NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Here are the specs. I'm currently still making it, so if you have suggestions, feel free to make comments and try to help me on this.

Hull: Monohull
Length: 2100 m
Width: 600 m
Draught: 56.5 m
Crew: 65,000 Crew Members and 8,000 Marines
Displacement: 3,693,070 tonnes
Speed: 18 knts (cruising) and 20 knts (maximum)
Aviation: 1,600 aircrafts launched from 24 catapult and 200 helicopters
Electronic Countermeasures: AN/ALQ-131 ECM System
Avionics: AN/SPS-49A(V)1 Radar; ANN/SQQ-89 SONAR System
Propulsion: 4 Nuclear Reactors powering 6 Waterjets and 9 Turbines (backup)

Armenant:

2x 24-Cell Harpoon Missile Launcher
10x Mousetrap Anti-Submarine Weapons
8x 24-Cell AA Weapon (SAMs)

Countermeasures:

Flares
Electronic Jamming Optics System (EJOS)
Phalanx CIWS Block 1B Configuration, Anti-Missile System

Armor:

The 1st layer is made from Inconel plates.
The 2nd layer is made from aluminium-titanium alloy.
The 3rd layer is made from ceramic tiles.
The 4th layer is made from refined carbon-steel.
The 5th layer is made from carbon-carbon.
The 6th layer covers the engine and control room compartments and is made from composite material covered with QuietShip material (lessens sound emitted by 70%).

Price: $105 billion
Running Cost: $20 billion

Thank You to anyone that helps :)

*added price and propulsion :)

awsome job so far. Is there any thing specific that you need help on?If you need funding I would be willing to help

awsome job so far. Is there any thing specific that you need help on?If you need funding I would be willing to help

Thanks. :) Actually I wanted to see if some naval experts could tell me if anythings seems incorrect. But I will put this on sale later on once I get the problems out of the way. :) We will keep in mind your interest.

bump

bump

I must say that I am very impressed by the desgining here. Only thing I'm going to say that needs improvement is the armarment. YOu really should have some form of ship-to-ship weaponry, whether it be HARPOON ASM's (Tomahawks only cover ground targets) or good ole' cannons. Also, you need more AAA. Most people overlook old flak cannons and 20mm's and the like, believing that they are obsolete. This is, in fact, not the case. Most new carriers in RL still have these basic AA functions. But, hey, it's your ship. If you can find room for this stuff, great. If you consider this stuff not important enough, at least my opinion's heard. Once again, great job.

OOC: Hot. Damn. This thing is a beast! Umm...I'm not really a ship/weapons designer, but I think you need to jack the price up, as this thing looks like it's going to be much bigger than a Nimitz-class, and those are around $4 billion. This'll probably be even bigger than one of the Praetonian Titan-class carriers I have, and those were $6 billion apiece. So...I'd say jack the price up to something like $7 or $8 billion, at least. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, though, I'm not a designer, or anything, I just buy other people's stuff.

Actually, repeated studies by just about everyone who has them have shown that putting extra armament on carriers is a waste. Since they already have heavy escort as high-value targets, the extra space is best used for additional aircraft and supplies for said aircraft. Additionally, many forms of weaponry actually hinder flight operations. It is for these reasons that the Nimitz class, as well as almost every other post-WWII carrier, has only point defense weaponry.


Also, as for the carrier itself, I don't think it's really all that good. With only 420 aircraft on a 3,000,000+ ton vessel, it's not that hot. Consider that you can get the same air complement on four fleet carriers totalling only $20 billion, and you realize just how weak this is, and this is compounded by the fact that there is nothing else that would generate an excuse as to why the complement is so low. Really, it should be able to carry up to twice that just on the flight deck, with the real probelm being crew, which is a bit anemic for a large air complement. You want at least 20 personnel in the air wing for each aircraft, even with high automation, and furthermore, you want almost half of the complement to be the ship's company, which also has to provide for the air wing in service areas (food, medical, etc). 16,000 would be a rather small complement on a vessel this size, considering that those four carriers I mentioned earlier would have 30-50% more personnel than this between them.

Also, I don't see any real reason to have 12 reactors. Really, I don' think any vessel would need more than 4-6. If you want more power than those give, just make bigger reactors. 12 smaller reactors is a lot more crew and maintenance intensive (not to mention vulnerable), than a smaller number of more powerful ones.

Finally, running cost is a bit low. I would expect an annual operating cost in the range of $15 billion, considering the size and complexity, with an average annual lifetime cost of about $30 billion. $2.8 billion would be for something a fraction of this size.

Actually, repeated studies by just about everyone who has them have shown that putting extra armament on carriers is a waste. Since they already have heavy escort as high-value targets, the extra space is best used for additional aircraft and supplies for said aircraft. Additionally, many forms of weaponry actually hinder flight operations. It is for these reasons that the Nimitz class, as well as almost every other post-WWII carrier, has only point defense weaponry.

Yeah thats pretty much why I kept the defense to a bare minimal.


Also, as for the carrier itself, I don't think it's really all that good. With only 420 aircraft on a 3,000,000+ ton vessel, it's not that hot. Consider that you can get the same air complement on four fleet carriers totalling only $20 billion, and you realize just how weak this is, and this is compounded by the fact that there is nothing else that would generate an excuse as to why the complement is so low. Really, it should be able to carry up to twice that just on the flight deck, with the real probelm being crew, which is a bit anemic for a large air complement. You want at least 20 personnel in the air wing for each aircraft, even with high automation, and furthermore, you want almost half of the complement to be the ship's company, which also has to provide for the air wing in service areas (food, medical, etc). 16,000 would be a rather small complement on a vessel this size, considering that those four carriers I mentioned earlier would have 30-50% more personnel than this between them.

How about 2,500-3,000 aircrafts along with 140,000 men complement on the ship? That would be huge but would fit the size correctly.

Also, I don't see any real reason to have 12 reactors. Really, I don' think any vessel would need more than 4-6. If you want more power than those give, just make bigger reactors. 12 smaller reactors is a lot more crew and maintenance intensive (not to mention vulnerable), than a smaller number of more powerful ones.

I thought something this huge would need 12 huge nuclear reactors. I'll change it to 7 Nuclear Reactors

Finally, running cost is a bit low. I would expect an annual operating cost in the range of $15 billion, considering the size and complexity, with an average annual lifetime cost of about $30 billion. $2.8 billion would be for something a fraction of this size.

I'll change it to $15 billion annual running cost.

Thanks for the advice.

Pschycotic Pschycos and Halberdgardia:

Thanks for the input. Yes it is huge!

*TAGGAGE*
And Space Union you have a TG.

bump

Did you get my second TG?

Did you get my second TG?

yep. I'll read it tomorrow. good night :)

yep. I'll read it tomorrow. good night :)
*waves* Night!

Looks like an interesting concept, the mother of all supercarriers. The dreadnaught of the carrier world, proving that bigger is always better.

I have a few quiestions:
1)2500 aircraft?
2)Even with three flight decks, how?
3)I'd personally go with a trimarian design compared to a catamaran, it is much 4)mor symplisitc and hydrodynamic for the Idea your using.
5)why only 4 catapults, why not stick at least six or more per deck, otherwise, it would take years to cycle all the aircraft.
6)How would landing work, carriers have enough time normally scheduling landings while also launching aircraft. How would it work multiplied by three?

1. Sure you got the displacement right? I would assume about half of what you're assuming.

2. Going purely by the carrier's approximated volume (I assume that the excessive displacement is based on tons of armour, something L ships tend not to have), about 1200 planes (Including helicopters) sound more like it. And this is assuming RL sized planes (Whereas with such a carrier, I would add a few bigger ones).

3. Crew? Eh? This isn't Star Wars 'Automatisation is for wussies!'. Approximating based on RL crew requirements, 70000 should be enough... Although I would add that given the sheer... excessiveness... Of a 70000 men crew, and such a carriers definite postmodernness, I would say that one only builds such a thing when you're good enough to require less of a crew. Lets say, oh, about 50k or so.

Of course, the nice thing most ship designers seem to miss these days is the amount of time it actually takes to construct such monstrosities... these days it still takes around, what, six-ten years to build your standard carrier. When you start building something of this size then you're looking at much, much longer.

The advantages with Nationstates do allow you to assume that time has just, you know, passed. However the problem with this which people often over look is your respective time between other nations. It's ok jumping forward twenty years to upgrade your military and technology when you aren't in the middle of a conflict or in any serious cold war efforts... but then you are in the thick of it these time conciderations become important. Furthermore, it needs to be concidered when people order these things from you... they will need to sign contracts which demand they wait a long time for their new super carriers as you won't just have one lying around to give them. So if that nations in a conflict when they order it, it wouldn't be ready in time for that conflict unless it lasted like fifteen years.


All this aside, however, I can't help thinking this things a little excessive. Personally my nations naval doctrine doesn't require something like this. I suppose that given other nations obcession with power projection and invasion it could have use in that sense, but I don't think like that.

Good luck working out all the kinks anyways.

To Everyone:

1) I'll change the plane amount to 1,400 Aircrafts and 200 helicopters
2) Displacement is right for such a large carrier.
3) Also I'll add 8 catapults per flight deck
4) I'll change to 35,000 men. That should make enough without godmodding.

Also I designed this as more of a political tool just like a Super Dreadnaught. If an enemy saw this thing, I doubt they would want to fight and if they do their morale will be significantly lower.

Trimaran design. LESS displacement than what the thing would have with a 'normal' design.

Also LESS space to keep planes than it would have with a 'normal' design. In fact, even less space than the catamaran design you had beforehand.

So, frankly, 1400 planes/ 200 helicopters are, hrm, how to put it... Impossible.

And note that MORE planes/ helicopters also mean MORE crew. Not less.

Trimaran design. LESS displacement than what the thing would have with a 'normal' design.

Also LESS space to keep planes than it would have with a 'normal' design. In fact, even less space than the catamaran design you had beforehand.

So, frankly, 1400 planes/ 200 helicopters are, hrm, how to put it... Impossible.

And note that MORE planes/ helicopters also mean MORE crew. Not less.
Sorry, but 1600 aircraft is within the realm of possibility. Depending on design, a conservative estimate might fit over half that on the flight deck, so a total complement of 1600 isn't that much of a stretch.
Also, this is less than what a monohull would carry. That might manage 2500+ aircraft if you really tried.

That said, the crew should be at least 50,000 as it stands. 35,000 might be sufficient for the air wing, but you need to run the ship as well . . .

Hull: 3 (both triple-decked)

What does that mean?

Okay, then I'm confused now. Lets get this first, which hull-type should I use for the carrier? Trimaran? monohull? cartaman?

ooc: I still have the largest carrier
The SeaDragon Class Ubercarrier.

ooc: I still have the largest carrier
The SeaDragon Class Ubercarrier.

I'll have to see about that ;)

Could I see the specs for the SeaDragon? You can post it here or TG it to me. Your choice. Thanks :)

Okay, I'm going to make this a monohull. Trimaran have been getting some bad says from many members of NS. Besides it would carry more aircrafts. Does this sound okay? But I know not only will the aircraft complement increase, but also the crew complement. I'm saying around a 65,000 complement with 2,600 aircrafts. I will also increase size.

Made final changes to the design. It will be monohulled instead of trimaran. It will have also a complement of 2,500 aircrafts with 200 helicopters. With a monohull that should be correct. I also increased the complement and dimensions.

the tokera would like to buy one hypercarrier for $300 billion

If you're going monohull then this can be directly compard with the Nimitz in terms of size, and thus cost and aircraft. The other hull types can be compared but it won't be a direct corellation.

Stat Nimitz Loch Ness

Length 332.85m 2100m

Width 252m 600m

Beam 40.84m 56.5m

Displace 97 kilotons 3693 kilotons

Aircraft 2600 85

So you are six times as long, twice as wide and have the same beam/draught(if they aren't the same thing sorry, but it isn't that much taller). Thus the Nimitz is 332*252*40=3346560m^3, I know that the Nimitz isn't a solid block, but this allows for some frame of reference. That would make the Loch Ness 2100*600*56=70560000m^3, once again I know its not a solid block but this allows for comparison.

70560000/3346560=21.08 times larger.
This puts you about a megaton overweight when compared to the Nimitz, thus I suggest that you cut back on the weight at least a little. The next thing, 21*85=1785, unless you make this thing even larger you couldn't carry 2400 aricraft and 200 helicopters on it. I suggest that you have 1600 aircraft and 200 helicopters, 2400 is just ridiculous. Personally I don't care that much about crew size, so I'm not going to do the calcs but I strongly suggest that you reevaluate the whole # of aircraft.

If you're going monohull then this can be directly compard with the Nimitz in terms of size, and thus cost and aircraft. The other hull types can be compared but it won't be a direct corellation.

Stat Nimitz Loch Ness

Length 332.85m 2100m

Width 252m 600m

Beam 40.84m 56.5m

Displace 97 kilotons 3693 kilotons

Aircraft 2600 85

So you are six times as long, twice as wide and have the same beam/draught(if they aren't the same thing sorry, but it isn't that much taller). Thus the Nimitz is 332*252*40=3346560m^3, I know that the Nimitz isn't a solid block, but this allows for some frame of reference. That would make the Loch Ness 2100*600*56=70560000m^3, once again I know its not a solid block but this allows for comparison.

70560000/3346560=21.08 times larger.
This puts you about a megaton overweight when compared to the Nimitz, thus I suggest that you cut back on the weight at least a little. The next thing, 21*85=1785, unless you make this thing even larger you couldn't carry 2400 aricraft and 200 helicopters on it. I suggest that you have 1600 aircraft and 200 helicopters, 2400 is just ridiculous. Personally I don't care that much about crew size, so I'm not going to do the calcs but I strongly suggest that you reevaluate the whole # of aircraft.

Interesting :)

I'll adjust the weight and aircraft complement. Sorry I'm no naval expert. :(

the tokera would like to buy one hypercarrier for $300 billion

Your order is confirmed. Thank You.

Interesting :)

I'll adjust the weight and aircraft complement. Sorry I'm no naval expert. :(

Beside being fanatically intersted in the military neither am I. I find that the best way to create new stuff is to find the RL thing used by the military and scale it up to the appropriate size using math. That way you can do whatever you want cosmetically but keep it close enough to what is real for NS.

Also to show that I like the idea will order three, how long will this take to deliver? I've been spending a lot on buying stuff, so I'll have to pay across the years it takes to produce.

Actually Rail guns are not as hyped up as some people think. They are good to a point but other weapons would serve the same objective without the need for the extra energy or space needed for such a weapon. Also I would substitute a phalanx weapons system for close in air defense as they are a proven and highly effective weapons system. You probably should include some type of surface to surface weapons system such as the french built anti-shipping missile the exocet, or something similar. The harpoon is a fine weapon but is old and outdated. The tomohawk is not the body nor is it the warhead for the harpoon. they are completly different in aspects. However the tomohawk is a more diverse weapon as it has over 50 different configurations. You might consider having only three stages of armor as any more would be a waste of energy required to propel the carrier. Start with a reactive armor on the outside and the next two layers you could combinne many different materials that would be one layer but as strong as three of your layers. I also agree that your plans call for too many reactors. You would get the same power with one or two bigger reactors as with the 12 or 7 you call for. It would be less maintenance and parts needed for repairs. Make the screws a five or six blade configuration as that would add more speed. The armories should sit on static coils to avoid any weapons falling out of their placements and they should have a triple dedicated system to flood that compartment in the case of a fire or explosion. Make the structures as angled as possible to avoid radar reflections. Have two bridges and a redundent system to control the vessel in the event of loss of control to one station. If i think of anything else i will let you know. But other than that good job.

Point, the Exocet is older and worse then the Harpoon, leave the Harpoons, they're better. US, try paragraphs, they work wonders when it comes to ease of reading. Railguns provide more velocity, since that is the purpose of the gun system I don't see how conventional guns work better. They may be lighter but on a carrier that isn't the concern.

I don't see how conventional guns work better.
Um... Better and larger payloads, lower power requirements, and cost effectiveness?

Do conventional guns really fire larger payloads for the same caliber? Railguns suck power like its going out of style, but a carrier like this has that much power to burn. Why are they more cost effective?

Do conventional guns really fire larger payloads for the same caliber?
Due to the distinctive characteristics and the fact that railgun projectiles are high velocity, carrying large payloads (of, for example, explosives) aren't entirely feasible, thus you are required to rely on kinetic energy to serve its purpose. While this is good for some uses, the fact that its actual payload and the variation of the types of payloads makes it a much-less-than-ideal weapon in the general role of land-attack, and anti-ship roles as well (since you don't sink ships merely by poking holes on their hulls and crashing a high-velocity penetrator in, you actually need something that will start the catastrophe).

Everyone is forgeting a few things here.

First off, with 1,600 planes and only 8 catapults, it would take forever to launch them all. Say you can launch a plane every 20 seconds or so. It would take nearly 9 hours to launch them all. My largest carrier has only 135 planes and only 4 catapults to launch them with (4 is small considering how many planes it has) So if I can launch a plane every 40 seconds, and it would be less, I can launch all my aircraft in only 1 and a half hours.

Secondly, all these planes need fuel to run on. This fuel would have to be stored on board and would take forever to refuel. No supply tanker that I know of could even come close to carrying enough fuel to fill up this things tanks.

Next, there is the problem with weapon storage, unless there are armories spread across the ship, one hit to even one of these armories would take out the entire ship.

There is even more problems with the storage of fresh food and water for the crew. Again, no tanker could hold enough water to fill the water tanks up. And it would take forever to resupply. Most people dont know that most of the resupplying of a ship is dont with helicopters.

It is also very very slow. It would take forever to get anywhere and just present a huge, slow-moving, target for anything that wants to hit it.

To sum it up, the main problem with this ship is that it is a logistical nightmare. Besides, a few 200 plane carriers would prove to be more flexible, practical, and have a smaller logistical footprint. The whole NS notion that "Bigger is Better." is totaly wrong and the product of insecurities and little research. There are a few super-dread-sized ships out there that are somewhat fesible, but I tend to keep things more realistic.

This ^ post above mine is pretty much right, it's a big slow target, way too much armor, and get rid of the Elec-RA it's useless against the huge caliber shells and missiles this ship would be facing, infact all ERA on ships is way over-rated.

Thats the benefit of using stats scaled up, if the Nimitz can do it then this ship can do all of the stuff you mentioned in NS. All the facilities on the Nimitz are scaled up 21 times, including the stuff you mentioned. This ship isn't meant to go toe to toe with a Super Dreadnought, but simply take the occasional shell with grace, although I do think that there needs to be something like 24 catapults. If you had 12 facing each direction, the carrier is long enough for this, then you could launch all the planes in a reasonable amount of time, just not fast.

I don't know that much about railguns, so I suggest that you listen to Omz. I think that these are good with about one in a very large fleet, which is why I'm only getting three. This does need to be modified some more, but the inherent concept is sound.

I could help in supplying nuculear materal for propulsion, also my N-45J reactor could up your speed a good 10 to 15 knots.

OOC: What? This behemoth won't ever move that fast because it isn't the reactor power thats lacking, its the size and space taken by the propulsion units. Plus you have to say why yours works so much better then what is being currently used, or at the very least provide a link to a thread or website that explains it.

Thats the benefit of using stats scaled up, if the Nimitz can do it then this ship can do all of the stuff you mentioned in NS. All the facilities on the Nimitz are scaled up 21 times, including the stuff you mentioned. This ship isn't meant to go toe to toe with a Super Dreadnought, but simply take the occasional shell with grace, although I do think that there needs to be something like 24 catapults. If you had 12 facing each direction, the carrier is long enough for this, then you could launch all the planes in a reasonable amount of time, just not fast.

I don't know that much about railguns, so I suggest that you listen to Omz. I think that these are good with about one in a very large fleet, which is why I'm only getting three. This does need to be modified some more, but the inherent concept is sound.

lol Do you know how hard it would be to coordinate 24 catapults? even with modern tech, it would be too chaotic. The deck on even a nimitz class carrier is chaotic enough to cause accidents.

Thankfully only twelve catapults would face the same direction, think like two carriers pushed up back to back and then made into one ship. For that many catapults it wouldn't be hard to see a launch every ten seconds, and still have a safe deck because that means that each catapult would launch a plane every 240 seconds. That seems a little long to me, is a catapult only launched every two minutes(120s) instead of four it would be a relatively short time to launch all planes. One plane launched per five seconds when it means that each catapult sits still for two minutes seems enough to ensure safety and put all the planes in the air in a little over two hours.

1600 planes*5 seconds= 8000 seconds
8000s/60 s/m= 133m
133m= 2 hrs and 13 mins to launch all planes

Thankfully only twelve catapults would face the same direction, think like two carriers pushed up back to back and then made into one ship. For that many catapults it wouldn't be hard to see a launch every ten seconds, and still have a safe deck because that means that each catapult would launch a plane every 240 seconds. That seems a little long to me, is a catapult only launched every two minutes(120s) instead of four it would be a relatively short time to launch all planes. One plane launched per five seconds when it means that each catapult sits still for two minutes seems enough to ensure safety and put all the planes in the air in a little over two hours.

1600 planes*5 seconds= 8000 seconds
8000s/60 s/m= 133m
133m= 2 hrs and 13 mins to launch all planes
Hmm, yes, it's all good on paper, but this would be immpossilbe and impractical seeing as you will not be able to to fit all 1600 planes of the flight deck, you would need to bring them up using elevators, send them along the right paths to the catapults, and rig them up, then get clearance to launch.

I'd be a traffic cops worst nightmare! lol

And I wonder how long it would take to recover all 1600 aircraft?!

In my opinion you'd be a sitting duck launching and recovering all these planes.

Which is why it takes two minutes between launches, if a Nimitz has two catapults and launches one aircraft every forty seconds then it is 80 seconds between launches on each catapult. It takes 50% longer to launch an aircraft on this carrier then on the Nimitz due to the difficulties mentioned, but the Nimitz has an equal deckspace to aircraft ration as this does so it is possible.

Which is why it takes two minutes between launches, if a Nimitz has two catapults and launches one aircraft every forty seconds then it is 80 seconds between launches on each catapult. It takes 50% longer to launch an aircraft on this carrier then on the Nimitz due to the difficulties mentioned, but the Nimitz has an equal deckspace to aircraft ration as this does so it is possible.
(OOC: I thought a Nimitz had 4 catapults, or maybe I'm thinking of the Kitty Hawk or Enterprise carriers)

Yes, but the distance between catapult and elevator has also been scaled up, I still have serious doubts that you could launch a plane every 5 seconds in the combat enviorment, I'd give it at least 8 seconds if not ten seconds, also the problems of landing and resupplying still stands.

Sorry, the Nimitz does have four catapults but launches a plane every twenty seconds according to Naval Technology.com. This means that the calcs are still accurate, so under ideal conditions(i.e. launching full wing for a strike or lots of warning) it could take a little over two hours to launch all aircraft. If under attack without much warning it is unlikely that the whole wing will be launched, but if it were it would take around twice the time. However if four hours warning was given then they would have time for a much quicker launch.

Sorry, the Nimitz does have four catapults but launches a plane every twenty seconds according to Naval Technology.com. This means that the calcs are still accurate, so under ideal conditions(i.e. launching full wing for a strike or lots of warning) it could take a little over two hours to launch all aircraft. If under attack without much warning it is unlikely that the whole wing will be launched, but if it were it would take around twice the time. However if four hours warning was given then they would have time for a much quicker launch.

Exactly. I could easily take out this ship with F-117s, B-2s, and F/A-22s with ease; and they are considered obsolete by NS's booming standards.


My largest carrier, the Blue Dragon class, is a catamaran style hull with two catapults (possibly more), 2 runways, and 5 elevators per hull. By the use of staggering. I can launch 2 planes and land 2 planes at the same time, every 20 seconds or so. This means I can launch the entire ships air complement in 1.5 hours. I am checking with DPUO to see how many it actually has, and am thinking of adding more catapults to speed up even that time.

It is also worth noting that my carrier has more weapons, counterneasures, and CIWS; (including the railguns. I dont belive railguns are MT) despite being less than a tenth it's size.

Now this may sound pretty noobish (but hey, I'm still pretty new) but if you wanted to have this many aircraft why not go for several smaller aircraft carriers you'd be able to launch more aircraft in less time and it wouldn't be such a huge target because a ship that big...would take a lot of protection.

Scellia pretty much covered the landing procedures remarkably close to what I had invisioned. Interesting :)

First of all, everyone here makes it sound like this is its own navy. That is not close to the truth. This is suppose to be integrated into my individual fleet armadas. This thing will have no need of weapons when it has destroyers, cruisers, battleships, and super dreadnaughts providing protection for it. That is the reason why I'm not putting much armenant on this. Armenant interferes with flight operations and causes problems for the flights operations.

Second of all, this is a scaled up Nimitz. Its fuel, food, and supply compartments are 21 times larger than Nimitz's compartments. Its complement and aircrafts complement are 21 times larger than the Nimitz's. The supply and crew/aircrafts are proportionate to eachother just like a Nimitz's. Yes it will require a couple of supertankers to resupply and refuel but the same can be said about a superdreadnaught.

Beside being fanatically intersted in the military neither am I. I find that the best way to create new stuff is to find the RL thing used by the military and scale it up to the appropriate size using math. That way you can do whatever you want cosmetically but keep it close enough to what is real for NS.

Also to show that I like the idea will order three, how long will this take to deliver? I've been spending a lot on buying stuff, so I'll have to pay across the years it takes to produce.

I like you idea. I'm going to use it some ships I develop. Thanks :)

Also Your order is confirmed. It should take around 9 years to fulfill the 3 ships. 3 years per ship. I hope you enjoy them.

Made some changes:


*Changed to 25" ETC Guns instead of 155mm Railguns
*Added Harpoon Missile Launcher
*Got rid of ERA layer and changed 1st layer to Inconel plated layer
*Changed flight operations configuration to 8 catapults in 3 flight decks. (This may be wrong).
*Changed to 4 Nuclear reactors.

Took into account some suggestions made by others. Hope this helps.

Hey Space Union, you think I could get the production rights to the Inconel metal? I want to use it one my upcoming SD instead of ERA.

Hey Space Union, you think I could get the production rights to the Inconel metal? I want to use it one my upcoming SD instead of ERA.

Sure only $5 billion.

*Money wired*

Carrier looks good, a tad to big for me, but oh well.

*Money wired*

Carrier looks good, a tad to big for me, but oh well.

Thanks. :)

Just as a reminder when you update the stats, you need to triple the number of catapults from 8 to 24. If you do what I suggested then you don't have three decks, especially since this is monohull, but either two or four. You have a lot of weaponry for something that hauls around so many planes, it'll have escorts to do everything except last ditch air defense. You should definately tear out the big guns for more catapults and probably tear out most of th VLS Cells for catapults or you won't be able to fit 24 catapults on the deck.

As Freethinkers had frequently written, vessels over 1 km in length suffer from terrible stresses imposed by their sheer size. Carriers that size suffer from another problem as well -- that of diminishing utility. There are, after all, only so many landing areas, catapults, lifts (etc.) one can put on an aircraft carrier, and once they hit a certain size, the advantages of the vessel type drop dramatically.

My own Union-class has, in my opinion, crossed over from utility to liability, but since it offered certain advantages over the previous class (notably, the ability to operate larger aircraft), I have retained it. Beyond that size, however, launching and recovery becomes problematic.

My suggestion would be to try and discern landing cycles, take-off cycles, and associated problems, including safety issues and turbulence concerns.

Of course, this is merely advice, and you may do with it what you will.

All the best.

As Freethinkers had frequently written, vessels over 1 km in length suffer from terrible stresses imposed by their sheer size. Carriers that size suffer from another problem as well -- that of diminishing utility. There are, after all, only so many landing areas, catapults, lifts (etc.) one can put on an aircraft carrier, and once they hit a certain size, the advantages of the vessel type drop dramatically.

My own Union-class has, in my opinion, crossed over from utility to liability, but since it offered certain advantages over the previous class (notably, the ability to operate larger aircraft), I have retained it. Beyond that size, however, launching and recovery becomes problematic.

My suggestion would be to try and discern landing cycles, take-off cycles, and associated problems, including safety issues and turbulence concerns.

Of course, this is merely advice, and you may do with it what you will.

All the best.

Thanks for the advice :)

This ship is really a niche ship. I developed for my doctrine which it suits well but for more general doctrines this would be some liability but the same can also be said of a super dreadnaught. Most people don't want to risk them and most of the time they just act as political tools. This is just like the super dreadnaught as it acts like a political tool, though it won't in my navy.

Also I'm working on a diagram outlining showing the entire operations. Hopefully that will better help understand the ship.

Just as a reminder when you update the stats, you need to triple the number of catapults from 8 to 24. If you do what I suggested then you don't have three decks, especially since this is monohull, but either two or four. You have a lot of weaponry for something that hauls around so many planes, it'll have escorts to do everything except last ditch air defense. You should definately tear out the big guns for more catapults and probably tear out most of th VLS Cells for catapults or you won't be able to fit 24 catapults on the deck.


Sure I'll do that. Thanks :)

Forgot to mention that it is now for sale if you want one :)

bump

Actually in point of fact the Harpoon is actually at least 2 decades older than the ship to ship missile the exocet. The exocet is smaller, but has the same explosive power. The Harpoon first came into naval use in the late 60's to early 70's. The first exocet did not come into use until the early to mid 80's. The Harpoon has a slower high end speed than the exocet and is a bigger target for anti-missile muntions. In addition the Harpoon is currently in the last stages of retirement from the U.S. Navy.

I did not mean to say that the exocet was the best missile for the job, just that it is better than the Harpoon. Point in fact is that the Tomohawk would be an excellent surface-to-surface missile except that it lacks the super-sonic speed recuired to penetrate a carriers or battle groups defenses. The Harpoon is a fine weapon but is more suited to sparcely defended land targets.

I am not sure what country it belongs to but there is currently an excellent ship-to-ship missile called the silkworm. It is up to you as to which missile system you use. I just suggest that you look around for the right missile before deciding. This is very important when dealing with naval warfare.

I also agree with the assesment that you have too few catapults. The amount of time needed for you to launch all your aircraft would leave not only you aircraft in a defensless state but would also leave your carrier vulnerable. You might want to adjust you plans accordingly.

Actually in point of fact the Harpoon is actually at least 2 decades older than the ship to ship missile the exocet. The exocet is smaller, but has the same explosive power. The Harpoon first came into naval use in the late 60's to early 70's. The first exocet did not come into use until the early to mid 80's. The Harpoon has a slower high end speed than the exocet and is a bigger target for anti-missile muntions. In addition the Harpoon is currently in the last stages of retirement from the U.S. Navy.

I did not mean to say that the exocet was the best missile for the job, just that it is better than the Harpoon. Point in fact is that the Tomohawk would be an excellent surface-to-surface missile except that it lacks the super-sonic speed recuired to penetrate a carriers or battle groups defenses. The Harpoon is a fine weapon but is more suited to sparcely defended land targets.

I am not sure what country it belongs to but there is currently an excellent ship-to-ship missile called the silkworm. It is up to you as to which missile system you use. I just suggest that you look around for the right missile before deciding. This is very important when dealing with naval warfare.

I also agree with the assesment that you have too few catapults. The amount of time needed for you to launch all your aircraft would leave not only you aircraft in a defensless state but would also leave your carrier vulnerable. You might want to adjust you plans accordingly.

I got rid of all the missiles. It was done as the carrier has escorts to do the fighting ;)

I changed the catapults to 24. That should be enough I think. Thanks for the comments :)

OOC: You still have the Harpoon listed, and I think that you mean you got rid of all the guns, so here we go...

Last Exocet Update: 1993
Last Harpoon Update: 2001

Deal with it, Harpoons newer since the missile was updated less then five years ago. Updating means creating a modern missile using the old one as groundwork.

<snip>
The Harpoon and the Exocet are comparable missile systems, both of which entered service on ships in the mid-to-late nineteen-seventies (1977 for the Harpoon). The Harpoon has undergone updates more recently and more consistently than the Exocet, and has received more foreign sales as well, and not simply because of US influence, or likely a lower purchase price (mass production and all), but simply because it is a very good weapon.

The Silkworm is a Chinese missile based on an early 1970s Russian missile design, if I remember correctly. Cheap and not that effective, but with a big warhead. Better to go for the new Russian missiles (Moskit, for instance) for your escorts, or better yet some NS designs such as Sarzonia's Scourge missile.

You might want to do some more research as you facts are inaccurate. The Harpoon is older, bigger, and slower and it is very hard to upgrade the harpoon for naval use in 2001 as the Harpoon is in the last stage of being phased out of service and the only platforms that now carry the Harpoon are those which have not had the new system integrated. The Harpoon is very popular with other countries only because it is better than most countries have themselves.

Your dates of service for the two missiles in the discussion are inaccurate as to the dates the missiles were first used in naval standing. But I digress.

Good luck with your vessel. However I do have to say that it would be a mistake for you to completly disarm your carrier. You should at least keep a close in weapon support system such as the Phalanx gatling guns.

The Harpoon Block II is an upgrade program to improve the baseline capabilities to attack targets in congested littoral environments. The upgrade is based on the current Harpoon. Harpoon Block II will provide accurate long-range guidance for coastal, littoral and blue water ship targets by incorporating the low cost integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) from the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) program currently under development by Boeing. GPS antennae and software from Boeing's Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) and SLAM Expanded Response (SLAM ER) will be integrated into the guidance section. The improved littoral capabilities will enable Harpoon Block II to impact a designated GPS target point. The existing 500 pound blast warhead will deliver lethal firepower against targets which include coastal anti-surface missile sites and ships in port. For the anti-ship mission, the GPS/INS provides improved missile guidance to the target area. The accurate navigation solution allows target ship discrimination from a nearby land mass using shoreline data provided by the launch platform. These Block II improvements will maintain Harpoon's high hit probability while offering a 90% improvement in the separation distance between the hostile threat and local shorelines. Harpoon Block II will be capable of deployment from all platforms which currently have the Harpoon Missile system by using existing command and launch equipment. A growth path is envisioned for integration with the Vertical Launch System and modern integrated weapon control systems. With initiation of engineering and manufacturing development in 1998, initial operational capability for Block II will be available by 2001.

Exocet missiles started in development in 1967, originally as the ship-launched variant MM 38 which entered service in 1975. The air-launched version, AM 39, was developed later starting in 1974 and entering service with the French Navy in 1979. The missile is designed to attack large warships. A block 2 upgrade programme was carried out from the late 1980s until 1993, and introduced an improved digital active radar seeker and upgraded inertial navigation and control electronics.

I don't deny that there are a lot of better NS missiles out there, however the Harpoon is an excellent RL choice and much better then the Exocet.

The Harpoon is older, bigger, and slower and it is very hard to upgrade the harpoon for naval use in 2001 as the Harpoon is in the last stage of being phased out of service and the only platforms that now carry the Harpoon are those which have not had the new system integrated.
Incorrect on almost every count. Production of the Harpoon began in 1975, followed by shipboard deployment in 1977, aircraft deployment in 1979, and submarine deployment in 1981. The later versions are around 600-730kg in weight (depends, but most are around 630kg from memory), with a speed of Mach 0.85. When compared to the Exocet, the AM39 is 670kg (heavier) while the MM40 is 870kg (even more heavier). Whilea dmittingly the Harpoon is slower by Mach 0.08, it proves virtually no point other than the fact that both missiles are very capable and are combat proven, but the Harpoon itself is also a very effective weapon that will be used by various navies (including the USN) into the forseenable future.

It is worth noting that of the two Exocets that struck the British fleet off the Falklands (1982), neither exploded (HMS Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyer). Both ships were destroyed by the fires created by the remaining fuel within the missiles themselves as well as the materials used within the vessels themselves.

It is also worth noting that the Royal Navy switched from the Exocet to the Harpoon missile system. I sincerely doubt it was American pressure that caused the British Admiralty and the British government to change their minds.

It is you, United specopscom, who ought to check up on your facts. The Harpoon may be on the way out, but probably not for a while yet, and simply because the US Navy can afford more capital-intensive weapons, such as a potential hypersonic attack missile. Insofar as sea-skimming missiles go, the US Navy has the missile it wants, needs, and will continue to use for years to come.

I'm going to still use the Harpoon missiles.

bump

To clarify a bit on Exocet vs Harpoon:

MM40 (surface-launched) & AM39 (air-launched) Exocet:
Length: 5.64m (MM40), 4.68m (AM39)
Diameter: 0.35m
Wingspan: 1m
Weight: 825 kg (MM40), 640 kg (AM39)
Speed: Mach 0.93
Range: 72 km (MM40), 70 km (AM39 @ 10,000m altitude)
Warhead: 165 kg

RGM-84D (surface-launched) & AGM-84D (air-launched) Harpoon Block IC:
Length: 4.63m (RGM-84D), 3.85m (AGM-84D)
Diameter: 0.343m
Wingspan: 0.914m
Weight: 690 kg (RGM-84D), 540 kg (AGM-84D)
Speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 140 km (RGM-84D), 220 km (AGM-84D)
Warhead: 221 kg

There you have it. The Exocet is bigger, heavier, shorter-ranged, and with a smaller warhead than the Harpoon. The only real advantage is in 10% higher speed, but the smaller Harpoon counters with 2-3 times the range, a 34% bigger warhead, almost a full meter off the length, and less than 85% of the Exocet's weight. I'd say the Harpoon has the clear advantage.

A Bock 3 upgrade of the MM40 Exocet is coming out that will increase the range to 180 km, and rectify the greatest weakness of the missile, which is a lack of over-the-horizon capability. That's always been a glaring weakness, and a huge reason to choose the Harpoon. However, this Exocet won't improve much in several other areas, and I haven't seen much done for the air-launched version. However, the AGM-84F Harpoon Block ID (though it was cancelled) had a range of 315 km (don't know the range for the RGM-84F counterpart), and was still a bit smaller than the Exocet, while the similar-sized AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER has a 360 kg warhead and 280 km range. If either of these had been deployed on ships, all variants of the Exocet would still remain completely outclassed in both range and firepower by the Harpoon, and both of those Harpoon versions have been around for over a decade.

Food for thought.


Also, development/deployment dates (that I know):
Exocet:
1967 (MM38 program started)
1972 (MM38 entered production)
1974 (AS39 program started)
1975 (MM38 entered service)
1979 (AS39 entered service)
1983 (SM39 entered service)
1980s-1993 (Block II upgrade of all types)
2006 (MM40 Block 3 projected)

Harpoon:
1965 (initial study for Harpoon project, but with signficiantly different requirements)
1968 (program officially started)
1970 (AGM-84 designation applied)
1972 (first test flight, incorporation of ship and sub-launched versions into project)
1975 (production commenced)
1977 (RGM-84A entered service)
1979 (AGM-84A entered service)
1981 (UGM-84A entered service)
1982 (C-variant, aka Block IB, entered service)
1985 (Bock IC, or D-variant, entered service. the definitive version)
1986 (development of AGM-84E SLAM began)
1989 (Block ID, aka F-variant, entered development)
1990 (SLAM entered service)
1991 (first flight of Block ID)
1993 (Block ID cancelled in light of Soviet collapse)
1994 (AGM-84H SLAM-ER entered development)
1996 (Harpoon 2000 / Block II proposed, to eventually be exported as Block II/L-variant)
1998 (SLAM-ER entered production)
2000 (SLAM-ER entered service)
2002 (AGM-84K SLAM-ER entered service)