NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a fairly small nation (only 419,000,000 people), though i would like to have a fairly powerful navy (at least one capable of projecting force and supporting a powerful ground force). I decided to, at least for now, avoid SDNs and focus on mainly CVNs. To compliment this, I also decided to have a "light carrier" force designed for littoral/amphibious assault operations. Any critiques would be welcome. Posted is the air compliment to each CVN/LCVN

Carrier Battle Group - CVN: I currently operate 15 of these CVNs as my blue-water fleet. I equip all my SSGNs with Tomahawk cruise missiles for anti-ship/land operations. To screen for enemy SSNs while at sea, I use the seahawks to launch sonobouys. In war time, I often combine the CVNs to increase their striking power, as well as to "clear the way" for ground forces. I use a relatively large amount of logistics ships to ensure that the fleet can operate indefinatly far from a friendly port. With the exception of the LVS-6, all ships have some form of combat support. Without further adeu:

Carrier Battle Group
1 CVN-77 Nimitz Class Supercarrier
3 CG-73 Ticonderoga Class Cruiser
3 D32 Type 45 "Daring" Anti-Air Destroyer
3 DDG-106 Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer
3 FFG-61 Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate
2 SSBN-743 Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine
3 SSN-22 Seawolf Attack Submarines
2 T-AOE-8 Supply Class Oiler
2 Wave Class Large Fleet Tanker
4 LVS-6 Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Ship

Air Compliment
40 F35 JSF
5 C2 Greyhound
2 EA-6 Prowler
3 E2-C Hawkeye
40 F/A-18E/F Superhornet
18 SH-60 Seahawk
3 Westland Superlynx
2 Silorski S-70 Helicopter

Light Carrier Battle Group - LCVN: I operate 20 Light Carrier Battle Groups, with the purpose of landing and supporting marine forces, committing to shore patrols, and escorting merchant marine forces. In this case, the Besson is still used to shuttle supplies to and from friendly ports, while the T-AK3 310 performs roll on/roll off support (capable of deplying 200 Merkava 4 Tanks, which is my current tank of choice, or 540 Warrior IFVs in various configurations) after a beachhead is secured. In addition, the littoral combat ships provide additonal helicopter support and UAV support (though I do not have any UAVs in stock, I could use advising on this point), as well as close marine support if required. The Wasp Class ships provide massive helicopter support for a ground invasion, though they can be outfitted with JSFs for additional anti-air support and close air support (they ARE phasing out the A-10 with these) and some ASW helicopters if need be. I also chose the Princep De Austrias STVOL Carrier since it can provide 12 JSFs and 12 Seahawks. Where as the CVN was Aircraft intensive with helicopter support, the reverse is true for the LCVN. I will admit: I do lack an AWACS style form of support, though I know of no STVOL planes that could fit that role. With out further adeu:

Light Carrier Battle Group
1 R-11 Princep De Austrias STVOL Carrier
1 CG-73 Ticonderoga Class Cruiser
2 D32 Type 45 "Daring" Anti-Air Destroyer
2 LHD-8 Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ships
3 FFG-61 Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate
8 LCS Litoral Combat Ships
2 T-ARK 310 Fast Sealift Ships
1 Wave Class Large Fleet Tanker
3 LVS-6 Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Ship

Air Compliment
12 F35 JSFs
112 SH-60 Sehawks
2 Superlynx Helicopter
1 S-70 Helicopter

Any advice is appreciated in terms of ship substitutes, number adjustments, etc. etc.

I'm Air Force, not Navy, so the only advice I can give would be your aircraft choice. For your full carrier battle group I would drop the F-35s for Hornets or Super Hornets. If for no other reason than cost and the maintenance nightmare they'll probably be. If the paint on it is any thing like the F-22's a two hour job will turn into six to eight hour job. It is still undecided what brach is getting it, but I know the A-10 is not being phased out, I'm an A-10 crewchief.

Ah, i misread the article in that the A-10 might be switched to the JSF in the future. I'm not sure what the maintenance costs are, wikipedia lists them as "low," but its my understanding that the JSF is the replacement for Harrier strikejets, and brings stealth technology to the table, which makes it useful. For air engagements. While both are good for close air support, the JSF seems to be more apt to taking off from STOVL carriers. Thanks for the input though, i'll have to consider adding in some A-10s to my airforce.

Well, personally, I see a lack of big guns in your carrier groups. In todays NS world, battleships, dreadnoughts, and superdreadnoughts have made an emergence and their heavy armaments can sway a battle. You don't have to field SDs to get heavy firepower, so I suggest adding some battleships or regular dreadnoughts.

Also, alot of those ships are outclassed in NS warfare. I would suggest finding a storefront that suits your needs.

For maintenance I was just talking time. For instance on the F-22, You have to sand the radar absorbing paint off the fastening surfaces, then you can unscrew and remove the panel and fix whatever you need to in there. Then instead of reinstalling the panel you have to send it to paints to get it repainted. And then you have I think you have to paint over the screws once you've reinstalled the panel. So an even simple jobs can turn into a maintenance nightmare.

Personally, I prefer to avoid NS wank designs, since they are often mini-god mods in and of themselves. Right now United Earthling and TPM are working on an anti-dreadnought air-borne missiles (though it may not acchieve frutation, but the idea is interesting). Like I said, I am not a big fan of wank designs, but I can always just up the weapons systems on most of these ships to meet NS standards, though I might not have to since they are cheap enough.

I also found that the F-35 is apparently easier and cheaper to maintain then an F22, though is there anything that can beat an F22 in air-to-air combat?

Well, if you don't want to use "wank" designs as you so put them, it would still be very useful to have a battleship-type naval vessel. Perhaps a group of Iowa-class battleships, with nuclear reactors, ETC guns, VLS tubes, and advanced FCS and radar systems. There are a few storefronts on here that sell them.

Two words: Montana Class.

Four more words: Increase the gun calibre.

You'll have a RL design that can field guns capable of blowing up any other NS battleship or above.

Oh yeah, alot of those destroyers would get raped by the onslaugt of missiles some ships could put up BTW. Alot of tech is not "wanking" as well. Ask any draftroom member, alot of work and thought goes into design. If it doesn't work we make sure it does!

is this some side part of naton states? how do you do all that in nation states if not?

I refer to a wank design as something that fields 50 CIWS all over and is unsinkable! Also, at my tech level, I do not expect to go up against any 4.5 billion man countries unless I'm intervening in a war with several of my closest friends. That being said, what is good doctrine for using battle ships? I like the idea of a modernized montana class, but how much would one cost to update with VLSes, anti-air systems, CIWS, and larger, more powerful reliable guns? I'm guessing I'd have to uparmor that as well. I'm not going for the "grand armada" that alot of people try to field, I'm going for more realistic (thus the abundance of logistics ships) battle groups. That said, if anyone can point me towards a storefront with a modernized montana class along with how to use it, I'd probably integrate it.

Personally, I prefer to avoid NS wank designs, since they are often mini-god mods in and of themselves. Right now United Earthling and TPM are working on an anti-dreadnought air-borne missiles (though it may not acchieve frutation, but the idea is interesting). Like I said, I am not a big fan of wank designs, but I can always just up the weapons systems on most of these ships to meet NS standards, though I might not have to since they are cheap enough.

I have a missile capable of taking out superdreadnaughts and the like, derived from the Kh-22. If you want I can sell you production rights.


That being said, what is good doctrine for using battle ships?

There isn't one really. Air power rules the waves, a lot of NS people just refuse to recognize it.

I have a missile capable of taking out superdreadnaughts and the like, derived from the Kh-22. If you want I can sell you production rights.



There isn't one really. Air power rules the waves, a lot of NS people just refuse to recognize it.

no they up the air defences on their battle ships to defend against air attack and most SDs have there own aircraft on board.

no they up the air defences on their battle ships to defend against air attack and most SDs have there own aircraft on board.

Air superiority matters ALOT. Whether or not you accept this is up to you. Let me pose a question though, with missiles incoming what is the ships AA systems going to focus on, the fighters or missiles? Either way you lose...

Mer, there is not alot of tech wanking going on. Like I said, if there was a tech wank then many people would refuse to RP. Look at some storefronts and atleast find the least wankier things because these classes of ships will get slaughtered on the NS stage.

no they up the air defences on their battle ships to defend against air attack and most SDs have there own aircraft on board.

I always considered an SD that had the capacity of a super carrier with the armnament of a regular SD a blatant godmod. That being said, can you TG me the specs/concept of this missile? I had previoulsy thought of an ASROC-esq keel breaker, but others disagree with that as a concept. That and people seem to think that CIWSes are 100% perfect. Either way, I'm rich enough to afford a few montanas, maybe have 2 alongside each carrier?

And i have succeeded against some high-end NS ships. In my war against Leocardia, I sent off a load of anti-ship missiles, along with a meat shield of Pythogrian fighters, followed by low-flying JSFs and F/A-18s to attack sensors/weapons, which helped when the B2 Spirits droped bunker busters on it.

no they up the air defences on their battle ships to defend against air attack and most SDs have there own aircraft on board.

Which means that the gun armament is totally useless if you're dependent on airpower to stay alive. Which proves my point.

There isn't one really. Air power rules the waves, a lot of NS people just refuse to recognize it.

Ships routinely carry SAMs and CIWS systems. So simply having planes doesn't make you king of the battle, but it certainly may help.

In any case, a battleship isn't gonna be alone (at least I hope not). Any smart naval commander is gonna surround the battleship(s) good number of escorts which will also be packing air-defense equipment. Just like any carrier battle group.

I'm not saying that a battleship is invincible by any means. But any competent person isn't gonna leave the battleship, or any capital ship, out in the open for air attacks.

Which means that the gun armament is totally useless if you're dependent on airpower to stay alive. Which proves my point.

just about all the aircraft are interceptor vtols.

just about all the aircraft are interceptor vtols.


most carrier designs are STOLs or SVTOLs, not true VTOLs. And the best are standard takeoffs, like the F/A 22.

Ships routinely carry SAMs and CIWS systems. So simply having planes doesn't make you king of the battle, but it certainly may help.

In any case, a battleship isn't gonna be alone (at least I hope not). Any smart naval commander is gonna surround the battleship(s) good number of escorts which will also be packing air-defense equipment. Just like any carrier battle group.

I'm not saying that a battleship is invincible by any means. But any competent person isn't gonna leave the battleship, or any capital ship, out in the open for air attacks.

True, but the battleship is inherently more vulnerable in a sea action compared to a carrier. At best, the maximum effective range of a battleship against a naval target will be 100 nautical miles, and more likely a good deal less. The 1950's era A3D Skywarrior could carry a 6,200 pound payload 1080 nautical miles, or 1778 nautical miles with an inflight refueling. In other words, assuming that the carrier force never moves, the battleship is vulnerable for a distance up to 1600 nautical miles while the opponent has nothing to fear.


just about all the aircraft are interceptor vtols.

And that would be relevant how?

just about all the aircraft are interceptor vtols.


most carrier designs are STOLs or SVTOLs, not true VTOLs. And the best are standard takeoffs, like the F/A 22 Raptor. Now, if only we found a ship that could launch heavy bombers...

most carrier designs are STOLs or SVTOLs, not true VTOLs. And the best are standard takeoffs, like the F/A 22 Raptor. Now, if only we found a ship that could launch heavy bombers...

Depends on how big you define heavy bomber. Ticonderoga-class and larger can hold A3D sized aircraft, which is plenty big.

I was thinking like a strategic bomber actually, but I suppose an A-10 could suffice (though i don't think it is a STOL)

I was thinking like a strategic bomber actually, but I suppose an A-10 could suffice (though i don't think it is a STOL)

By Navy standards, the A3D / A-3 Skywarrior was a strategic bomber.

True, but the battleship is inherently more vulnerable in a sea action compared to a carrier. At best, the maximum effective range of a battleship against a naval target will be 100 nautical miles, and more likely a good deal less. The 1950's era A3D Skywarrior could carry a 6,200 pound payload 1080 nautical miles, or 1778 nautical miles with an inflight refueling. In other words, assuming that the carrier force never moves, the battleship is vulnerable for a distance up to 1600 nautical miles while the opponent has nothing to fear.

The battleship is certainly vulnerable, but only if they allow the enemy planes to attack them. And they certainly can strike farther away than 100 miles if they're packing long-range anti-ship or land attack missiles. It's true that the aircraft will have a longer range than most shipboard missiles or guns, but once the planes are within range to use their weapons, they can also be shot down by air-defense weapons onboard the ships.

And certainly, if the battleship has no friendly air cover, they're at a big disadvantage. Which is why in my NS play, I always pair together a battleship with an aircraft carrier in a battle group.

The battleship is certainly vulnerable, but only if they allow the enemy planes to attack them. And they certainly can strike farther away than 100 miles if they're packing long-range anti-ship or land attack missiles. It's true that the aircraft will have a longer range than most shipboard missiles or guns, but once the planes are within range to use their weapons, they can also be shot down by air-defense weapons onboard the ships.

Not necessarily. SM-2ER Block IV had a maximum range of 100-200 nautical miles, isn't far enough to intercept someone using a long-ranged version of the Harpoon (they're within intercept range, but can turn around and exit before the missile hits them).

My point though is that the day of the gun is over, and large gun-armed ships are good only as eyecandy and not in a serious naval engagement.

Anyone else have suggestions? I calculated the ships themselves (i classify all airicraft under the airforce) as having crews of 285,615 (incluiding maintenance personal) total, and that there are 30,000 port/planning personal. Should I up the portside numbers?

An SD is nowhere near a godmode. I suggest you get on an instant messenger program with The Freethinkers, Sarzonia, Praetonia, hell, any one of the naval designing greats, and they shall rip your argument to shreds.

An SD is nowhere near a godmode. I suggest you get on an instant messenger program with The Freethinkers, Sarzonia, Praetonia, hell, any one of the naval designing greats, and they shall rip your argument to shreds.

I think he just wants to stay in RL tech range. Like using things that actually exist today and keeping designs to today's standards. No need to come across harsh either SEA...

Mer, that BB I am designing is done but I need to do the write up for it. That won't be done until tomorow because I still have some school writing to do.

It would be logistically simpler to have an all JSF force rather than split between the Hornet and JSF, though you would theorectically lose some bomb truck capacity.

Likewise, rather than have 3 types of helos, better to have one multi-mode such as HH-60.

The majority of your firepower is long range airstrike. Your carrier airpatrols allow you some major stand-off distance, allowing you to bomb a BB for HOURS before he can steam into gun range. Similarily, your stand-off distance allows you to stay out of radar range, making you less vulnerable to cruise missiles to a certain degree (still have to worry about satellites and restricted waters).

Carriers are all about reach, they get into trouble when something ugly like a BB or SSN sneaks past there pickets and gets in close to wreak havoc upon them.

If you do chose a BB for your carrier group, it is really going to be a short range/medium range defender, and I see if I could get a custom design that drops the guns in favor of the heaviest anti-ship missiles I could find and an improved AA battery, basically, this would be an enlarged Kirov without the carrier aft.

If you choose a BB for your Amphibious Group, I would keep the guns, and see if I could get an extensive gallery of 155mm DP guns. This would allow your BB to be a massive bombardment vehicle for your ampibious assaults, and act as a focal point for defense against a counterattack.

I would consider adding a CVL to the Carrier Battlegroup that could act as a drone carrier. Radar Picket drones would have better endurance than Fighter patrols, be more fuel efficient, and remove the need for the E2s on the main carrier. You could also have it carry UCAVs for suicide missions.

I would also seriously consider an ASAT type anti-satellite missile, take out an enemies eyes, and he's going to have a hard time finding you.

Thats all for now,

Rowe

Leaving aside the whole battleship debate (although personally i would include a few "rational" battleships/battlecriusers in my CBGs) i ahve a few thigns to query:
looking at this list:
Carrier Battle Group
1 CVN-77 Nimitz Class Supercarrier
3 CG-73 Ticonderoga Class Cruiser
3 D32 Type 45 "Daring" Anti-Air Destroyer
3 DDG-106 Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer
3 FFG-61 Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate
2 SSBN-743 Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine
3 SSN-22 Seawolf Attack Submarines
2 T-AOE-8 Supply Class Oiler
2 Wave Class Large Fleet Tanker
4 LVS-6 Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Ship

Air Compliment
40 F35 JSF
5 C2 Greyhound
2 EA-6 Prowler
3 E2-C Hawkeye
40 F/A-18E/F Superhornet
18 SH-60 Seahawk
3 Westland Superlynx
2 Silorski S-70 Helicopter

You have 2 destroyers and a criuser (although personally i count the Ticonderoga as a hevay DD) which are more or less doing the same job, yes the Tics and burkes are technically multi-role but are more air defence orientated, my advice would be to keep the type 45 hull and radars but modify it for multirole work (different VLS tubes or ASMs/CMS adpated for use from the PAAMS VLS) and design a slightly bigger criuser, oh and apdate all the guns to 155mm system while you are at it. If you want to stay mod tech then juts dump the type 45s.

Ditch the Lynx, even if you were to keep the type 45s, they are more than capable of using the seahawk and the S-70 is just the manufacturers name for the H-60 series so just up the seahawks to 23, you could keep the lynx if you were to repalce some of the seahawks with something bigger like the merlin and the rest with lynx varients.

I was wondering if you could help me out by pointing me in the direction of a store-front that can supply these

T-AOE-8 Supply Class Oiler
2 Wave Class Large Fleet Tanker
4 LVS-6 Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Ship

many thanks

I was wondering if you could help me out by pointing me in the direction of a store-front that can supply these

T-AOE-8 Supply Class Oiler
2 Wave Class Large Fleet Tanker
4 LVS-6 Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Ship

many thanks

If those are RL tech (meaning they exist at this moment) then you don't need to buy them. All RL tech can be produced by anyone. That is one thing that angers me, new nations going to storefronts to buy existing weapons...

It would be logistically simpler to have an all JSF force rather than split between the Hornet and JSF, though you would theorectically lose some bomb truck capacity.

Carriers are all about reach, they get into trouble when something ugly like a BB or SSN sneaks past there pickets and gets in close to wreak havoc upon them.

If you choose a BB for your Amphibious Group, I would keep the guns, and see if I could get an extensive gallery of 155mm DP guns. This would allow your BB to be a massive bombardment vehicle for your ampibious assaults, and act as a focal point for defense against a counterattack.

I would consider adding a CVL to the Carrier Battlegroup that could act as a drone carrier. Radar Picket drones would have better endurance than Fighter patrols, be more fuel efficient, and remove the need for the E2s on the main carrier. You could also have it carry UCAVs for suicide missions.

Rowe

I'm using the JSF and the F/A-18E/F as a multirole fighter/bomber (to support ground forces) and mostly inteceptor with light anti-ship capability respectivley. The JSF is stealthy, which is my primary reason for using it, despite having smaller bombs, but I am going to upgrade eventually to Geneticon's Blizzard fighter (which is basically a bigger, better JSF). Hailandkill is desigining a BBN for me, i'll have to see what guns he put on it (basically an upgraded montana; presents a smaller target but has all the punch of a larger one!). I'm not sure, but what is a CVL? I also can probably add in some UAVs to the carrier, since they shouldn't take up very much room compared to the fighters I already have. I'm also keeping the E2's to aid my fighters, since I can't very well launch an AWACS from a carrier (yet)!


You have 2 destroyers and a criuser (although personally i count the Ticonderoga as a hevay DD) which are more or less doing the same job, yes the Tics and burkes are technically multi-role but are more air defence orientated, my advice would be to keep the type 45 hull and radars but modify it for multirole work (different VLS tubes or ASMs/CMS adpated for use from the PAAMS VLS) and design a slightly bigger criuser, oh and apdate all the guns to 155mm system while you are at it. If you want to stay mod tech then juts dump the type 45s.

Ditch the Lynx, even if you were to keep the type 45s, they are more than capable of using the seahawk and the S-70 is just the manufacturers name for the H-60 series so just up the seahawks to 23, you could keep the lynx if you were to repalce some of the seahawks with something bigger like the merlin and the rest with lynx varients.

I'm keeping the Type 45's because they are supposed to be the most advanced real-life anti-air destroyer. While it would be good to have another multi-role, I think it would be important to dedicate at least a few ships per CVN to counter enemy air assaults, which will almost always be a problem.


I was wondering if you could help me out by pointing me in the direction of a store-front that can supply these

T-AOE-8 Supply Class Oiler
2 Wave Class Large Fleet Tanker
4 LVS-6 Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Ship

many thanks

Geneticon's storefront sells those (along with a myriad of other RL stuff).

If those are RL tech (meaning they exist at this moment) then you don't need to buy them. All RL tech can be produced by anyone. That is one thing that angers me, new nations going to storefronts to buy existing weapons...

Some of us use storefronts for real weapons since they provide decent pricing information.

Mer, you don't have to even buy them. As long as they exist in RL you can produce unlimited quantities for free.

yes, you can technically buy them for free. however, manufacturing comes at a cost: Salaries, resources, construction of facilities, etc. I consider the fee to be how much it would cost to produce the aforementioned war material.

Thank you Mer for your suggestion.

I also agree with you about the purchase of weaponry rather than just creating them out of thin air which must surely be a form of god-modding since by that logic, as a new small nation, I could say well I've got 100 Nimitz class, 300 Iowa class etc which is nonsense.

Using the storefronts makes military build up rational and means that any one who cares to can monitor it. I'm sorry if that angers anyone but it seems to me the most sensible way of going about things.

If I were you, I'd ditch the SSBNs and go with SSGNs or arsenal ships instead. The whole purpose of SSBNs are to provide a hidden deterrant. If they move with your CVBG, you just need to know the location of said group to know roughly where two of your SSBNs are, and thus be able to take out a percentage of your nuclear/biological/chemical strike capability. I would also update the weaponry on your ships to accept NS weapons. Then again, that's just me...

Isn't the difference between SSGN and SSBN just a payload difference? One thing I will look into after updating my MBTs is indeed upgrading my armory to NS-quality weapons.

Isn't the difference between SSGN and SSBN just a payload difference? One thing I will look into after updating my MBTs is indeed upgrading my armory to NS-quality weapons.
SSBNs fire relatively large SLBMs (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles) like the Trident while SSGNs fire cruise missiles like the Tomahawk.