I've only been knocking down the holes in your arguments. I haven't stated that a battleship is a great way to fight this vessel, but rather I've been trying to point out how it capitalizes on the carrier's weaknesses. No offense, but all you seem to be doing is trying to come up with reasons why it wouldn't work, and that's not a smart way to look at it, because, if done right, it will work quite well. A weakness is a weakness, and all you can do is try and cover it up while hoping the enemy can't find a way to get through and capitalize on it. Instead of trying to state why a battleship (or as per the original argument, a vessel with a deck gun) couldn't possibly hurt the carrier, you're best looking into ways in which someone might manage to get it to do so, and try and set up counters. Nothing's set in stone here.
Again no offence, but all you and many before you are trying to do is scramble for ways to prove that SDs are easy to kill and therefore useless when in actual fact a massive slab-sided ship with a huge airwing and massive escort is in fact not a simple beast to kill. That's all I (at least think I am - I apologise if it's come across wrong) trying to say.

On the other hand, MassPwnage probably greatly appreciates the insight into the limitations and weaknesses of his vessel, as he can now work to cover them.
Indeed, so I think we should continue debating this. It's actually quite relaxing writing these posts =)

Actually, my arguement has been "a massive CARRIER is vulnerable, and should be reconsidered".

allright folks. while this ship may not serve any real purpose other than being friggin huge, it still wins. just because its so friggin big. and a country donated a muffin to its cause. that totally is worth like, fidy billion props

allright folks. while this ship may not serve any real purpose other than being friggin huge, it still wins. just because its so friggin big. and a country donated a muffin to its cause. that totally is worth like, fidy billion props

Hang on there, Jack - it does serve a purpose. Finding that monster parked in my backyard would cause one hell of a reaction - and a much smaller nation would go into instant conniption fit.

It has use - it also has vulnerability.

Actually, my arguement has been "a massive CARRIER is vulnerable, and should be reconsidered".
I agree that a massive carrier is more vulnerable than a massive battleship (and probably should be reconsidered, although IMO more due to the cost of building and housing this thing when compared to its usefulness) but not exactly vunerable per se.

I think we can work in agreement with that statement.