Shipbucket

Thing is, by adding guns and ssms you're not actually increasing your offensive capabilities, quite the opposite in fact.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

In points, to keep it simpler.

1) You could deploy them (task forces) like that in wartime, but I doubt if it will work for peacetime. Even for SSBN's three is minimum to have one "on station, ready to fire missiles" (and one is en route - one way on another plus one in port). With four You still have one on station. Only with five You can have two on station. And by definition SSBN's operate on tighter schedules than the rest of the fleet.
I think it's enough to have on task force at sea. You could have for example one frigate detached to the "other area" as a kind of picket, but most importantly You will simply have maritime patrol aircraft that will do most of the job.
2) As much as I liked Your cruiser/heli-carrier idea, I'm rather unconvinced to cruiser/VTOL carrier. Kiev wasn't really a tactically succesful idea. Mixing aircraft carrier with "shooting" ship isn't the best idea.
3) Also, this "small AAW capability, lots of ASuW capability" doesn't sound really right. Maybe think (not layout, but in terms of armament combination - proportions, not exact numbers) about something along these lines (but for all-heli ship, not a VTOL).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_V ... ss_cruiser
4) For one time APDAF really made the point.
If it hits in the right place, sometimes one is enough. Sheffield went down in 1982 just after being hit with one Exocet (but it was mostly to design failures). I've read that it's assumed that one Harpoon is enough to sink a missile boat, two for a corvette, three for a frigate, four for a destroyer (assuming, I guess, US meaning of these terms, and therefore approximate sizes of these ships) and to get DD out of combat even one could be enough.
On the other hand Soviets tended to built much larger anti-ship missiles - and for a reason. Their calculation was that they defenses of the US CVBG (one of the primary targets of those missiles) would down many of them, so if just one will made it through, then even with conventional warhead it has to be sufficient to sink even a large warship.
So while Harpoon weighs 519-628 kilograms (1140-1380 lbs), P-500 weighed 4500 kilograms (9920 lbs), including 950 kg (2094 lbs) of conventional warhead.

I have to completely agree with eswube and thiel here
A Kiev type ship is not anywhere near as capable as taking the same size hull and making it some
Type of carrier
A carrier and it's aircraft are much more capable and versatile than any other type of ship and ship board weapon and therefore your ship should waste no room on weapons and missiles that can be used for aircraft

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Well we can all agree that Kiev or as you like "heavy aircraft carrying cruiser" was a dead end.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

I think everyone would agree that if you're going to spend the money on a ship that's 850 ft long and displaces 25000-40000 tons, it needs to be an aircraft carrier, otherwise you're just wasting tonnage. On that size ship you could build something like a Clemenceau CATOBAR carrier or a really nice STOVL or STOBAR carrier with about 40 aircraft. If you absolutely have to have offensive capabilities on the ship, you can bury some VLS antiship missiles in the flightdeck like the Russians did with the Kuznetzov class carriers.

Ok, I can't go against the solid facts that are being thrown against me so consider the Kiev dropped. Now what? Maybe some ships like the mistral or Juan Carlos instead?

I do want to have at least 2 Task Forces on duty at all times, so I think having 4-5 25,000 ton ships is not as unfeasible as having 3 45,000 ton ships

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

As I mentioned earlier, something like the Italian Cavour CVH would be pretty good. It's large, can carry 30 or so aircraft, and has LPH capabilities built into it. The Juan Carlos is good, but it's more amphibious ship than a carrier.

1) You can still go with a combined cruiser/heli-carrier (no-VTOL) if You like, but I'd say it should be about 20,000 ton.
Keep the Kievs angled deck and heavy armament on the bow (I think that a VLS of some 60 cells perhaps could fit, and add to it some armament elsewhere).

2) Problem is that with with more capital ships You'll need more escorts. So I'd advise You to stick to 3 ships. You will be able to get 2 TF's at sea occasionaly and perhaps a 3 for a while during a major war. For 2 TF's continuously at sea You're essentially stretching the manpower and budget capabilities of Your country.

2a) If You really insist, then perhaps with 4 flagships to rotate You could have 2 TF's at sea "most" of the time, but then You'll need at least about 20-24 escorts.

Cavour Mistrel and Juan Carlos are your best options. Mistral is probably the best amphibious ship but has very limited VSTOL capabilities with no ski jump though maybe you could add one to your version of it, Cavour is the the strait up carrier of the three and even has its own air defense missile capabilities and also can be used to transport troops and vehicles but has no ability to land them only transport them to port for example unless im mistaken. Juan Carlos while not as good of a straight up heli carrier and amphibious ship as the mistral arguably because its thinner, has the advantage of a ski jump for VSTOL fighters and is arguably the best of both worlds. These IMHO are you best options unless you wanna go smaller or by a full on carrier like the QE class

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

I was thinking a Mistral, for the amphibious capability. I think it could better supplant my landing forces. Also, I think if it was outfitter with a ski jump it could be a good Task Force leader.

Eswube, I like your ideas.
If I had 4 Fleet Leaders, and if I had 2 on duty most of the time, then the current fleet I have would be sufficient.
If I went with a much smaller Avia-Cruiser, I would probably have something like this:
64 VLS cells
1 or 2 - 2x130mm cannons
4 - AK-630
6 - 20mm MG
2 - twin 24" torpedo tubes

And then for the aviation facilities, have 15 helos.

I think that would work pretty decently.

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.