Is the Carrier too weak on defense?

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Daz
Wrong: the workers have their tools with them!

don't you think that the settlers might have to carry quite a lot of stuff too in order to start building a city. Oh well, perhaps the settlers include children in their number who take up less space.

[Tattila the Hun]

The japanese carriers had a nice, round targets on the deck, the japanese flag. lso they had insane amounts of fuel drums on the deck, a ripe target for eve the smallest bomb.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

cough , some countries cant even put 50 combat jets in the air , ....... , and you just cant compare an F-15 or F-18 with superior weapons against a land based no night no pylons for heavy weapons F-16 export local build version , .......

there fore a carrier wing superseeds most airforces of a country , and if numbers is a problem , you just bring in a second one , or a third one , or like the war in iraq today , you bring in five , .....

when looking at weapons systems on the carrier itself , well most frigates in the world have nothing that comes close to it , .....

have a nice day

Panang,

you are describing a third rate airforce that even the Brits or the Russian Navies could easily sweep aside. A modern airforce is typically composed in numbers ranging from 300 to a 1000 or more aircraft which can be armed with ASM missles. As far as the F-18 it is a great strike aircraft, but is only a decent dogfighter. The F-18 also has a reputation for having a very limited combat radius.

Tactical Grace:

I think you are refering to B-17's at Midway, not B-52's.

The problem with the B-17's was that you could not hit a moving target at 20,000 ft. An interesting sidenote is that in late 1942 a squadron of B-26 medium bombers were modified to carry a 75 mm cannon in the nose and tactics were changed to low level strikes. The results on strikes at Rabaul were spectacular, and with the combination of carrier strikes in early 1943 ended the viability of Rabaul as a naval base for the Japanese.

President Mike:

What you wish for can already be achieved by using the editor and a little imagination.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

I think you are refering to B-17's at Midway, not B-52's.

oops. yes... just put that in there to... check... that anyone was paying attention...

The problem with the B-17's was that you could not hit a moving target at 20,000 ft. An interesting sidenote is that in late 1942 a squadron of B-26 medium bombers were modified to carry a 75 mm cannon in the nose and tactics were changed to low level strikes. The results on strikes at Rabaul were spectacular, and with the combination of carrier strikes in early 1943 ended the viability of Rabaul as a naval base for the Japanese.

I still think it's something worth thinking about: fighters are useless for bombarding troops. What you need for that is somthing that has a big payload and makes plenty of big craters. But when it comes to sinking ships a few well aimed torpedoes or bombs do the job very nicely. For this "fighters" are good and should get a bonus in civ.

another example that comes to mind is the Bismark. It was a small torpedo plane damaging the Bismark's rudder that led it its eventual downfall.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
The japanese carriers had a nice, round targets on the deck, the japanese flag. lso they had insane amounts of fuel drums on the deck, a ripe target for eve the smallest bomb.

I hope you're not suggesting that the Japanese carriers were more susceptible to air bombardment than anyone else's?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


Panang,

you are describing a third rate airforce that even the Brits or the Russian Navies could easily sweep aside. A modern airforce is typically composed in numbers ranging from 300 to a 1000 or more aircraft which can be armed with ASM missles. As far as the F-18 it is a great strike aircraft, but is only a decent dogfighter. The F-18 also has a reputation for having a very limited combat radius.

Tactical Grace:

I think you are refering to B-17's at Midway, not B-52's.

The problem with the B-17's was that you could not hit a moving target at 20,000 ft. An interesting sidenote is that in late 1942 a squadron of B-26 medium bombers were modified to carry a 75 mm cannon in the nose and tactics were changed to low level strikes. The results on strikes at Rabaul were spectacular, and with the combination of carrier strikes in early 1943 ended the viability of Rabaul as a naval base for the Japanese.

President Mike:

What you wish for can already be achieved by using the editor and a little imagination.

hi ,

lets take belgium as an example or most european countries with the exception of germany , france and the uk ( who still can be outnumbered by 5 aircraft carriers ) , belgium , 96 F-16's , 24 for all weather ops , ..... limited types of standoff missile's , .....

there are at least 85 aircraft aboard a us aircraft carrier , 65 are at least of them are fighters / bombers who all have day and night ops , there is room on the deck for at least 32 more , .....thats 65+32 = 97 , ....... like written above belgium only has 24 with all weather ops , .... so thats almost 4 times more then the belgians can put up , ....

when looking at payload and range the planes based on most aircraft carriers superseed by far the ones from the mainland , holland , germany and belgium for example have different mission missile configurations that limited the options they have on the f-16's they bought , ......

russin navy , well they have less planes then a couple aircraft carriers combined can put in the air , ......

oh and its panag , not panang , ....

have a nice day

[Panag]

hi ,

when looking to other payloads , .....

this what the f-18 packs , ..... well most landbased fighters chicken out when they see that , ....

have a nice day

[dakooch]

The biggest problem I find with carriers is that their movement is set too slow. In fact, Nuc powered carriers have top speeds in excess of their escorts and certainly any battleship. The way the game has it where a task force escorting a carrier is slowed down does not square with reality.

[Panag]

Originally posted by dakooch
The biggest problem I find with carriers is that their movement is set too slow. In fact, Nuc powered carriers have top speeds in excess of their escorts and certainly any battleship. The way the game has it where a task force escorting a carrier is slowed down does not square with reality.

hi ,

that can be overcome with the editor , defense also , but Firaxis should change the default basic settings , .....

have a nice day

[Underseer]

Originally posted by dakooch
The biggest problem I find with carriers is that their movement is set too slow. In fact, Nuc powered carriers have top speeds in excess of their escorts and certainly any battleship. The way the game has it where a task force escorting a carrier is slowed down does not square with reality.

I always wondered why nuclear carriers run around with so many non-nuclear escort ships. Doesn't that sorta negate the advantage of having a nuclear powered craft?

[Daz]

Panag: that picture you posted shows all the different types of weapons a FA-18 could carry. It cannot pack all the stuff from the picture at once, of course.

[Tattila the Hun]

I remember reading somewhere, that the structural decisions in japanese carriers made them more vulnerable, ie. use of wood? Can't be sure, though.

[Master Zen]

Panag:

US carriers would NOT have room for 97 aircraft. Impossible. 60 combat aircraft in 5 squadrons would pretty much be the max. Of course, with 5 carriers that would mean 300 combat aircraft, a total which only Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany would be able to put up against, and not all with the combat capability of the F/A-18 or the F-14.

According to a major study, the most recent F/A-18E Super Hornet would basically be basically the equal of the the russian Su-35/37 Super Flanker, slightly inferior to the french Rafale figher, considerably inferior to the Eurofighter, and at a major disadvantage against the US F-22 Raptor. As far as I know it was not compared to the F-15 but I would believe it would be inferior also.

So, as of today, a major US Navy carrier fleet would probably be enough to overwhelm most enemy and allied air forces. In a couple of years, however, it probably won't until the JSF goes into service in major numbers.

The major advantage of US fighers is of course their ground-attack capability especially that of the F-16 and F/A-18 dual-role aircraft. Add to this de even more powerful F-15E and F-117 and the true might of the US airforce comes into play.

Still, with only carriers against it, the Rest of the World could put up a winning fight!

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Panag:

US carriers would NOT have room for 97 aircraft. Impossible. 60 combat aircraft in 5 squadrons would pretty much be the max. Of course, with 5 carriers that would mean 300 combat aircraft, a total which only Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany would be able to put up against, and not all with the combat capability of the F/A-18 or the F-14.

According to a major study, the most recent F/A-18E Super Hornet would basically be basically the equal of the the russian Su-35/37 Super Flanker, slightly inferior to the french Rafale figher, considerably inferior to the Eurofighter, and at a major disadvantage against the US F-22 Raptor. As far as I know it was not compared to the F-15 but I would believe it would be inferior also.

So, as of today, a major US Navy carrier fleet would probably be enough to overwhelm most enemy and allied air forces. In a couple of years, however, it probably won't until the JSF goes into service in major numbers.

The major advantage of US fighers is of course their ground-attack capability especially that of the F-16 and F/A-18 dual-role aircraft. Add to this de even more powerful F-15E and F-117 and the true might of the US airforce comes into play.

Still, with only carriers against it, the Rest of the World could put up a winning fight!

Master Zen:

the Study in which you refer to underates the SU-35 significantly. The Superflanker has a number of technologies built into it that no other aircraft except the F-22 possess. In fact the SU-35 has sight and target mode in which the pilot only need to look at a target to get a lock-on. Added to this is a thrust to weight ratio comparable to the F-15 and the use of thrust vectoring in order to achieve a highly maneuverable aircraft; it is perhaps the worlds prieminent fighter at present (at least until the F-22 or F-35 reaches squadron service)

You will note that of all the weapons shown by the diagram of the F-18, only one is an air to air weapon; the venerable AIM-7 Sparrow.

Tattila:

The Japanese carriers were basically constructed in a similar manner, but the US carriers developed better damage control procedures esp in regards to fire. If those carriers had been US carriers, at least two would have survived, (but they would have been out of action for at least a year)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Panag:

US carriers would NOT have room for 97 aircraft. Impossible. 60 combat aircraft in 5 squadrons would pretty much be the max. Of course, with 5 carriers that would mean 300 combat aircraft, a total which only Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany would be able to put up against, and not all with the combat capability of the F/A-18 or the F-14.

According to a major study, the most recent F/A-18E Super Hornet would basically be basically the equal of the the russian Su-35/37 Super Flanker, slightly inferior to the french Rafale figher, considerably inferior to the Eurofighter, and at a major disadvantage against the US F-22 Raptor. As far as I know it was not compared to the F-15 but I would believe it would be inferior also.

So, as of today, a major US Navy carrier fleet would probably be enough to overwhelm most enemy and allied air forces. In a couple of years, however, it probably won't until the JSF goes into service in major numbers.

The major advantage of US fighers is of course their ground-attack capability especially that of the F-16 and F/A-18 dual-role aircraft. Add to this de even more powerful F-15E and F-117 and the true might of the US airforce comes into play.

Still, with only carriers against it, the Rest of the World could put up a winning fight!

hi ,

all of the CVN's have room for 85 aircraft , this tends to be a mix of 65 combat plans , some for inflight refueling , awacs , search and rescue and some transports , .....

with a deckspace of up to at least 32 more , .....

these are the specs from the USS CVN 68 NIMITZ , ....


Builder Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant Two Nuclear Power Plant (A4W Pressurized Water Reactor)
Four shafts, Four propellers, with five blades each
Length, overall 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement Approx. 97,000 tons (87,300 metric tons) full load
Speed 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft 85
Aircraft elevators Four
Catapults Four
Crew Ship's Company: 3,200
Air Wing: 2,480


have a nice day