Is the Carrier too weak on defense?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Precisely, I said that it was more economical to use 2 carriers with more aircraft than 3 aircraft with less. But the US did not do that so that is why I am disputing your claim of 30 more aircraft. And the 50% was referring to COMBAT AIRCRAFT which is ultimately what matters since adding solely support craft is unnesseary considering the size of the combat wing has not changed. If you count, say, helicopters, then yes, any Nimitz carrier could probably fit in 30 more.



I won't say anything about the Su 35 since it is an untried aircraft. I will simply say that I base my facts on a BAe study which showed the Su-35 to be about 30% better than the F/A-18E

hi ,

why is it so difficult to look and read the evidence posted above , .....

you find the complete rundown of all the aircraft in a typical peacetime day inwhere more then 70 out of 85 aircraft are fighters and you still make it sound there are less the ten combat aircraft , .....

further more you state that adding support aircraft is "unnesseary" , ..... well here is an example ; one day there a huge fog depression moved in on a search and recovery mission , 4 extra awacs where flown in with 12 extra refuelaircraft , ..... the additional personal and equipment where flown in on 6 transports , ..... thats 22 extra planes , ..... they stayed for 8 weeks , ....

a helicopter need more space then an airplane and handling and ops are not the same , .....

ones again , its not more economical to use ops with two instead of three , ... you forget one huge thing here , ..... the pentagon decides where a carrier is and what he does , .... economics have nothing to do to cover an area of ocean or an ops area , .....

the su 35 untried , ... ahem , .....
intresting to note is that there is a study on the hill that shows that the F-18 ( new model ) is exactly 30 % better the the su 35 , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Su-37
The Su-37 is a super-maneuverable thrust vectoring fighter derived from an Su-35 prototype. The Su-37 represents a new level of capability compared with the Su-27 and Su-35. The Su-37 test aircraft made its maiden flight in April 1996 from the Zhukovsky flight testing center near Moscow. This impressive single-seat all-weather counter-air fighter and ground attack aircraft, derived from the SU-27, has an updated airframe containing a high proportion of carbon-fibre and Al-Li alloy. The engines, avionics and armaments are also improvements on those originally installed in the SU-27. The AL-37FU engines are configured for thrust vector control, with the axisymmetric steerable thrust vector control nozzle is fixed on a circular turning unit. The steel nozzle in the experimental engines is replaced in production engines by titanium units to reduce the weight of the nozzle. The nozzle only moves in the pitch axis, and the nozzles on the two engines can deflect together or differentially to achieve the desired thrust vector for a particular maneuver.
The Su-37 has a variety of other innovative equipment such as a radar configured for simultaneous surveillance of airspace and the ground and a high-precision laser-inertial/satellite navigation system. The all-weather digital multi-mode phased array radar operates in either air and ground surveillance modes or in both modes simultaneously. Ground surveillance modes include mapping (with Doppler beam sharpening), search-and-track of moving targets, synthetic aperature radar and terrain avoidance. The Su-37 is also equipped with a rearward facing radar in the tail stinger area of the fuselage. The Su-37 features fly-by-wire and relaxed static instability, which along with 3D thrust vectoring give the aircraft tremendous agility. It incorporates state of the art ECM in wing-tip pods, allowing improved survivability in electronic warfare environments. The Su-37 can carry air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons on 12 stations. The number of missiles and bombs carried can be increased to 14 with the use of multi-payload racks.

Sukhoi used payments earned in the sale of an Su-27 license to China to finance the Su-37 development. Russia's Air Force has not ordered any Su-37s. Sukhoi is studying the possibility of developing a two-seat version of the Su-37 with enhanced strike capabilities.

hi ,

above is the info from the latest "familymember" of the su 27 , .....

have a nice day

[Dis]

I haven't read this thread entirely.

But I served on the USS Enterprise for 4 years. We had Sea Sparrow launcers (2 iirc). One on the Port side and one of the starboard side; and 3 Phalanx gatling guns. This was our only defense against missles/planes. I don't even think they are programmed to target surface targets. I was a machinist mate, not a gunners mate- so I'm not entirely sure of these weapons capabilities.

In any case just because of the carriers sheer size the defense should be higher. Any torpedo hit on the side can be isolated with watertight bulkheads. The biggest way to damage it is to set off bombs on the flight deck. The Forestal fire showed how devestating this was. But even in that case the carrier was able to get back into port and repair itself.

So you guys need to realize the sheer size of a carrier accounts for something. It's not designed like the Titanic which had very few water tight bulkeads/decks.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


MODS, PANAG IS SPAMMING!!!

hi ,

keep on topic and post your no usefull to the subject messages somewhere else , ....

bye

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


MODS, PANAG IS SPAMMING!!!

If I had posted all that, I'd have a custom avatar by now!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

why is it so difficult to look and read the evidence posted above , .....

you find the complete rundown of all the aircraft in a typical peacetime day inwhere more then 70 out of 85 aircraft are fighters and you still make it sound there are less the ten combat aircraft , .....

Well, when there's 20 straight posts of Panag's All The World's Carriers and Landing Craft and only 15 minutes of time I can't sit down and read all of it.

I know there are 60+ combat aircraft on board on a typical peacetime day, have I said otherwise? As I said again and again, my only claim is that I'm not so sure a Nimitz carrier can carry 30 more aircraft. All you Navy guys out there should know the answer to this. Can it?

further more you state that adding support aircraft is "unnesseary" , ..... well here is an example ; one day there a huge fog depression moved in on a search and recovery mission , 4 extra awacs where flown in with 12 extra refuelaircraft , ..... the additional personal and equipment where flown in on 6 transports , ..... thats 22 extra planes , ..... they stayed for 8 weeks , ....

But you are not asking yourself if the extra aircraft compromised the ability of the carrier wing to perform at 100% effectiveness. That's my point. Sure, you can jam pack the deck with 50 more aircraft and then there's no room to take off, see what I mean? It's not a question of how many PHYSICALLY FIT, but how many can effectively complement the wing.

a helicopter need more space then an airplane and handling and ops are not the same , .....

Not true. Carrier helicopters have folded propellers which take up much less space. Look at the stats for an Invincible carrier and it can carry a larger helo load than a plane load.

ones again , its not more economical to use ops with two instead of three , ... you forget one huge thing here , ..... the pentagon decides where a carrier is and what he does , .... economics have nothing to do to cover an area of ocean or an ops area , .....

So now you are contradicting yourself. On page 5 you said it was. You said, (and I quote)

Originally posted by panag

your idea about spreading aircraft over more carriers does not fly , an extra carrier cost's a zillion time more then an aircraft ,

And economics has A LOT to do on Pentagon planning, as if it were free to move all those units anywhere.

the su 35 untried , ... ahem , .....
intresting to note is that there is a study on the hill that shows that the F-18 ( new model ) is exactly 30 % better the the su 35 , ......

have a nice day

well, I guess we both base our opinions on different studies. Guess we'll have to wait for war to see who's right.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

keep on topic and post your no usefull to the subject messages somewhere else , ....

bye

hi,

i was joking panag.....calm down.......

HAVE A NICE DAY

[HAND]

I think the carrier defence is about right. Well, who sends out or leaves a carrier by itself? It needs an escort at all times.
A typical naval battlegroup (non-invasion/controlling the sea), would be 1 carrier(2 bombers,2fighters), 2 battleships, 4-6 destroyers and about 4 subs(nuclear if possible)....I've have never lost a carrier yet!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Well, when there's 20 straight posts of Panag's All The World's Carriers and Landing Craft and only 15 minutes of time I can't sit down and read all of it.

I know there are 60+ combat aircraft on board on a typical peacetime day, have I said otherwise? As I said again and again, my only claim is that I'm not so sure a Nimitz carrier can carry 30 more aircraft. All you Navy guys out there should know the answer to this. Can it?



But you are not asking yourself if the extra aircraft compromised the ability of the carrier wing to perform at 100% effectiveness. That's my point. Sure, you can jam pack the deck with 50 more aircraft and then there's no room to take off, see what I mean? It's not a question of how many PHYSICALLY FIT, but how many can effectively complement the wing.



Not true. Carrier helicopters have folded propellers which take up much less space. Look at the stats for an Invincible carrier and it can carry a larger helo load than a plane load.



So now you are contradicting yourself. On page 5 you said it was. You said, (and I quote)



And economics has A LOT to do on Pentagon planning, as if it were free to move all those units anywhere.



well, I guess we both base our opinions on different studies. Guess we'll have to wait for war to see who's right.

hi ,

master zen , if you are ever in the med , give a call , .... then you can see foryourself , ....

all us carriers have at least 85 airplanes aboard , that is the minimum they have in peace time , ....

the 32 planes can be brought on extra without interfeering whatsoever with flight ops , .... look at some of the pics , you shall see it , .... the max space extra on the nimitz class is 32 , ...

you just cant compare the invincible with a nimitz class , neither are helicopters , ... example , a jolly green giant needs way more space the a blackhawk , .... then there is spare parts , handling , etc , .... and there is huge difference , ... thats the pic you have to get , .....

on the heli's you also have to take in account for example the elevators , a jolly green giant cant move on every elevator on a nimitz class , ....

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

Anybody in the Navy here that could PLEEEEEASE resolve this technical dispute? I'm tired of replying...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Anybody in the Navy here that could PLEEEEEASE resolve this technical dispute? I'm tired of replying...

hi ,

and still he does not get it , ........

have a nice day in the navy

[Master Zen]

Sorry but arguing is my drug. And you are are my main supplier at this moment.

Plus, I tend not to agree with only one opinion. That's why I've asked for more.

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Sorry but arguing is my drug. And you are are my main supplier at this moment.

Plus, I tend not to agree with only one opinion. That's why I've asked for more.

have a nice day

hi ,

, a drug , ......

well there is nothing wrong with that , ..... imagine the whole world would not be asking Q's , .... comps would not even be around then , .....

so what in particular do you or anyone else want more of this subject , ....

most info can be provided but some details can not be put on public sites after 9/11 (!)


there is an option that really is missing in CIV III ; with a mouse click open a small window in the game and all the units in that window move to where they are pointed to , ....

this way a complete carrier group would move all together to where you want them , instead of moving and clicking each unit , ....

the second option that shall be very intresting is the click and tail for naval units , .... just tell a sub to follow for example a carrier group from the opfor , .... and when the ship that is tagged goes in an harbor the tagging unit could sit and wait till it comes out , ....

the carrier should also come in two versions , one a small with vstoll short range aircraft and some helicopters to drop troops on beaches , the second one a high defensive super unit with long range planes , ...

a solution needs to be provided to not let each type on a carrier , .....

a B-2 on a carrier , ......

these two units would create a pandoras box for scenarios and mods , .....

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

Those are good ideas panag, would definitely make naval combat more realistic.

I also have the same gripe about heavy bombers being able to be launched from carriers. Not realistic at all. With PTW I loved the fact I could increase the range of aircraft so I gave stealth bombers a range of 18 but sometimes the A.I. launches from carriers (I don't do it of course).

I tried to solve this by not giving heavy bombers the "load/unload" capability so they could only be launched from cities and airbases. Didn't work.

[Pap1723]

Hey guys, read a lot of the stuff posted here. Most of it was a very interesting read, but read some of the books by Tom Clancy to see what missiles can do to aircraft carriers. Yes they have all of these great defenses, but at the same time, the missiles that are being fired at them are designed to hit the ship. Any naval commander is terrified at the thought of a concentrated attack on a carrier because they are succeptible to attack. In civ terms, maybe 8 is a little low, put it at 10 or so, but without the AEGIS ships escorting the carriers and without planes constantly flying CAP's (Combat Air Patrols), the carriers do not have much ability. In civ, just designate your planes to have air superiority and they will defend like they should.

Pap