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

[Powder Miner]

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(10*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159, Powder Miner
(5) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?

Sorry Kot, but I am fickle, and blow in whatever direction is a ship and not a coastal gun.

[andrea]

cover the wood in the deck! steel, asphalt, something! Also, ski jumps are easy to make and awesome.

[evictedSaint]

I likwise support a non-wood deck and ski jump.

The ski jump will cost nothing, add no complexity, and improve take-off capabilities of all aircraft on board.  Honestly not sure why it's not included.

[Sheb]

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(10*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159, Powder Miner
(6) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Sheb
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?

Why are you guys removing my vote?

[Powder Miner]

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(9*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159
(7) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Sheb, Powder Miner
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?

Changed my mind again on account of the deck material.

[Olith McHuman]

I realize this debate isn't settled yet (and the design hasn't even been rolled), but I had an idea for a revision

UFS-TC-40 'Psych'
This Psych is a cargo ship based on, and from a distance visually identical to, the Tiger Star. Both its radar and its guns have been replaced with dummies, and a few ruined but visually intact airplanes sit on the runway (failing that, blowup airplanes may be used). The hanger has been converted for cargo storage with floor mounted rollers to allow crates to be pushed along loading tracks by hand, with pins to lock them in place for transport, and is loaded and unloaded using the aircraft lifts and a crane on shore. The armor has been removed. In addition to serving as a transport, it may serve as a cheap decoy for the Tiger Star; confusing enemy commanders and wasting bombs.

(also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming that we hold the jungle and can transport everything, wouldn't that make the t2 breaker, salamander, reckless, and the haast cheap, and the mobile runway very expensive?)

[andrea]

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A:
(9*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159
( UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Sheb, Powder Miner, Andrea
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?

[piratejoe]

Change tiger star to Zheleznogorod and it will work, Olith

[RAM]

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A:
(9*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159
(8) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Sheb, Powder Miner, Andrea
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
1! "Psyche" fake carrier and real transport: RAM!
*second choice?
!Also Ram because apparantly that is a thing now. And of course the name was changed, are we trying to be anachronistic here? Anachronisms cost more!

[Strongpoint]

Revisions I would love to see this turn. Yes, I don't abandon piston engine aircrafts, yet

-AS-HF-32c "Albatros"
Albatros is a new version of a trusty AS-HF-32. The main upgrade of the aircraft is a new twin stage supercharged V12 engine to replace the aging V10 of earlier versions. Unlike other engine upgrades that were focused on power, this one is focused on fuel efficiency without losing current speed and payload. Another important innovation is ability to carry air-to ground rockets based on Sarukh design.

I still think that we would have far greater air superiority with the first iteration of jet engine combined with upgrade piston engine fighter. We still need a good fighter to be launched from Wasp Nests

-AS-DB-HF-23b, "Wasp":
The long awaited modernization of the aging -AS-DB-HF-23b fighter-bomber. It incorporate all experience gained in 17 years of development improving every aspect of the aircraft. The main change is replacement of its radial engine and AS-AC18 with a  fuel efficient V12 engine giving it far greater range and bomb load. It's new wings can be folded allowing to fit more of them on an aircraft carrier. The last but not least innovation is a new dual purpose bombing sight that allows far more precise dive bombing. Key priority of the revision is to keep the cost the same.

Great force multiplier for our carrier(s). It is amazing that AS-DB-HF-23 are so efficient despite being


Aircraft engine standardization project
This project aims to replace engines on older designs (AS-DB-HF-23 (new engine removes the nose gun), AS-1931-HAFB, AS-HF-32b "Stinger") with a new one common for all three aircrafts. It is a two stage supercharged V12 motor built with the focus on fuel efficiency.

This is a simple way to boost our cheap segment of airforce.

[RAM]

Revisions I would love to see this turn.

I would also like to see these, but I want high-octane fuel first and I want a transport increase before that...

[Sheb]

Can't we do a gun and use a revision to add a catapult to the Wasp Nest?

[Azzuro]

I have yet to actually see why this would be the case, given that one of the statements bolded above has been false for every angled deck carrier built in reality. Either the flight deck juts out over the side, or the ship is longer. Also, one thinks that if it were that simple, all carriers from the very very beginning should have had diagonal runways.

We've also never built an angled deck carrier before. And before the Wasp Nest, we've never built a carrier before. I fail to see how "we've never done it before" is a valid argument in the Design Phase.

Also, the ski jump ramp may point those exhausts downward-ish, no? But steel = armour = Is Bad, so I guess wooden decks it is!

The Centaur is the carrier I'm referencing, it was 737 ft long, it had an angled deck that did not jut out, and it launched jets. By comparison, the Essex has a 862 ft flight deck that launched prop planes down the centerline. The deck only needs to be as long as it needs to be to land our jets, and apparently this design was found adequate for a real life carrier that launched jets. E: (It should be noted though that the Centaur's flight deck was considered to basically be the theoretical minimum length, which isn't ideal, but my point is that a carrier with an angled flight deck that lands jets does not have to be longer than a centerline jet-launching carrier)

I think there's a fundamental engineering difference between building a carrier with a traditional hull and building a brand new hull that has a large hole in the front for launching planes out of. The deck I'm proposing is not a new shape, it does not in itself present design challenges. The Z does. And us never having built a carrier before did increase the difficulty of the Wasp's Nest. My point is the Pattern C will be easier because it's just another flattop (the innovation is in how we're using the deck, not any inherent part of it's shape or anything), whereas the Z is unarguably a new hull that does something unique that could be challenging.

The Pattern C doesn't have a ski jump. Also, this is a picture of a jet taking off from the USS Phillippine Sea, an Essex-class carrier with a wooden flight deck. So no, you don't need a steel deck to launch jets. Glad we put that one to rest.

You still don't get what I'm talking about, do you? The Pattern C will be bigger, either in length or width (jutting out), than the Z carrier. You're making a disingenuous comparison between two different classes of carrier. A better comparison would be the Centaur pre and post-refit, which is wider hulled? That's the decision facing us, whether or not this thing will have angled deck, which will make it bigger and thus more difficult. I don't know how you can claim with a straight face that two runways will occupy the same surface area as one.

Also, we aren't cutting a hole in the bow to launch planes out of. We're constructing another deck on top of the existing, which the Wasp Nest does as well. Angled deck is "a new shape", I don't know how you can claim it's the same shape.

Also, guess what's missing in the picture? Rocket catapults and aircraft using afterburners. There is a reason why modern aircraft carriers don't use wooden decks any more. They are a bigger fire hazard, which is not a thing you want on a carrier. Seriously, there is no reason not to put at least a very very thin layer of steel on the flight deck, other than NO ARMOURED DECKS REEE. As others have already said, it's not intended as armour. Given the recent Cannalan salt over their cruiser having wooden decks, I have absolutely no idea why you'd want one.


Anyway, I'm getting tired of arguing carriers. Vote for the Z if you want your ship to not be on fire, and also have a kickin' rad ski jump ramp that makes it useful even if we fail the rocket catapult.

EDIT: Sheb, I think people are going for new carriers because the launch isn't the only thing wanting in the Wasp Nest, carrying capacity is another.

[10ebbor10]

Aircraft engine standardization project
This project aims to replace engines on older designs (AS-DB-HF-23 (new engine removes the nose gun), AS-1931-HAFB, AS-HF-32b "Stinger") with a new one common for all three aircrafts. It is a two stage supercharged V12 motor built with the focus on fuel efficiency.

If you're doing this, it might make sense to adopt the German Kraftei concept. Should be a decent design doctrine.

[Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-egg)

[Kot]

That's great, because the Pattern C doesn't have a ski jump. Both of the runways on the Z on the other hand have ski jumps.

It should have a ski jump. Easy, foolproof, cheap way of making planes go up faster.