Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah but... does it really need to? The Stinger, Haast, and HAFB can all launch from it, and that's really all it needs. The yellowjacket and DB-23 are practically obsolete, the jet is useless for naval engagements anyway because of its terrible endurance, and the cargo plane has no business on an aircraft carrier in the first place.

Pretty sure it can't launch the HAFB. And it can only launch an unloaded Haast. And it can't hold any planes on deck.

Also, ebbor: The Wasp's Nest is not 1939 tech, it is 1918 tech. And the Santos is not 1940s tech, it is 1925 tech. We can totally out-class them with a new carrier.

(4) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Piratejoe, Powder Miner
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern K: CatamaranCat
(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, GUNINANRUNIN
(4) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13
(1) UFS-CC-40 Pattern F "Cavalier": Baffler

[evictedSaint]

...the Haast can't be launched with any torpedos or bombs.  It's outperformed by the Stinger as a fighter.  We can't use our really cool powerful planes on the ocean.

If we make a carrier this turn, we can actually use two turns worth of designs.  We could give it 3 TC, which would drop the cost of the Thunderbird an entire level.  It would disrupt their naval advantage, which would make it harder to retake the jungle.

The new gun is great, but I'm concerned because it doesn't provide TC, it doesn't help at sea, and represents a step towards several turns worth of battle-ship building.  A coastal gun would be a great defensive weapon, but it'd only help on the coast.  Once the enemy gets past the coast, we can't exactly use 300 mm's as a mobile artillery station unless we mount it on a train.

Our strength is in air, and we're not able to bring that to bear on the sea.  A carrier would let us do that - otherwise they'll continue to have a Major Naval Advantage for another turn.

Edit: Also, the double-deck carrier is neat, but wouldn't it increase size and weight without providing more planes to launch?  It might end up being just like the wasp nest, but able to double the launch speed - not that that's a bad thing.

[Baffler]

Not jets in general, but our jet. Endurance is critical for fleet actions and the Thunderbird just doesn't have it in it. Besides, we're never going to beat the Cannalan navy if we keep up this obsession with constantly iterating our CVs and aircraft without even properly filling out our fleet roster first. Even in range of our good airplanes from land-based airstrips the Cannalans absolutely wreck our own ships, and I don't really see any reason to believe it'll be any different with an inherently more limited deployment from a carrier.

[10ebbor10]

On another note.

UF-R4-39 'Tigers Roar': This dramatically named radio is very similar to the Model 3, but fits in a single backpack and supports voice or morse over FM. When communicating in morse code, it can be attached to a separate Tiger's Whisper machine for coded messages.

. On this are three dials which set a "scramble pattern" and buttons for "wait" and "start". While in the "wait" state, the radio does not begin working until hearing a three-second "start tone" from another scrambler. Then both both begin switching frequencies multiple times per second in sync with each other, on an arbitrary pattern determined by the setting dials, making the voice or morse communication impossible to listen in on.

The enemy is using an amplitude modulated radio, whereas we are using a frequency modulated radio. In amplitude modulation, the signal is transmitted via the amplitude of the signal, which makes it more vulnerable to noise. On top of that, they're using precisely synchronized scramblers, which are vulnerable to desync problems.

This makes the entire radio enormously vulnerable to jamming.

With a simple revision on our old AM radio set, we should be able to make something that blocks their radio signals in a long distance, while leaving ours intact.

Also, ebbor: The Wasp's Nest is not 1939 tech, it is 1918 tech. And the Santos is not 1940s tech, it is 1925 tech. We can totally out-class them with a new carrier.

The GM made the Wasp Nest a hard design, and the result we got was a 6.

If the GM makes a 1918 design Hard, by extrapolation the 1925 will be at least the same; or even pull into Very hard.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

If we roll badly on a carrier we would need to use this turn's revision on fixing it. If we roll badly on the 300mm we can fix it later. Neither will help us in the plains but the 300mm will help protect the mountains and jungle while still allowing us to shore up the Thunderbird even on a bad roll. Which could help us everywhere. The gun will aid us in the future too and we could even make a Battlecarrier next turn with 300mm cannons and aircraft.

[evictedSaint]

Oh dear god, no battlecarriers

[Parsely]

(5) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Piratejoe, Powder Miner, GUNINANRUNIN
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern K: CatamaranCat
(6) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10
(4) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13
(1) UFS-CC-40 Pattern F "Cavalier": Baffler

[Khan Boyzitbig]

Not the Japanese half'n'half I mean offset flight deck. So it has guns on both ends but can launch and land full sized fighters.

[Azzuro]

Not jets in general, but our jet. Endurance is critical for fleet actions and the Thunderbird just doesn't have it in it. Besides, we're never going to beat the Cannalan navy if we keep up this obsession with constantly iterating our CVs and aircraft without even properly filling out our fleet roster first. Even in range of our good airplanes from land-based airstrips the Cannalans absolutely wreck our own ships, and I don't really see any reason to believe it'll be any different with an inherently more limited deployment from a carrier.

It still has the endurance to be useful. I'm thinking of a carrier defense role for the Thunderbird, launching when needed based on radar early warning, while long-range strikes on enemy ships are still escorted by Stingers. If you're going by endurance alone, piston engined aircraft will have the jets beat for at least a decade, yet postwar navies immediately started switching to jets as soon as possible.

Also, given that our carriers were what brought the Cannalans down to Basic Naval Advantage before, they do have an effect. It's stated in the battle reports multiple times that our carriers are able to deploy planes much closer (and thus faster) to the action, increasing their effectiveness significantly. I would also assume that there are at least some naval battles taking place out of range of land-based air, otherwise we would have the Cannalans beat from turn one.

Edit: Also, the double-deck carrier is neat, but wouldn't it increase size and weight without providing more planes to launch?  It might end up being just like the wasp nest, but able to double the launch speed - not that that's a bad thing.

In case it's not clear, the middle deck is both hangar/flight deck. The entire carrier will of course be bigger and longer than the Wasp Nest, but not as big as the Tiger Star, since we have double the deck area to store planes, it should be able to deploy an equivalent number of planes for a smaller (and thus less difficult) hull than the Tiger Star.

[10ebbor10]

That seems like a design whose scale model will be a national effort.

Anyway, I maintain my point. Incremental improvements are bad. Focusing too narrowly on one thing allows the enemy to advance in multiple other terrains.

Also, given that our carriers were what brought the Cannalans down to Basic Naval Advantage before, they do have an effect. It's stated in the battle reports multiple times that our carriers are able to deploy planes much closer (and thus faster) to the action, increasing their effectiveness significantly. I would also assume that there are at least some naval battles taking place out of range of land-based air, otherwise we would have the Cannalans beat from turn one.

Yes, the carrier will have an effect, but the additional effect it will have on top of our current carriers will be tiny.

[Parsely]

The double decker carrier is a waste of space. If you're using the lower deck for launching planes you can't use it for storage, and the flight deck is naturally going to be shorter since you need to be using part of that space for storage. You get the same benefits and fewer disadvantages from an angled flight deck. https://i.stack.imgur.com/fzOdQ.png An angled flight deck allows for concurrent landings and takeoffs without sacrificing storage space, which is going to be important if we want to deploy more aircraft than the enemy.

E: Also, apparently the ski jump decks mean you can't use catapults, so these design combining catapults and ramps are impossible anyways.
E2: Rather, a ski jump deck isn't necessary if you have catapults.

[andrea]

I don't know, ebbor, launching a fully loaded haast seems a fairly big advantage. It can be a great torpedo bomber.

[10ebbor10]

I don't know, ebbor, launching a fully loaded haast seems a fairly big advantage. It can be a great torpedo bomber.

You're assuming we will have a meaningful amount of carriers.

Santos-Class Naval Aircraft Support Vessel: [Expensive] The Santos is a large aircraft carrier. It is about the size of the Khorne but not armored. It's powered by four oil-burning steam turbines, which are more powerful than coal ones. The hangar deck stores two dozen fighters, moved to the flight deck by a hydraulic lift. On deck is an Eagle Eye Radar system, con tower, a few Firecracker AA guns and a miscellaneous autocannons wherever there's spare room. It also has a decent sized flight deck, with an arrester cable for landing aircraft. Unfortunately the deck configuration with the guns, radar and cable system doesn't leave room for ready planes on deck. [5 Ore, 4 Oil]

An unarmored carrier with 1 lift, no spare room on deck and 2 dozen fighters costs 5 ore, 4 oil.

Similar to the Wasp Nest, the Tiger Star is a carrier designed to project Forenia's airpower further at sea.  Build from the ground-up to be a carrier rather than relying on the converted hull of a CV22, it features a longer runway with a rocket-powered (or failing that, steam or hydraulic or pneumatic or just none at all) catapult to launch planes that require take-off assistance.  In addition to the longer runway, it also features a ramp towards the end to help heavier or slower planes get a little extra lift for take off.  It features two hydraulically powered open-ended lifts on the rear of the ship, allowing it double the launch speed of aircraft.  Being open ended means larger planes can be lifted by hanging the tail off the end.  Additionally, the increased runway allows planes to be stored above-deck when expecting combat situations, allowing planes to be scrambled.  An additional lift sits in the end of the ship before the ramp to allow planes to land and be stored below-deck; this lift defaults in the "up" position when unpowered.  The Tiger Star also features an above-deck command tower/smokestack combo, off-set to one side of the runway and counterbalanced by engine placement below deck.  The hanger features three "fire curtains" and has enough room for unused planes to be hung from the rafters.  The deck is made of steel rather than wood, in order to withstand the forces a jet aircraft would put on it.

The Tiger Star needs 3 lifts; actual armor, a significant armament, above deck storage, a lot of internal plane storage; and a bigger fight deck.

It's almost guaranteed to be Very Expensive, and has decent odds of being a national effort.

Honestly, 8 ore 6 oil would not surprise me.

Remember, the ASARAC cost 10 Ore, and that is a relatively simple design.

[Azzuro]

The double decker carrier is a waste of space. If you're using the lower deck for launching planes you can't use it for storage, and the flight deck is naturally going to be shorter since you need to be using part of that space for storage. You get the same benefits and fewer disadvantages from an angled flight deck. https://i.stack.imgur.com/fzOdQ.png An angled flight deck allows for concurrent landings and takeoffs without sacrificing storage space, which is going to be important if we want to deploy more aircraft than the enemy.

E: Also, apparently the ski jump decks mean you can't use catapults, so these design combining catapults and ramps are impossible anyways.

Both the Japanese and British navies operated multi-decker carriers and launched aircraft with no problem from the hangar deck with other planes in it, it's not just an Insane Kot Idea, it's actually been done already. Multi-deck carriers fell out of fashion because more advanced planes required a longer takeoff roll than was available from the hangar deck, but we have an advantage over OTL with our better (rocket) catapults, so we can make it work. The rate at which our planes (fail to) scramble is mentioned as a big weakness of the Wasp Nest, and is what allows smaller boats like the Buccaneers to kill one.

Also, that picture you posted is a goddamn supercarrier with twice the length of our Wasp Nest and three or more times the displacement, and about a decade in the future. I don't think we're constructing large enough carriers to make a useful angled deck anytime soon, hence the catamaran idea earlier.

P.S. I already said that the catapults may not be necessary, but they are still quite essential as I doubt our planes have the thrust-to-weight ratio of modern jet aircraft.

[Parsely]

I don't see why an angled flight deck is somehow precluded by our current level of technology. An angled flight deck would be easier to make and provide the same benefit of a double decker without sacrificing storage space. Also, our fighters are good enough that we could sacrifice the armored flight deck. Their ships are a bigger threat than their aircraft.