NationStates Jolt Archive

The TV reporter figits as the counter ticks down, counting the seconds till she’s on live. It’s a nerve wracking moment, even though she’s been on TV for years now. And then she’s on –

“Thank you John, this is Katherine Summers reporting from the Belschaft Imperial Shipyards in Katara City. As you know the BNF has been planing a new class of aircraft carrier for some time. Today Admiral Carter unveiled the plans for the new Defiant class here at the shipyards, to the shock of many people. The new class will be easily the largest aircraft carrier in the world, and one of the largest ships ever built. Seven times the size of a Nimitz class carrier, this ship has caused controversy already over questions about it’s nesecity, cost and shear size of the project. However at the press conference the Admiral was quick to rebuff any suggestions problems in the plans.”

The screen cuts to a clip of a man in his late fifties, with graying hair and piercing blue eyes, in a military uniform. Beside him are a number of other officers and men in suits. A reporter in the crowd asks the man a question –

“Admiral, don’t you think this project is overambitious, and largely pointless? I mean, we don’t need a ship of this size in the modern climate, it’s just not practical. Every other ship like this has been a colousul failure – I mean just look at the Aleanan Super Dreadnought – it sunk at it’s launching.”

With a breif smile the admiral responded. “Not at all. In fact I will say that this new class will be the most successful ship ever. It can carry more planes and men than any other aircraft carrier, and is suffiecntly well armed to defend against attacks. Furthermore, by carefully selecting Imperial Shipyards for the contract we will eliminate the Aleanean problem of staff using substandard techniques and embezzling the money, as they have the highest reputation for honesty and efficiency in the nation. Furthermore the Navy will be involved heavily in the process of the ships construction.”

“These new ships will give us sufficient force projection to influence nearly anywhere in the world, and the appearance of a single Defiant Class carrier will in the future be enough to persuade a hostile nation to back down. The Defiant Class can carry more aircraft, of larger sizes, than any other carrier. It has multiple airstrips and has unlimited range of operations. Due to it’s size it will be practically unsinkable – the enemy would have to hit it multiple times to cause any real damage. This in itself is impossible due to the large number of point defense wepons on the ship.”

“Furthermore we will reduce the costs per unit by building more than one. With projects like this design is always a major cost, and by building multiple vessels the project becomes more cost efective. In fact, we will build more than we need. The BNF has placed an order for three Defiant class ships, but BIS will construct five of them – any less would make construction a dry dock suitable for the project pointless. The other two will be sold to friendly nations, helping deal with the otherall cost and building up the profile of BIS world wide. This project is something Belschaft can be proud of, and will equip us with the ships we need in this increasingly unstable world. That is all I have time to say, please direct further queries to my staff or BIS, thank you.”

The New’s goes back to the female reporter, who continues where she left off-

“As you can see this is a major project, and despite public worries it is going ahead. All we can now is wait for further developments, and for foreign governments to enquire about the class. This is Katherine Summers, Channel 12 New’s.”


Defiant Class Super Carrier

Builder: Belschaft Imperial Shipyards

Cost: $33 Billion to build

Operating Costs: $500 Million

Range: Unlimited - 25+ years without refueling

Service Life: 60+ years

Operators: BNF (Belschaft Naval Force)

Number Commissioned: 5

Power Plant: 8 Nuclear Reactors

Length: 740m

Width: 230m

Speed: 26 Knots

Aircraft: 400+

Crew: Ships Company = 9,800 / Air Crew = 4,700 / Soldiers = 2,000

Armament:

20 x RIM-116B HAS Rolling Airframe Missile Launchers

12x 20mm Phalanx CIWS

(OOC: The US Navy discovered that it would be impossible to control more than 100 aircrafts in a single carrier, thus no matter what, 100 aircrafts is the reasonable limit. Now if you don't mind failed take-offs and collisions during landings)

OOC- This is seven time the size of the Nimitz class. It has two runways. And a hell of a lot more crew. I think it can handle the planes.

[OOC: We did this three years ago already. Old.]

Khan AShM. Easy-peasy.

740m is no where near the largest aircraft carrier

Heard of the NS Draftroom? Or common sense, for that matter?

OOC: How does 332 x 7= 740?

OOC: don't kill him too badly.. he's somewhat new (though that also brings in the question of financing this)
two runaways or not.... it exceed technical possibilities better to build seven carriers instead of building one seven times as large

OOC- This is seven time the size of the Nimitz class. It has two runways. And a hell of a lot more crew. I think it can handle the planes.

ooc: possibly, however, a real life study was done by the most advanced military in the world which stated 100 was the limit of reasonable return.

Also, I hate to point out but your country wouldn't be able to field this monster ship. Based on your current economy and GDP you would need to put all of your military budget per year into just keeping the ship supplied and running.

That and you would need to figure out some new kind of metal alloy as a ship seven times the size of a Nimitz carrier would be placing a lot of strain on the support structures. It also would be limited to deep ocean work only, having a hull that would be pushed too far into the water to allow you to move close to dock...that's why some oil tankers IRL can't pass through the different canals of the world, and have to way anchor far off shore and be loaded/off-loaded by other ships or off-shore facilities. Making an Aircraft carrier too big means you are limiting how close to the shore you can get...and cuts down on the useful un-refueled range of your aircraft.

Finally, WWII taught us that no matter how many guns you put on a ship, it still can be hit and sunk and any ECM device has an ECCM device designed to lessen it's effectiveness. Also the larger the ship, the less maneuverable it is. Battleships were retired IRL partially because modern missiles made them big floating targets. Even cruisers have been pretty much eliminated in lue of destroyers. There is even scuttlebutt that the idea of large aircraft carriers like the Nimitz-class are the way of the past and smaller, cheaper aircraft carriers would be more cost effective.

Here is a something to think of. You put 42,000 people on this ship (6,000 on a nimitz x 7) and 595 aircraft (85 x 7) and a ship 7644 feet long (1,092 x 7) or 1.5 miles long into the ocean. Some random nation is at war with you and uses their satellites to pin-point your ship. They put a submarine in your path, way down deep, and tell her to run completely silent and don't move. No engine noise. She is a hole in the water. (heck they could place her on the ocean floor if it's shallow enough to do so).

Your large carrier floats over her and the sub is able to get off a barrage of torpedoes....or if they are smart they use one torpedo armed with a SINC (Sub-kiloton Insertable Nuclear Component) in the 10th of a Kiloton range (or if they want to get nasty they can hit you with a warhead up to 1 Megaton from a standard torpedo).

Yeah, you may point out some active pinging or sonar-men that can hear a whale fart half way around the world. Point is that these are real threats.

I'd like to point out that IRL, the British Navy and US Navy play wargames to train their men. Back in the early 1990's a British destroy decided to see how close they could get to one of our Nimitz-class carriers at night. They strung colored lights around the ship and had one of their crew members that spoke some odd language make the ship seem like a tour ship that was just cruising out to sea.

They got within two miles of that carrier in perfectly clear night weather, then called up the Nimitz captain and told him they had 'fired' a dozen Exocet missiles and four torpedos at the carrier two minutes ago and had brought their guns to bare.

Same with US Navy CBG vs CBG battles. The carriers will hunt each other trying to get a 'kill'. Having a sub getting within range to fire two nuclear tipped torpedoes really ruins your day.

Heck, a well aimed nuclear-tipped cruise missile or even a Ballistic Missile from a submarine +100 miles away can ruin your whole day. If you lay off someone's coast, what is to say they wouldn't be able to fire off a ground-based ICBM or SRBM with a 5-20 Megaton yield warhead (or even a missile with a dozen 1 Megaton MIRVs)

Point is, large ships are just floating targets. You have billions of dollars and tens of thousands of fighting men and women all sitting in a very concentrated area. Larger isn't better.

Pretend that I just said all of what Karshkovia just said. I'd also like to add that Phalanx & RAM is a waste of time and just go one or the other, and your grammar is faulty. There is no apostrophe in 'News', you could run that through the spellchecker, and a lot of nations, me included, keep a compliment of marines on-board a ship but come on. This isn't a massive amphibious landing ship dock so why have a small regiment's worth of soldiers? Sailors can fire a rifle too, you know.

Also, your logic is fail. By the mere nature of this design, I have one important fact: technology doesn't work, espeically when you want it to. All those spy movies? Wouldn't happen, because not only is it ridiculous and the guy would have been shot in the first five minutes, his gun would jam at some point, the tracking device would fail to turn on, and his car wouldn't start. CIWS or equal may miss frequently, especially seeing as the average engagement time for a gun-based CIWS mount is a third of a second only, not counting that the round, which could not hit the missile, would destroy or even damage it.

OOC- Thank you for all the constructive criticism. According to NS economy thingy I could afford it, and will continue this project anyway. I may have to work on it, but I reckon I can make it work, and will in IC. Plus it's not 7 aircraft carriers in a line, it's roughly three across and 2 & 1/3 long.

OOC-

[OOC: We did this three years ago already. Old.]

I wasn't here three years ago. I didn't know you had - did yours work?

ooc - you are more than welcome to build whatever you wish..it's your nation and your RP. I personally would run it by the guys over at NSDraftroom first and have them help you. Reason being is not only are some of the guys current or ex-military, some of them work for companies that design products for the military and some are just really big military buffs.

Personally, I'd see that ship as a HUGE liability as she will be forced to stay in deep water, won't be traveling through many if any canals, and will be the first thing in a war targeted by nuclear tipped ordinance. You also need to remember, if you take her into a war situation she is going to come out damaged or sunk (just the way RP goes in NS). I'd suggest ships the size of the Enterprise or smaller. They are cheaper, easier to maintain and crew, have a faster turn-around time when they need an overhaul, are more maneuverable, can go closer to shore and have a smaller radar/acoustic profile. Also in a situation where you want to send in the carriers, your big ship has all of your air assets in one basket. Lose the basket, lose your air cover.

Also, having many smaller aircraft carriers gives you the ability for a proportional response. Instead of a large ship with 400+ aircraft and 10-40,000 men, you could have 4 carriers with 100 aircraft each. The same number of men would be used but you would have four times as many landing strips....and if a sub or missile takes out a carrier, you still have the others.

About the airstrips, having multiple landing strips on one ship isn't realistic and the reason is to prevent accidents. Again, the military did a study on the feasibility of a dual-decked carrier (it was just after WWII and they were thinking of a carrier with a superstructure in between the flight decks.) they decided it wouldn't work for various reasons but the few that stuck out were that it was stressful enough for a pilot to land on a carrier and landing parallel to another pilot added un-needed stress on pilots. They also pointed out that it would only widen the deck since adding un-needed length made no sense, thus the ship would wallow around and be unable to maneuver correctly. There were other reasons but they were mainly technical.

I can also point out that you can only launch 1 aircraft at a time safely from a carrier. The Nimitz has three cats (two off the bow and one off the port), but even she can only fire off one jet at a time. Adding another 2-3 cats won't matter since the only way to safely get your jets off is 1 at a time (unless you are shooting two at a time off your port and starboard cats).

The absolute main reason you may not want to do this is that if you bring it into an RP, there are many out there that will take one look at your ship, specs and description and ask you to (politely) use something realistic or (not politely) hit it with an ignore cannon.

Anyway, just some advice from an old military buff.

OOC:
A mega carrier and not one mention of Ferrocrete or MOBs? that gets you +1 not so random points from me!

OOC-
I wasn't here three years ago. I didn't know you had - did yours work?

Well they worked as in they were accepted to work, if you see what I mean - (Although I don't think I've designed anything that hasn't been accepted...) but if I had posted it now I would be laughed out.

What Karshkovia said is pretty much entirely roughly true. Usually its very hard for ships to be located via satellites, even radar sats have a tough time, but the amount of heat generated by large vessels like this would make detection alot easier (still doesn't solve targeting but that is another matter.)

You are better with 7 carriers than a carrier the size of 7 carriers.

Now, physically, you can make the project work, as in the ship will move and float. I would suggest the following stats as basic, assuming you want to keep the length. Obviously you can change speed and aircraft around but the displacement&dimensions i'm offering are pretty sound, ish.

Length: 740m
Beam: 120m
Beam Overall(i.e, flightdeck): 255m
Draught: 45m

Displacement (empty): 2,100,500t
Displacement (maximum): 2,550,000t

Speed (cruise): 15 knots
Speed (maximum: 18 knots

Aircraft carried:
-35 helicopters
-380 fixed wing aircraft

In terms of cost, you can support five (whether you can support the fleet large enough to escort them is another matter). Its just that financing the build-cost would be hard. If you want a cheaper building cost then you can outsource to Questarian shipyards, which have had extensive experience in building ships like this and extensive facilities too (they used to be a staple of NS warfare, mile long Battleships etc, but we cut down significantly.)

Thanks Questers. I'll edit my stats IC wise. I'll probably cut down on numbers too.

OOC:

Belschaft, I tried this a very long time ago. The major difference is that mine was 1500 feet long, and made of ice and sawdust.

I wish I was kidding... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476609)

Lord Gregory sat back after watching the news on the viewer.

"Impressive work. Perhaps one day their navy will be the envy of the world."

Turning back to his viewer, he contacted a comm officer. "Send a congratulatory note to Belschaft. And monitor the situation."

"Yes my Lord. Comms out."

Lord Gregory sat back after watching the news on the viewer.

"Impressive work. Perhaps one day their navy will be the envy of the world."

Turning back to his viewer, he contacted a comm officer. "Send a congratulatory note to Belschaft. And monitor the situation."

"Yes my Lord. Comms out."

OOC: Did you read this thread?

OOC: Did you read this thread?

OOC: I suggest you wait... There is method to my madness.

Imperial Congratulatory Note

Addressing Belschaft,

Congratulations on wasting a fortune of your economy in the construction of a doomed project. While your blueprint is impressive and boasts to be poweful, there is no way you could run such a massive vessel. I would advise that you return to the drawing board and plan anew, perhaps scaling down a little. Remember, it's about how well the vessel performs, not how large it is. Perhaps seeking advice on construction would be advised. I still believe however, that one day you may develop a vessel that will be the envy of the world.

The Imperial Navy wishes you luck in the future.

Lord Alexander Gregory, Supreme commander of the Imperial Military and Armada, Voice of the Emperor.

OOC: There y'are, a little IC constructive critisism. :)

I've had an idea. A lot of the problems I belive with carriers this big is launching and controling the aircraft, at least acording to the draftroom. Now I can't see a problem with declaring that it has to seperate aircraft control rooms linked, one to deal with each runway, but how long a runway does a militry jet, say F-16 for example, need to take off with using a catapult? Because if I build it long enogth then can't I just launch have them take of normally?

Lynion had troubles with surface carriers and then we turned to aerial carriers and we find they work better than the naval carriers. Also, all warships are sinkable I'm sorry but its true. Focus all power to a key part of the ship and watch it sink. The speed its doing is kind of hard to do for a ship that size.

I went aerial because we figured out to open the hull and luanch the aircraft by singshots just to give them enough power until they can fire their engines. The only problem with that you need to have high altitude to do a stunt like that.

Lynion had troubles with surface carriers and then we turned to aerial carriers and we find they work better than the naval carriers.
You're joking, right? Airship carriers in modern combat are a joke. Easy to shoot down, horrible payloads, and landing is virtually impossible.

OOC:

Belschaft, I tried this a very long time ago. The major difference is that mine was 1500 feet long, and made of ice and sawdust.

I wish I was kidding... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476609)

You've directly ripped off a PS2 game that I've played a lot.

I've had an idea. A lot of the problems I belive with carriers this big is launching and controling the aircraft, at least acording to the draftroom. Now I can't see a problem with declaring that it has to seperate aircraft control rooms linked, one to deal with each runway, but how long a runway does a militry jet, say F-16 for example, need to take off with using a catapult? Because if I build it long enogth then can't I just launch have them take of normally?

For straight unassited take off you are likely looking in the 1000-1500m region for most tactical aircraft.
Grippen and viggen can operate from within 800m but they are specially designed for it.

Big transports need 3km+

Catapult launch is only feasible for aircraft already designed for it i.e. current RL western carrier aircraft.

The main limitation is that you cna carry huge amount of planes but you cna only launch and recover so many within a usable time scale even with mutiple launch and landing points.

If you were to biuld a truely enroumous carrier the easiest way to work out the max usuable airwing would be to take one of the busiest Rl multi runway airports and look at how many movements they can carry out in half an hour and maybe double it (this is a guess others could probabaly elborate on this).

You've directly ripped off a PS2 game that I've played a lot.

I have it too, but I saw a history channel thing on it before I got that far in the game.

I geuss I'm gonna have to make it bigger then. I'm working on this on word so I'll post a new design later. Thanks for everyones help. I'll run it through the draftroom and if it survives then I'll build it.

I geuss I'm gonna have to make it bigger then. I'm working on this on word so I'll post a new design later. Thanks for everyones help. I'll run it through the draftroom and if it survives then I'll build it.

No. Make it the size of a regular aircraft carrier and carry around 80-90 planes and built a bunch of them. They tell you the same damn thing.

Damn it. Doesn't the draftroom have a sense of granduer? I mean, do they allow insane projects wich make your people feel good, but are largely worthless?

One question. This is NS, you are allowed to RP to your hearts content. What's to stop him just declaring it's FT and building it anyway? For example, I have 2KM long capital ships!

Because I want to be able to use it without people firing ignore cannons at me.

I take back my IC comment earlier friend. Do what you like. It's RP after all. If they don't like it, you don't have to RP with them. Impossible designs are the fun part of NS!

Because I want to be able to use it without people firing ignore cannons at me.

If people act like that around you, I assure you they arent worth RPing with in the first place.

Damn it. Doesn't the draftroom have a sense of granduer? I mean, do they allow insane projects wich make your people feel good, but are largely worthless?

They did, but then the SD craze faded out. Now they are tough on anything over say 400 meters*. I can already tell you what they are going to say. They'll tell you that it is to big and a waste of resources.

So. That doesn't mean it's not posible. I know it's a stupid idea. That fits with my nation - whenever the militaray asks for money for a stupid idea -(super soldiers, space weponry, etc) I say yes.

Then you damn well RP the problems with it, like a lot of land and take of accidents.

I intended to. For example I'm going to RP the scraping of the initial designs, and the superstructure allready under construction, then there's gona be increaeses in costs, worker strikes, problems with materials... and thats all before I even get the thing built.

Erm, it's entirely possible, but highly likely I'd simply annihilate it with a series of Khan strikes :/ Thermobaric warheads, tungsten, nuclear P-600's, that business. Christ, a ship that size would probably be liable for a godrod target.

Trust me, that sort of thing a half-experienced RPer could take out easily. Just because it's possible doesn't make it good - it might make you think your navy looks good, but it'll also make it look amateur when it gets blown out the water (lol).

For straight unassited take off you are likely looking in the 1000-1500m region for most tactical aircraft.
Grippen and viggen can operate from within 800m but they are specially designed for it.

I'm sorry.. where did you get that from?

F-16's and F-18's are more than capable of departing in 2000-3000 feet (610-915M). Many departures from King Assad Air Base were of the 2000' or less during desert storm. A friend of mine in the National Guard stated that he watched them depart loaded with ext tanks, agm's, ecm pod, A2A, Mk84. and STILL depart like a scalded dog in under 700meters

Big transports need 3km+

How big are you talking here? C-130's, C-5's, AN-125's and even Cargo Converted 747's take off WELL under 3 kilometers. Fully loaded C-130's can take off in 3000-5000 feet...well under the +3k range you spoke on.

Honestly, though if Belshcaft wants a mobile airport, then look at this experimental US design called the Mobile Offshore Base (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob.htm)(pics here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob-gallery.htm))

Excerpt from GlobalSecurity.org
In concept, a Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) is a modular floating base that can be deployed to an area of national defense interest to provide flight, maintenance, supply and other forward logistics support operations for U.S. and Allied forces. MOB modules will most likely be semisubmersibles which have significantly smaller wave-induced motions compared to conventional hulls. This modularity supports the widest possible range of air support, ranging from vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) aircraft using a single module to conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft using several serially aligned modules approaching 6,000 feet in length. In addition, a MOB accepts ship-borne cargo, provides nominally 3 million square feet for equipment storage and maintenance, stores 10 million gallons of fuel, houses up to 3,000 troops (an Army heavy brigade), and discharges resources to the shore via a variety of landing craft.

The basic strategy is to deploy semisubmersible "building block" modules which could be deployed in a number of different modes of operation. A typical module is shown in Figure 1. Each module consists of a box-type deck supported by multiple columns on two parallel pontoons. When transiting between operational sites, the module is deballasted and travels with the pontoons on the surface much like a catamaran. When on site, the module is ballasted down so that the pontoons are submerged below the surface wave zone, thereby minimizing the wave-induced dynamic motions. The decks, which store rolling stock and dry cargo, are all located above the wave crests. The columns provide structural support and hydrostatic stability against overturning.

A MOB platform could range anywhere in length from a single, 300 meter-long, module to multiple modules serially aligned to form a runway up to 2 kilometers long. All platforms would provide personnel housing, equipment maintenance functions, vessel and lighterage cargo transfer, and logistic support for rotary wing and short take-off aircraft. The longest platform (nominally 2 kilometers in length) would also accommodate conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft, including the Boeing C-17 cargo transporter. Upon first inspection, the notion of a 2-kilometer long floating platform seems so far beyond the state-of-practice that it would not be worthy of serious discussion. There are, however, a variety of conceptual approaches that offer promise towards accomplishing that goal.

<snip>

In early 2001 a study by the Institute for Defense Analyses concluded that the Mobile Offshore Base concept was less cost effective than alternatives such as nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, joint logistics capabilities and Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) sealift ships.


So you see even the US Navy has done studies to show that large vessels - even ones that could be put together like legos to form large sea-bases - is impractical. Broken down, if you want to be in the realm of MT and Realistic RP, then check out the studies the military has already done for you. If they wouldn't do it IRL, there is probably a good reason it wouldn't work in RP.

They did, but then the SD craze faded out. Now they are tough on anything over say 400 meters*. I can already tell you what they are going to say. They'll tell you that it is to big and a waste of resources.

If he wants to be realistic and MT, then yes it is to large. I pointed out why it would be a risk and a waste. One nuke and he just lost a LARGE portion of not only his surface fleet but also his military. One of these will take over a fifth of his overall military budget just to run. That means ALL of his military. He still has to have other ships to protect this, an air force, an army, and all the support personnal. That also mean food, pay, ammo, repair costs...etc. Thinking about it, just one of these ships in upkeep alone is going to cost him more than he would pay all of his army personnel per year.

I'm personally trying to help a guy whose RP I see has potential from making a massive mistake, or at least limiting that mistake in size.

F-16's and F-18's are more than capable of departing in 2000-3000 feet (610-915M). Many departures from King Assad Air Base were of the 2000' or less during desert storm. A friend of mine in the National Guard stated that he watched them depart loaded with ext tanks, agm's, ecm pod, A2A, Mk84. and STILL depart like a scalded dog in under 700meters

What. So I don't need to make it longer? I'm confused, some people say it's posible, some say it's not. Is there a definative answer?

OOC: If funding's an issue, I'll fund 50% of the project. :D

Karshkovia: the tactical aircraft measurement was a stab in the dark but the F-16 and F-18 are not nessicarily representitive of everythign that could be lumped udner the tactical head (the F-18 especially since it is a specialist STOL carrier aircraft).

As for large transports we would be talking about C-5s/An-124s and A380s, many of the aircraft in this sort of class do need TORs in the region of 3000m or more, the C-5 needs 2.5-2.8km and the AN-225 has been quoted as high as 3500m depending on load.

The hercules wouldn't any kind of fair comparision or benchmark sicne it already can land on and take off unassited from a carrier.

hello again all you fine people,

First let me say,

You can in this game build nearly any stupid, crazy or useless thing you want.
And personally I hate these massive sea monsters...

BUT IT IS YOUR COUNTRY, DO WHAT YOU WANT....


As for useful,
No this is too large to be useful, I agree with a number of others on this subject.


As for landing cargo planes, here is a video of a C-130 landing on a Vietnam
era American Aircraft carrier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk&feature=related

I would like to run a Sample attack on this behemoth?

With the creator as the person running his ( or her ) ship?

I will try and fairly explain why this is a bad idea,

If you'll allow it?

Go ahead. Though I'm not going to have it siting by itself out at sea. Think the equivelent of two/ two and a half carrier battle groups gaurding it - so maybee 20 destroyers, 4 subs, a couple of supply ships, maybee a cruiser or two.

If you would be so kind,

do you want to open a new thread just for the trial run?

Oh, and please tell me what the total cost for your carrier group is when
you're ready?

This could be a really interesting thread,

Well I allready have carrier groups. I worked out an ORBAT for a RP wich was two carriers and a and a double carrier battle group minus a couple of destroyers. As for cost, I didn't bother asd it's reasonable that over the years I've built them up as part of my military budget, and therefore I didn't bopther with cost as It's not one insane idea like this is.

As for the thread, I'm going to bed soon so I'll create one tomorow. I'll call it IC RP to settle an OOC argument.

As for cost, I didn't bother asd it's reasonable that over the years I've built them up as part of my military budget, and therefore I didn't bopther with cost as It's not one insane idea like this is.

Before you go anywhere, remember that everything costs money to run! You have to pay for ammunition, fuel, crew, supplies...it's not good to just say "I've built it all up over the years" unless you've been able to afford to do so.[/friendlyheadsup]

I was merely asking cost for the building of a counter force.

I don't want to show up with a vastly larger/ more expensive force
and be accused of being a cheat is all.

I guess I'll see you tomorrow?

Probs. I'll be gone in 15 mins unless a shitload of people start posting in thread I'm in, in wich case I'll have to stay on to avoid missing stuff out. It all depends on the time zones.

Before you go anywhere, remember that everything costs money to run! You have to pay for ammunition, fuel, crew, supplies...it's not good to just say "I've built it all up over the years" unless you've been able to afford to do so.[/friendlyheadsup]

I can aford to do so. Acording to NS econmoy (third geek version) my military budget is $384,908,217,408.00 per year. Wich Is more than enogh to pay for everything I have, and fund stupid projects wich have 12+ year lifespans - I'm not gonna build five of the damn things in one year.

Well I'm on West Coast ( USA ) time,
and leaving for work.
So go ahead and sign off, just catch up tomorrow.

Later !

Karshkovia: the tactical aircraft measurement was a stab in the dark but the F-16 and F-18 are not nessicarily representitive of everythign that could be lumped udner the tactical head (the F-18 especially since it is a specialist STOL carrier aircraft).

As for large transports we would be talking about C-5s/An-124s and A380s, many of the aircraft in this sort of class do need TORs in the region of 3000m or more, the C-5 needs 2.5-2.8km and the AN-225 has been quoted as high as 3500m depending on load.

O'Rly?

At sea level. Temp 70* F, 30% Humidity:

F-15 T/O distance fully loaded <800M
F-22 T/O distance fully loaded <700M
F-111 T/O Distance fully loaded <800M
B-2 T/O distance fully loaded <2000M
B-52 T/O distance fully loaded <2000M
AN-124 T/O Distance Fully Loaded <2000M
C-5 T/O Distance Fully Loaded and NO JTOW Assist <2000M

You know, it's funny that you mention that about the AN-124. I've personally watched it both land and take off with maximum weight in under 2000M.

Don't believe me? No problem.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/9/1/0019196.jpg
Taken from KFAR RWY 18 (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFAR), back in the winter of 1998. Runway length then was ~1940 Meters.

This Anni was taking electric generators to Chicago but had some goods on board to drop off in Fargo. I don't know what they were dropping off, I wasn't able to ask. You don't see them much anymore but they were quite regular back in the late 1990's.

KFAR's (Hector International Airport) Runway 18/36 is currently 2743M HOWEVER when that picture was taken, the extra 800 meters had not been added to the north end of the runway yet (that was done in 2001). The runway at the time was ~1940 meters, though usable runway was more like 1880m or so ( realize they include the marked off "No takeoff/No Landing" areas at both ends of the runway in that measurement. Plus the area that is behind the taxi point)

Now for the C-5's, B-1's, and B-52's. They all would come in for the Fargo AirSho in the summer, however since we are just a stone's throw from Grand Forks Air Force Base and have a somewhat quiet airport, they would have the B-1's and B-52's come down to Fargo and practice their take off's and landings. The C-130's and KC-135's now do that since the B-52's were moved to Minot and the B-1's were moved ...well I don't remember actually.

Anyway, I do remember that for the Airsho, the C-5's would fly in with two M-1A Tanks and have them park near the aircraft to awe people at what the craft could carry (http://www.in-forum.com/collections/index.cfm?collection=fargo_airsho). It's a bad picture (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/full_photo.cfm?id=128420) at the very bottom of the page but at least the news paper did print it to their site.

For the B-52, I could only find shots of it in the air (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NQr2m7ocJdwJ:www.chickenwingscomics.com/forum/index.php%3Ftopic%3D866.0+fargo+airsho+b-52&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a), however they did load the bays up with dummy bombs and fly down, then opened the bays and took a few bomb racks out for show and left others inside the bays. When they did the aerial stuff, they didn't have the dummy payload in, of course.

Same with the B-1 and even the B-2 though I can't find any online photos taken of them. The Fargo Forum has the article on it though (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/rss.cfm?id=31369).

In any case, point is all those big aircraft can and have landed/taken off in under 2700M fully loaded (and B-1, AN-124, C5, B-52 under 2000M fully loaded before the expansion of the runway.)

Impossible designs are the fun part of NS!

No. No they are not.

There is a difference between unlikely but possible - i.e, half a kilometre ships, gigantic bombers, hypersonics etc, and impossible, i.e, 2km ships...

@Otagia

I don't use airships ok. It's aerial not airship there is a difference and so far they have worked. It has a similiar design to the Doctor Who aerial aircraft carrier the Valiant. That was where the original design was from.

Thanks Karshkovia. That pretty much settles it - if I make it 100m longer then I can get F-15 and F-22's of it with ease, and enogth space to line them up behind so I can do it quickly. Meaning I don't need to use the catapault 95% of the time, removing the one biggest problem with this ship. Meaning I reckon consdiering everything I reckon it's feasable, and could actually be usefull. I'll explain later.

@Otagia

I don't use airships ok. It's aerial not airship there is a difference and so far they have worked. It has a similiar design to the Doctor Who aerial aircraft carrier the Valiant. That was where the original design was from.
Then it's even sillier. Heavier than air vehicles have all the aforementioned issues, but the additional problem of negligible longevity. Ranks up there with transforming mecha in terms of feasibility.

Unless it's late PMT in wich case it's perfectly reaonable, as by then some sort of anti-grav system or repursolift would have been developed.

New, adapted design. Thanks for the help everyone, especially Questers who re-did some of my Stat's for me. As you will all point out it is even longer - yes I know, it was necesary to make it longer so comabat jets (F-15's, F-16's and F-22's mainly) can take off without needing the catapult, wich aparntly is the main problem with multiple runways. If no can see anything wrong with it (wich hasn't been pointed out earlier) I can get on with building it.


Defiant Class Super Carrier

Builder: Belschaft Imperial Shipyards
Number Commissioned: 5

Operators: BNF (Belschaft Naval Force)

Cost: $33 Billion
Operating Costs: $500 Million per year

Range: Unlimited - 25+ years without refueling

Service Life: 60+ years

Runways: 2

Length: 920m
Beam: 150m
Beam Overall(flightdeck): 260m
Draught: 50m

Displacement (empty): 2,200,500 t
Displacement (maximum): 2,700,000t

Speed (cruise): 17 knots
Speed (maximum: 21 knots

Power Plant: 8 Nuclear Reactors

Aircraft carried:
- 35 helicopters
- 380 fixed wing aircraft

Armament:
- 20 x RIM-116B HAS Rolling Airframe Missile Launchers
- 12x 20mm Phalanx CIWS

Crew:
-Ships Company = 9,800
-Air Crew = 4,700
-Soldiers = 2,000

Now thats what i call a ship!

OOC: Why not just use carrier aircraft? And if you must use Gun CWIS, use Goalkeeper, its more effectivee than the Phalanx.


EDIT: I will modify these stats to be a more practical design. I'm just eyeballing some of these stats, so if someone could check them, that we be very nice.

Builder: Belschaft Imperial Shipyards
Number Commissioned: As many as you want

Operators: BNF (Belschaft Naval Force)

Cost: $5.4 Billion
Operating Costs: $76 Million per year

Range: Unlimited - 25+ years without refueling

Service Life: 60+ years

Runways: 1

Length: 320m
Beam: 50m
Beam Overall(flightdeck): 64m
Draught: 21m

Displacement (empty): 200,500 t
Displacement (maximum): 272,000t

Speed (cruise): 26 knots
Speed (maximum: 31 knots

Power Plant: 2 Nuclear Reactors

Aircraft carried:
- 12 helicopters
-84 fixed wing aircraft

Armament:
- 6 x RIM-116B HAS Rolling Airframe Missile Launchers
- 4x 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS

I'm sorry.. where did you get that from?

F-16's and F-18's are more than capable of departing in 2000-3000 feet (610-915M). Many departures from King Assad Air Base were of the 2000' or less during desert storm. A friend of mine in the National Guard stated that he watched them depart loaded with ext tanks, agm's, ecm pod, A2A, Mk84. and STILL depart like a scalded dog in under 700meters



How big are you talking here? C-130's, C-5's, AN-125's and even Cargo Converted 747's take off WELL under 3 kilometers. Fully loaded C-130's can take off in 3000-5000 feet...well under the +3k range you spoke on.

Honestly, though if Belshcaft wants a mobile airport, then look at this experimental US design called the Mobile Offshore Base (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob.htm)(pics here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob-gallery.htm))

Excerpt from GlobalSecurity.org


So you see even the US Navy has done studies to show that large vessels - even ones that could be put together like legos to form large sea-bases - is impractical. Broken down, if you want to be in the realm of MT and Realistic RP, then check out the studies the military has already done for you. If they wouldn't do it IRL, there is probably a good reason it wouldn't work in RP.

OOC: Also remember that a C-130 landed on, then took off from the USS Forrestal 21 times to test whether it was possible (unarrested landings and unassisted takeoffs). During the tests, the C-130's gross weight was varied from 85,000 to 121,000 pounds. Something else to keep in mind is, the USS Forrestal is only 1,067 feet (325 meters) long at its longest, and these tests were conducted in November 1963.

The only reason C-130s aren't used for carrier resupply is because while landing a C-130 on a normal carrier deck is feasible, it's something that the Navy considered not worth the risk, as the C-130 was almost too wide to land, only missing the carrier's island control tower by less than 15 ft (4.6 m). The C-130 is also too big for a normal carrier's hangar or elevators. These would be moot points for a supercarrier though, as I'm sure the elevators and hangars could be made to accommodate the larger aircraft.

OOC: Actually, I believe Allanea sold a far larger aircraft carrier for a short time (15km in length, or something), although it was mostly a tongue-in-cheek glance at the SD craze and those who bought into it, and was acknowledgedly unrealistic.

No comments on the design; not enough knowledge in that field.

If Allanea did then good for him. This however is a serious idea, and I reckon that my new version will work.

First let me apologize,
My brother is re-roofing his house and has enlisted everyone's help.
So I've been offline for almost a week.

I'm still happy to run our "scenario" about super carrier,
and have a number of thoughts with regards to other people's posts
on Carrier / super carrier.

First;
Accepting for the moment that a nation was going to build this today in real life tech. You would need an area of about 5-25 square miles of flat terrain near the ocean. ( and below sea level. )
Then you would need to build a Dike or Dam at least 100ft tall to keep back the ocean. ( I won't run the numbers on how big or thick it would be, tonnage )
Now you need to build a building or superstructure to hold the skeleton of the ship. And a series of rail roads to carry the many thousands of tons of supplies to it.
Okay that could be done...

Second;
Hire a team of ten thousand people to build it, and design it's every conduit and corridor. work out all the small parts which dog men's dreams.
Now,
it takes fifteen minuets to run from one end of the USS Nimitz to the other.
( According to their CAG, )
This ship is seven times larger,
So you will either have men running for an hour and a half to in an emergency
to reach some far off post. And meals / hospital facilities are also a problem.
And the Chain of command, you need 7 times the officers on board.
By this point it's going to be hard to keep everyone in the loop about any
situation.

Okay this could be rectified by sufficient planning I think.

Third;
You have to keep it's layout a secrete.
If the plans fell into enemy hands it would all be for nothing.
( this is a problem for the US, we can't keep a secrete )

Forth;
Now you've committed to building it. Several million people are given jobs
directly or indirectly by this. Probably your whole nation is involved in it's construction. Good, better or the economy?
Well in the short run maybe, but it's cost is exponentially bigger than the
return.
But that's not the crux of the issue.

Fifth,
Now to Sea!
So it's been 5-10 years in the making from the day they started the dike and
laying the keel and so on...
now she's ready to go to sea,
Every thing you've built to build this thing has to be unbuilt or lost. If you don't remove the infrastructure than you'll loose it when the dike comes down
and the ocean floods in.
Dike is de-constructed, Ocean Roars in as days go by the ship's first tests happen.
You put it out to sea and assuming that all goes well you decide to build the others.

Now you have to do it all over again, but in the mean time where do you keep a ship this big? What happens if it gets damaged?
Say a plane / planes hit the ship in an accident where does it go for repairs?
you can't sail it back to the dry dock,

Unless you are building each ship at a separate facility, that would be staggeringly expensive on a scale even the worst Russian dictator wouldn't have thought about.
Maybe China would, that's another case entirely.

Any way this is some of the thoughts that have occurred to myself and the
roofer crew over the last several days.

I have some points about it's defense which could be demonstrated in the battle. better than in a text book layout like this.


I'm not running you down, but I think that as a RL idea it's near to impossible.
And I won't consider the Meta tech people's arguments on this.

OOC: Also remember that a C-130 landed on, then took off from the USS Forrestal 21 times to test whether it was possible (unarrested landings and unassisted takeoffs). During the tests, the C-130's gross weight was varied from 85,000 to 121,000 pounds. Something else to keep in mind is, the USS Forrestal is only 1,067 feet (325 meters) long at its longest, and these tests were conducted in November 1963.

The only reason C-130s aren't used for carrier resupply is because while landing a C-130 on a normal carrier deck is feasible, it's something that the Navy considered not worth the risk, as the C-130 was almost too wide to land, only missing the carrier's island control tower by less than 15 ft (4.6 m). The C-130 is also too big for a normal carrier's hangar or elevators. These would be moot points for a supercarrier though, as I'm sure the elevators and hangars could be made to accommodate the larger aircraft.

I posted the video of that C-130 landing on here much earlier. And it is
as the navy said, " Impractical " for most considerations. But as ship this big could " feasibly" pull it off.

Yes fine it's impractical. I accept the point. I'll make it PMT. Will that shut you all up?

You can do what ever you want,
some people will allways nit pick at it.

If you want to build it as RL tech it could be done,

I mean they built a ship big enough to carry half of the USA's annual oil consumption so why not this?
( It's a ship so large you can see it from space ! )

I can't remember who owns it now, but it's well worth looking into.

Yes fine it's impractical. I accept the point. I'll make it PMT. Will that shut you all up?

If you can't take constructive criticism then don't try to design ships. It's not like anyone posted the typical "OMG it blows!!!111!!" responses.

I have taken the criticism, and advice. I accept all their points about the problems and so forth, which is why I'm making it PMT. If I couldn't take criticism I'd have posted something along the lines of -

Nah nah ne nah nah! I'm not listening!

OOC: Ehh, there is no reason to ignore such ship because its impractical. As long as you properly rp all disatvantages it has (huuuuge target meaning that under enemy missiles this thing has very small chances to be lucky and avoid getting hit, slow, pain to manouver, too big for many ports and canals etc.) there is no reason to ignore it. Hell, in war your enemy could be happy because it makes his job easier. Also their admirals can make fun on yours.

Btw, Allanea's 16 km carrier was a pure noob trap. Allanea himselfly did not have any of these (he was fully aware how impractical it is), nor did he build any of these (as it would require retardedly huge port facilities). He only sold production rights for noobs who payed with their whole 10 year budget for it.

Calling it PMT won't make the problems go away.

I might as well tell you some of the other "omissions" which came up.

One,

This ship has no Anti-torpedo defenses at all.

There appear to be no Radar jammers, Chaff , IR decoys, or any other counter measures.

What about communications equipment?

And Radar systems, you'd need many times more arrays and tech's to run them
there is the problem of band width for communication systems and Radar arrays.

I might as well tell you some of the other "omissions" which came up.

One,

This ship has no Anti-torpedo defenses at all.

There appear to be no Radar jammers, Chaff , IR decoys, or any other counter measures.

What about communications equipment?

And Radar systems, you'd need many times more arrays and tech's to run them
there is the problem of band width for communication systems and Radar arrays.

Ships don't need chaff. Thats for aircraft.

I might as well tell you some of the other "omissions" which came up.

One,

This ship has no Anti-torpedo defenses at all.

Well it is just a rough draft so we have to give him some leeway. Also, he may decide to go with a slew ASW Destroyers instead. I would point it out but it isn't a killing point to this design (again, considering only the very basic info is filled out right now we can give him some room on this).

There appear to be no Radar jammers, Chaff , IR decoys, or any other counter measures.

Again, just a rough sketch that isn't completely filled in with details. He also doesn't mention the medical bays, mess halls, rack space, av-jet fuel tank sizes, ammunition stores and other such things. I think we can let it slide as he was just trying to get the basic info down first on size, then he can worry about adding the details.

What about communications equipment?And Radar systems, you'd need many times more arrays and tech's to run them
there is the problem of band width for communication systems and Radar arrays.

Again, let the guy get the size and design of the ship finished before adding the details. He has a very very rough sketch in details...let him get the overall design done then harass him about the details.

Ships don't need chaff. Thats for aircraft.

O'Rly? I guess Janes is wrong...

Nimitz-class Aircraft Carriers have counter measures such as four Sippican SRBOC (Super Rapid Bloom Off-board Chaff) 6-barrelled Mk 36 decoy launchers, which deploy infrared flares and chaff, SSTDS torpedo defence system and AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasures system, from Sensytech Inc of Newington, Virginia.

The Raytheon AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare system detects hostile radar emissions by two sets of antennae and the system analyses the pulse repetition rate, the scan mode, the scan period, and the frequency. The system identifies the threat and direction, provides a warning signal and interfaces to the ship's countermeasures systems.

All I'm saying is that these are all things which will need to be in the finished model,
and I don't count on ships in the convoy to be all the protection.
you have to have all of your surface ships able to defend themselves against
Air, surface and subsurface threats.
Or you'd be out outmaneuvered by an opponent who researched your abilities.

All I'm saying is that these are all things which will need to be in the finished model,
and I don't count on ships in the convoy to be all the protection.
you have to have all of your surface ships able to defend themselves against
Air, surface and subsurface threats.
Or you'd be out outmaneuvered by an opponent who researched your abilities.

While I can appreciate your answer, the fact is that the other ships surrounding the carrier are there for the sole purpose of defending the carrier, and take hits meant for the Carrier if possible. The carrier has limited counter-measures and defenses. The battle group is there to offer their superior defenses to the carrier, while the carrier itself has limited last-line-of-defense abilities.

Now, all I was saying was to let the guy get the basic outline and design finished before badgering him to get to the details. I'm sure he is more than aware of the needs for the items you pointed out.

Thank you Karshakovia. As he said this is an idea, not a finished product. As for anti submarine defences, communication systems, radar, etc, look at any ship design on II or the draftroom. How many of them show that information?

Thank you Karshakovia. As he said this is an idea, not a finished product. As for anti submarine defences, communication systems, radar, etc, look at any ship design on II or the draftroom. How many of them show that information?

All the good ones....

Really? If you would be so kind as to show be the link to a first plan of a ship which goes into that level of detail I would be most apreaciative.

Example One (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1412&hl=)

Example Two (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3327)

Example Three (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3347)

Example Four (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3227)

Example Five (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3155)

I think 5 examples are enough.

EDIT:

If you want insane amounts of detail, then I should link you to this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493695) Behold one of the most famous ships in II.

Accepted. You are correct, some people do go into excessive detail. All your examples however are people who regurly frequent the draftroom, or Questers who is to NS ship design what CocaCola is to soft drinks. Bearing in mind this is the first thing I have ever designed, do you really expect me to go to anywere near as much detail?

A 25-mile carrier has been built on NS. Search for the term "Angstrom".

I was only pointing out some things which I thought needed addressing.

All and all I think the new and improved version you posted is a much better
design.

I like the higher level of point defense.

A 25-mile carrier has been built on NS. Search for the term "Angstrom".

Does anyone understand that the ship would cross the horizon before you reached the end of the ship?

That's without a doubt the single most childish and self wanking idea I've
heard on this subject.

Who would even waste brain cells on it?

Does anyone understand that the ship would cross the horizon before you reached the end of the ship?

That's without a doubt the single most childish and self wanking idea I've
heard on this subject.

Who would even waste brain cells on it?

It is noob bait.

Does anyone understand that the ship would cross the horizon before you reached the end of the ship?

That's without a doubt the single most childish and self wanking idea I've
heard on this subject.

Who would even waste brain cells on it?
Well, it is Allanea after all.

Well, it is Allanea after all.

^this^
Not that some of my stuff is any better.

Ok, I am officialy scrapping this project. I'll just buy ships from Questers like everyone else.

Ships don't need chaff. Thats for aircraft.

It's for ships, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_36_SRBOC