My dream aircraft carriers.

William Walker wrote:

So what is the major gain from EMALS then?

The ability to fine-tune the acceleration curve for any payload - be it UCAV or E-2. It also doesn't need to have high pressure steam lines running up through crew spaces under the flight deck.

Colosseum wrote:

Quote:

I think the Iowa's were the best battleships ever made or planned, followed by the Lion class.

The South Dakotas are often recognized as the pinnacle of battleship development. They were more efficient to operate than the Iowas (from everything I've read). The Iowas were kept in service because they were more comfortable... and probably because Harry Truman was from Missouri.

The case is actually better made that the SoDaks were the pinacle of Treaty Battleship development. I do admit that even Friedman questions if the speed was really worth the extra 10k tons on the Iowas.

As for why they survived - that can be traced to two facts. The first is that they could run with the carriers while the North Carolinas and the SoDaks couldn't. The second is that Big Mo was still in service in 1950 when Korea started. This meant that the logistics train for the class was still in operation. It's a lot easier to go from supporting one ship to four than it is to go from zero ships to four.

Colosseum wrote:

Quote:

In the case of my dream carrier nuclear power is needed to have a all nuclear power fleet which can go none stop at full speed without having to worry about the escorts, replenishment ships and minesweepers because they are nuclear powered and can keep up.

Precisely. There are practical limits on how small you can make nuclear plants (even when using gas-cooled designs like LWNP). This means that is much cheaper to design and build smaller conventionally powered ships than nuclear powered ones. I'm not saying that a DE(G)N can't be designed (Because our very own Ace did so, and did the math to back it up). For small ships however, the costs don't work well, and the safety isn't up to regular reactor standards (It's based on airplane reactor and NERVA technologies).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Yes, but why does a bombardment ship need to "run with the carriers"? That's the main driver behind the idea that the BB-57s were basically superior in terms of actual usefulness than the BB-61s.

Colosseum wrote:

Yes, but why does a bombardment ship need to "run with the carriers"? That's the main driver behind the idea that the BB-57s were basically superior in terms of actual usefulness than the BB-61s.

Because they were also AAA platforms. That's why running with the carriers was so important.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I was under the impression that the focus shifted from using battleships to screen carriers to shore bombardment (with the advent of jets etc) - and hence the requirement to keep up was not as prevalent post-war as it was during 1944 and 45.

Colosseum wrote:

True, but it was the fact that they were still useful AAA platforms as the move to jets was happening, which allowed Big Mo to be the last battleship not in mothballs, which ties into my other point.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Navybrat85 wrote:

William Walker wrote:

Navybrat85 wrote:

Consider: A Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier has a crew of 3,200, and the airwing accounts for another 2,400 or so for around 65 aircraft (Wikipedia claims the ship could carry 130 Superhornets, or up to 90 aircraft of mixed varieties). If you're running 90 aircraft, your airwing is going to have around 3100. for 120, somewhere around 4800. Plus, consider the workload on the crews manning the flight deck flying off 90 or 120 aircraft. you'd probably increase the ship's company up to 4,500 or so to accommodate additional flight deck and mechanical crews to sustain the force, so for each carrier you're looking at a ship's company of between 4,000 and 4,500 and an airwing between 3,200 and 4800, for a total crew strength of 7,200 to 9,300. With those numbers, you could operate two smaller ships.

The Nimitz class is old, you should be looking at the General. R. Ford and possible future improvements to carrier design to cut crew numbers. Look at the QE class with just 1,600 crew which is one of the most modern carriers. I think my crew number of 4,500 is more "realistic" than 7,200. Most likely it would be between the two.

Gerald R. Ford. He was a President, not a General (and a Navy Veteran). the article I found states a crew reduction of "several hundred" vs. Nimitz class, but that's likely for Ship's Company, not for the CVAW. And QE class carrier is a much smaller ship than either Nimitz or Ford, with a CVAW around half or 1/3 of the 90-120 aircraft mentioned earlier.

Gerald. R. Ford.

As has been thankfully pointed out to me many times already 120 aircraft is impossible. Since then I have given up on the idea of trying to build a carrier for 120 aircraft. A few hundred less poeple in the newer carrier means your numbers are off by a few hundred. Which would put the number of crew needed between 4,500 and 7,200 which is what I said it would liekly be.

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

Colosseum wrote:

Quote:

I think the Iowa's were the best battleships ever made or planned, followed by the Lion class.

Quote:

I can of course see why countries wanted to build there huge ships, but they would have been slower than the Iowa's and Lion class which would have meant them controlling the engagement. The only one of the huge ships that would have stood a chance was the Montana class because of it's firepower.

You unsurprisingly make no mention of shipboard electronics (and the American and British with their enormous advantages) or fire control mechanisms. These, rather than "speed" or "more armor", will win a fight. Only the USN battleships had the ability to blindfire their main battery guns. Radar-controlled gunfire is an enormous advantage (more so than "firepower" - whatever that means).

Quote:

Nuclear powered minesweepers, escorts, and frigates don't exist for a reason... my uneducated guess is that it's cheaper to make conventionally powered ships than to make "small nuclear reactors" for a bunch of small combatants.

Anyway, you seem to have a video game-level knowledge of warship design and tactics... which is fine, but please, do yourself a favor and listen to some of the experts here first.

Do you really believe that I come on here asking questions and starting a debate because I think I am right? I am here to learn from people who have expericence I don't have.

I still think speed, armor and armament were just as important as electronics. Firepower is having more guns than the enemy so you have more firing power at the start of the engagement. Have you never played Empire Total war?

No I have never considered nuclear powered minesweeper, rather what I thought is that they could be carried by the replenishment ships and off loaded when needed. As for ASW frigates I wasn't sure about them, other than maybe them being unmanned so they would only need fuel.

William Walker wrote:

I still think speed, armor and armament were just as important as electronics. Firepower is having more guns than the enemy so you have more firing power at the start of the engagement. Have you never played Empire Total war?

You need a lot more then firepower to win in Empire, you need to know the battlespace, you own and enemy weaknesses. And the most important thing in Total War, you need to know tactic. But you must be that one of them, lads who die under my well directed flanking attack.

And armor is not that important as electronics, modern carriers are not armored at all.

_________________
[ img ]

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

A ship with 20 guns and no fire control radar that doesn't hit the target isn't nearly as useful as a ship with one gun and fire control radar who lands every single hit.

Shipbucket

Who is online