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

[Azzuro]

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.

Again, it's due to size. The first carrier to have an angled flight deck, the USS Antietam, was 271m long and carried 90-100 aircraft. The Wasp Nest is 180m long and carries a dozen. I suppose there is nothing outright stopping us from jumping to a post-WWII carrier, but the Wasp Nest is end-WWI level. I'd rather not risk it.

Oh, and no one has even mentioned armoured flight decks, so it'd be appreciated if you could stop arguing against it.

[Madman198237]

To the people arguing that we won't have enough:
We're working towards what you might refer to as a FLEET CARRIER design. The US and Japanese Imperial Navies deployed HANDFULS of these in WWII. Two of the three biggest navies on the planet, and they deployed handfuls apiece. We don't need this carrier to be anything other than Very Expensive, if even. Even a National Effort fleet carrier would be extremely useful. Because it could launch every plane we have.

To the people arguing that big guns are better:
The Cannalans have every advantage over us. If we make a 12-inch (300mm) gunned copy of the Dreadnought they'll just make a 13.5 inch gunned copy of the Orion class and we'll be behind again. We can't overtake their big-guns-big-ships combat capabilities in a useful amount of time.

To the singular person who suggested battlecarriers:
You think it's a good idea to put what is, essentially, a floating high-explosives storage bunker within gun range of hostile warships? Think about it for TWO SECONDS!!! An aircraft carrier tasked for antiship warfare is loaded with high explosives on the hangar deck! There are torpedoes, planes, aviation fuel, bombs, heaven forbid rockets, AND NOW YOU WANT TO ADD LARGE-CALIBER SHELLS TO THE MIX!!!! You are ASKING, no, BEGGING for a completely average hit (Not even a lucky hit) to light the hangar deck on fire, detonate the munitions, detonate the large-caliber shells and propellant, and we'll be losing the dumb things left and right.

To those who think we need escorts: Not really, in fact. We don't need anything other than a better destroyer, which can be addressed once we are certain in our ability to hold the Cannalan's main naval forces back. Once we can appropriately scramble aircraft from this carrier, we de-complex jet engines. Next turn, if we hammer out our radar in the design and revise a radio into a jammer, we could cripple the Cannalans for a turn.

(6) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Piratejoe, Powder Miner, GUNINANRUNIN, Madman198237
(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

[Parsely]

I cut the rocket catapults since that sounds more dangerous than anything, reduced to 2 lifts, eliminated the deck armor, and added an angled flight deck. This is cheaper than any of the other options and implements changes that will make our aircraft dominate the seas due to increased spotting and launching speeds, as well as allowing us to deploy more and larger aircraft.

Design:

The Tiger Star is a new carrier designed to inexpensively project Forenia's airpower further at sea. Built from the ground-up to be a carrier, it features two runways, one angled, each ending in a ramp to assist takeoff, with a rocket-powered catapult and arrestor cables to launch and land planes concurrently. There are two hydraulically powered open-ended lifts on the rear of the ship to increase the speed of spotting 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 kept on standby. 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 edges of the carrier are liberally sprinkled with bumblebees and AC18's for defense, as well as a new "safety net" to prevent careless sailors from falling into the ocean. The deck is made of steel. It's unarmored except for a medium torpedo belt.

Oh, and no one has even mentioned armoured flight decks, so it'd be appreciated if you could stop arguing against it.

Yes they have. There's no need to get sassy.

The deck is made of steel rather than wood, in order to withstand the forces a jet aircraft would put on it.

That's an armored deck.

(5) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Piratejoe, Powder Miner, Madman198237
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: 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

[Madman198237]

Actually it's not an armored deck. It's not made of armor-grade steel, or armor-thickness steel. It's just made of a material that won't get literally blown off the ship because of exhaust from a jet. You could put a 20mm cannon round through it, most likely (I don't actually know the force behind jet wash), but you won't be able to rip it up just by taking off.

And ebbor, the ARAC was a joke, an experimental joke at that, and as we make more designs we get better at it. In other words: We can't stop inventing new technologies because "oh the resources". And it's NEVER a good idea to NOT make a better item just because it won't be "Cheap" and plentiful.

[Azzuro]

Oh, and no one has even mentioned armoured flight decks, so it'd be appreciated if you could stop arguing against it.

Yes they have. There's no need to get sassy.

The deck is made of steel rather than wood, in order to withstand the forces a jet aircraft would put on it.

That's an armored deck.

The Tiger Star Variant A also has that. And if you want to go that way, I suppose all decks on all our ships are actually armoured, since there is steel somewhere in the floor, eh? In fact, all of our vehicles are armoured vehicles too! It was not intended as armour in the sense of "this will stop or reduce the damage a shell hit causes".

But, whatever. An angled flight deck is essentially going to be the size of two Wasp Nests minimum, assuming you mean a length of runway sufficient to launch jet aircraft.

[Madman198237]

Don't get fancy yet. Up until after WWII the world's navies worked with ever-longer, ever-larger single-runway aircraft carriers. Nothing fancy to them, just a single flight deck/runway. So, we ought to do the same. We need larger carriers, yes, but not necessarily nuclear-powered supercarriers.

[10ebbor10]

And ebbor, the ARAC was a joke, an experimental joke at that, and as we make more designs we get better at it. In other words: We can't stop inventing new technologies because "oh the resources". And it's NEVER a good idea to NOT make a better item just because it won't be "Cheap" and plentiful.

Don't you criticize my Masterwork.

And yeah, stopping innovation because resources is bad.

But that doesn't mean you should forget about resoucres.

Our new carrier will be so rare that it won't be anything but a tiny improvement over our current carrier.

[Parsely]

But, whatever. An angled flight deck is essentially going to be the size of two Wasp Nests minimum, assuming you mean a length of runway sufficient to launch jet aircraft.

By definition, an angled flight deck is not going to be the size of two flight decks. That would be parallel flight decks. The whole point of an angled flight deck is it saves space by using the existing area of the first runway to form a second one, as opposed to the stacked decks which is a waste of space because it turns a storage area into a flight deck. This idea is not that crazy you guys, especially when the deck is made of wood.

Don't get fancy yet. Up until after WWII the world's navies worked with ever-longer, ever-larger single-runway aircraft carriers. Nothing fancy to them, just a single flight deck/runway. So, we ought to do the same. We need larger carriers, yes, but not necessarily nuclear-powered supercarriers.

Just because early carriers didn't have angled decks doesn't mean it was impossible until the ship was the size of a supercarrier. The angled deck does not need to jut out over the edge of the ship, and the runway doesn't inherently need to be longer to accommodate an angled deck. I've yet to hear a single concrete reason as to why an angled flight deck wouldn't work with our current technology.

Just look at the Centaur class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur-class_aircraft_carrier
22,000 ton displacement (NOT a supercarrier) and it was built in 1953, not that that matters a lick, since this is a design concept that isn't limited by technology.

Spoiler: Angled flight deck. (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

E: There you have it. One runway for landing and another for launching, that's all. It's more efficient and it doesn't have to be as massive as a Nimitz.

Our new carrier will be so rare that it won't be anything but a tiny improvement over our current carrier.

Not if you vote for the Pattern C. It's the cheapest option on the table right now and better designed than the Sanchez, so it only needs to be Expensive to give us an edge.

[andrea]

What is the matter with rocket catapult? it was actually used and plays to our strength more than hydraulic catapults.

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah, I would be willing to switch over to the angled-deck, but come on, Put A Rocket On It.

(Hydraulic catapults won't be powerful enough to launch jets)

[Parsely]

Rockets on a wooden deck and a catapult that needs fuel sounds like a horrible idea. I'll do it if you can convince me Sensei won't punish us for it and that it has an actual advantage over a mechanical catapult.

[andrea]

cover wooden deck with something non flammable that will not be ripped off by jet engines.

[10ebbor10]

Not if you vote for the Pattern C. It's the cheapest option on the table right now and better designed than the Sanchez, so it only needs to be Expensive to give us an edge.

Voting for the Pattern C gets me the Pattern A, so I won't.

And the problem of the Pattern C is that it's pointless. It's no grand improvement of our existing design.

Also, odds are that it'll be Very Expensive.

It's larger than the Moskurgian carrier, and that one is 5 ore 4 oil.

[Parsely]

A defensive gun that won't pay off offensively for multiple turns (meaning it won't affect the Cannalan's naval advantage which needs to be checked now) and can be easily countered by the enemy simply upgunning in turn, compared to doubling our aircraft's sortie speed, a decision that plays to our side's strengths? I'm not convinced.

[piratejoe]

(4) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Powder Miner, Madman198237
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: 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
(5) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe
(1) UFS-CC-40 Pattern F "Cavalier": Baffler