NationStates Jolt Archive

A new carrier from a joint collaboration between Phoenixius and AfrikaZkorps. Basically they are the same, but some might prefer one nation to another:

Phoenixius version
MTN-CA03 FireHawk class Aircraft Carrier
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn77sg.jpg
A colaboration between MierTech and Kenjei Naval the FireHawk was drawn up for the current political climate. Based on the old Nimitz and Kiev carriers, it has significantly increased the potency of these two carriers. Utilising MierTech systems (modified for the Kenjei Naval version) it has considerable staying power.


Designed by: Phoenixius, AfrikaZkorps
Propulsion:
2x Elysius EY500 nuclear powerplants providing electrical power
3x PIPD
Length Overall: 400m
Beam: 50m
Draft: 10m
Speed: 35 knots
Aircraft:
60x VTOL fighters/helicopters
Elevators: 3
Catapults: 3
Armament:
10x Phoenixius Mk II single-barrelled 75mm railguns
5x Eight-Cell MTM-07 Missile Launcher (40 Missiles)
20x MTG-01 S (25mm version)
10x MTM-01 Quad Pack VLS Cells (40 Missiles)
Combat Systems:
GHOSTS
APS
Triad armour (200mm)


Crew: 300 Officers, 5,000 Enlisted
Unit Cost: $7bil
Maintainance Cost: $300mil per year
Production Rights Cost: $700bil


AZK version
NAC-1 - Firebird Aircraft Carrier

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn77sg.jpg
Artists impression of the NAC-1

A colaboration between MierTech and Kenjei Naval the Firebird was drawn up for the current political climate. Based on the old Nimitz and Kiev carriers, it has significantly increased the potency of these two carriers. Utilising MierTech systems (modified for the Kenjei Naval version) it has considerable staying power. The Firebird is the current and next generation aircraft carrier.

Designed: MierTech, Kenjei Naval

Propulsion:
2x KNE KE-5 nuclear powerplants providing electrical power
3x KIPD

Length: 400M[Overall]

Beam: 50M

Draft: 10M

Speed: 35 knots

Aircraft: VTOL 60X fighters/helicopters[Sy-3, AC-1/2, TC-1, NC-1]

Elevators: 3

Catapults: 3

Armament:
10x Kenjei KE-II single-barrelled 75mm railguns
5x Eight-Cell KTM-07 Missile Launcher [40 Missiles]/Star Fire
20x KTG-01
10x KTM-01 Quad-Pack VLS Cells [40 Missiles]/SKSA-1/2 missile packs

Combat Systems:
TSTS[GHOSTS]
APP[APS]
Triad armour (200mm)

Crew: 200 Officers, 5,000 Enlisted

Maintenance: $300mil/year

Unit Cost: $7bil

Production Rights Cost: $700bil

Or they just like my naming better.

Flightopia will take 4 for $28 billion.

Four NAC-1s will be delivered in three years from the order date. And your order is confirmed when the money is transferred.

Funds wired to said account, great doing busness wih you.

My nation will take one carrier.

Aircraft and personnel will not be required, as the carrier will be crewed by citizens of FWN , and her air assets made up exclusively of ATF-19 Advanced Tactical Fighters ( Hammer and Dagger Squadrons, 2nd of the 5th Fleet Air Arm) and F22 Lightnings (Sabre and Cutlass, 32nd of the 5th Fleet Air Arm).

[OOC: F22s, the American ones, don't exactly take off of carriers, or more accurately, land on carriers. And we don't ship them with crew, or air craft, mainly for price effectiveness.]

One NAC-1 will be shipped two years after your order is confirmed. Your order will be confirmed once you wire the appropiate funds.

Wire transfer has been completed.

Our technical and aviation specialists advise me that retrofitting aircraft for land/sea operations will take no longer than two weeks maximum.

My thanks for your swift response.

[OOC: F22s, the American ones, don't exactly take off of carriers, or more accurately, land on carriers. And we don't ship them with crew, or air craft, mainly for price effectiveness.]
OOC: There was a naval variant of the F-22, and it's still underconsideration, all you'd need to do is make everything salt-water resistant and make the landing gear stronger.

I think that now in NS, any current aircraft can be made to land on carriers, depending on the carrier size. Any more orders?

OOC: There was a naval variant of the F-22, and it's still underconsideration, all you'd need to do is make everything salt-water resistant and make the landing gear stronger.

Its not that easy. The F-22 will have to change considerably. Salt water and RAM don't mix well from what I hear. You'll have to enlarge the aircraft to allow for heavier landing gear that's stronger or you'll have to decrease the weapons bay. Not only that but you'll have to make the aircraft lighter, as it seems that it might be few aircrafts on the aircraft to support with the current weight for them to be any use. Then there are a million other things to take into consideration. It will be a much different aircraft at the end of the day ;)

[OOC: If I remember correctly the F22 would need a strengthened frame, for it to land properly on a carrier.]

[OOC: If I remember correctly the F22 would need a strengthened frame.]

That's what I was looking for ;) Could remember it. Thanks.

[OOC: Bump. And yeah, if F22s worked on carriers well, why would the US be developing the JSF? ]

Bump

TO: Phoenixius
FROM: Navy of The Holy Empire of Asgarnieu
SUBJECT: MTN-CA03 FireHawk/NAC-1 Firebird Carrier



Dear Phoenixius,

The Imperial Naval Forces of The Holy Empire of Asgarnieu would like to purchase the following:

(5) MTN-CA03 FireHawk/NAC-1 Firebird Carriers AT $7,000,000,000.00 [EACH]


TOTAL: $35,000,000,000.00 USD


We look forward to owning your fine vessles very soon. Thank You.

Respectfully,

Grand Admiral Thomas N. Rosenthal
Head of the Imperial Naval Forces of The Holy Empire of Asgarnieu

TO: Asgarnieu
From: MierTech Sales
SUbject: Sale of MTN-CA03

We thank you for choosing us for your needs. Five MTN-CA03 carriers are being constructed right now, and should be with you within the next year or so.

We hope you enjoy other MierTech products in the near future.

MierTech sales department
Phoenixius

[OOC: Buy from me ...]

[OOC: Buy from me ...]
[OOC: Yes master...I will obey..... lol :D ]

OOC: Nooo - its from I tell ya, ME!

ooc: setting some facts straight
THe navy has NEVER considered a navalized version of the F-22, as it was seen to be not at all suited to conversion for carrier operations. That said, this is not the reason that the JSF was developed. One solid piece of evidence for that is the Air Force buying both the F-22 and the JSF.

The F-22, or more correctly F/A-22, is being purchased by the Air Force for the role of the heavy fighter/air supremecy fighter, to replace the F-15s that currently fill that role. They are big, and expensive, so the Air Force will not be able to buy a lot of them.

The F-35 JSF is designed to fill the light fighter/strike aircraft, currently filled by the F-16. It is far cheaper than the F/A-22, hence many more of them will be bought. Just like there are a lot more F-16s than F-15s.

When the other armed services saw that the air force wanted a new light fighter, they proposed a joint design, hence Joint Strike Fighter. Its design has at the outset a version capable of carrier operations, something the F/A-22 just was never meant for.

The Navy still needed a replacement for their heavy fighter, the F-14. They are buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to replace the F-14, while the JSF replaces the older F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets. While they look similar, the Super Hornet is actually an almost entirely different aircraft, and is 25% larger than the old Hornets.

[OOC: Thank you.]

Bump

Bumpity bump!

OOC: Are you two collaborating? Just wondering, since AfrikaZcorps was taking orders. Or is he trying to steal business?

If you notice there are two versions - they are basically the same as we designed it at the same time, together. The combat systems and weapons are the same, just with different designations. Therefore no-one is stealing sales from the other - its just whoever gets there first really.

[OOC: Bump. And yeah, if F22s worked on carriers well, why would the US be developing the JSF? ]

OOC: the US navy was working on a Carrier capibal F-22 due to budget cuts it was droped.

the JSF is being made for other nations to use and for navy/air force/marines use and unlike the F-22 the JSF is made more for ground attack though with some lighter AA

OOC: Yes, there was a concept for a carrier capable derivative of the F-22 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml), which, as you can see, was indeed heavily modified. However, it never got off the ground. The navy dumped the requirement even before Lockheed was declared the winner of the F-22 competition. Makes a nice pic for a fictional F-14 replacement though ;)
Also, the JSF was designed based on an AIR FORCE requirement for an F-16 replacement. The Navy and Marine Corps jumped on shortly after. Even if we didn't have any carriers, we'd still be developing the JSF.

For this carrier, I'm not sure on the aircraft, but if it's not using VTOL units, you might want to make note of the flight deck width. Most carriers have a flight deck considerably wider than the beam of the vessel proper, which is important in having enough room to launch, recover, and park aircraft.
Also, the missile load is a bit heavy. Though I don't know the exact size of the missile, we're looking at something around at least 50-100m2 of deck space dedicated to all that. If you don't have that wider flight deck, there's up to 1/4 of your deck right there, just for missiles and a safe zone around the VLS, not even touching on the island or guns. On carriers, space is at a premium, so they usually remove all but token armament and leave the defenses to the escorts, which will almost certainly be there whether the carrier can take care of itself or not. Carriers that have heavy missile armaments (Russian only) tend to only employ VTOL aircraft and if not, still at least have significant reductions in aircraft. Even if those are small missiles needing only about 50m2, you could fit 8-15 fixed wing aircraft in that deck space, and the internal allowances freed up would provide the necessary fuel and munitions. I'd much rather have 8-15 additional aircraft, plus extra fuel and munitions, than a heavy missile load.
Crew is also a bit small. If you want to have a vessel effective for high-tempo operations, you want to have around 35-45 personnel per aircraft for the air wing. Then you should add at least another 1500-2000 to operate the ship itself and provide necessary services. I'd recommend a total crew around 4500-5000 myself (1800-2300 ship's crew and 2700 air wing).
Next, the armor, 500mm is quite a bit - that's close to 20 inches. Now, unless this carrier has a displacement of several hundred thousand tons, that's just too much. Battleship level armor on a carrier will kill its storage capacity with the huge amount of weight (tens of thousands of tons), and that results in far lower fuel and munitions loads, which are far more important. I might go with 150-250mm of armor, but I wouldn't recommend going much higher. It's not worth it. Besides, anything that goes though 250mm is likely to go through 500mm of armor as well. Weapons designers generally don't make medium-penetration weapons, only low and high.
Finally, you should have a displacement listed for the vessel. Dimensions aren't used so much for determining relative size as determining where a vessel can and can't fit. Rather, it's displacement that's used when comparing the size of two vessels, so that's a critical stat to have.

[OOC: Thanks for the suggestions. I will edit my version to your suggestions. However, the missiles are rather small, and I use VTOL air craft.]

Well thanks for the heads up. Really this is the first major review of any of my ships, so the information is greatly appreciated. And all my carrier aircraft are VTOL capable. I've made the changes.