Shipbucket

May I ask would it be more effective to have two 60 aircraft carriers or one this size that carries over 100? I remember once reading on a different board that one Nimitz for example is superior to two STOVL's that carry the same amount of aircraft combined but I wonder if that principle holds up with conventional carriers as well?

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

this question is a lot less simple then here stated. VTOL's are less capable, as in less range, payload and more maintenance per aircraft.
also, an bigger ship takes more stores and fuel with it, and is more comfortable at sea.

if 2 ships take the same amount of stores, together the same amount of aircraft of the same type as the larger carrier and can operate under the same circumstances, then we can say the 2 smaller ships are equal or better (better due to the fact that you can do 2 smaller operations at the same time)

the only ship coming close to that for the nimitz is CVV http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =13&t=3384

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It depends on the size of the ships involved. Bigger ships will generally be superior but there's an upper limit both in terms of air group and ship size. Make the air group too large and becomes impossible to handle effectively. Make the ship too large and it becomes too hard to navigate.

_________________
“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.

On the one hand, larger carriers are more cost-effective (to a certain point, of course, beyond which they are no longer practical, as was discussed above). On the other, a pool of fewer (even if larger) carriers is less flexible than more (even if smaller) ones, due to constraints of operating cycle.

Decided to give my AU weapon systems an overhaul this weekend to have a rest from photography. This is what I've got so far. More than likely still subject to change.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

The Sunbird missile looks like a 'ripoff' of the real-life Sunburn/Moskit missile. The Thunderbird is like the Club missile, right?

Impressive parts sheet.

Rip-off... Wonderful. Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it's a straight copy. There are quite a few designs popping up all in a similar configuration.
The Thunderbirds are actually based off of my original standoff missiles. Propfan powered (at leas the two longer range ones, the ASROC analogue is rocket powered).
Thanks, still more to come throughout the next couple of days I imagine.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Oops , the Taiwanese HF-3 is also similar to the Sunburn in configuration. I wonder why propfan was chosen for the long-range missiles. Fuel efficiency?

Fuel efficiency indeed. IIRC the US had some experimental work done with the concept.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire