Thread Tools
Old February 10, 2003, 09:03   #31
Th0mas
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Th0mas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I look at it this way:

A worker represents about 10,000 people; a settler, maybe twice that.

A galley can move two of those.

I look at it this way...

The number is not important, but the organisation and duration is.

A Worker represents between 100-1,000 people
So 1,000 people might be enough to build a road in 10 years. 200 might repesent the numbers needed to irrigate a flood plain over a 100 year period.

A Settler represents between 1,000 - 2,000
A single unit of population represents the initial numbers who set up the city (1000) + those who joined later drawn to the opportunity of a new life + the natural increase in population expected, over the time period, once an area is settled and cultivated.

...so a galley represents probably 1 ship, but when your time frame is 3 - 4 turns to make a journey (300-400 years) it may not be the same ship or the ship makes A LOT of journeys.
__________________
tis better to be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

6 years lurking, 5 minutes posting
Th0mas is offline  
Old February 10, 2003, 11:32   #32
PrinceBimz
Prince
 
PrinceBimz's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 414
There is nothing weak about a carrier with a full load of aircraft Checkout my thread here...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=76448
__________________
-PrinceBimz-
PrinceBimz is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 09:43   #33
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by PrinceBimz
There is nothing weak about a carrier with a full load of aircraft Checkout my thread here...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=76448
hi ,

intresting thread , but in the real world a carrier has an airwing that tends to be bigger then most airforces have on the mainland , .....

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 17:30   #34
Mad Bomber
King
 
Mad Bomber's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally posted by panag


hi ,

intresting thread , but in the real world a carrier has an airwing that tends to be bigger then most airforces have on the mainland , .....

have a nice day

Not true. A typical modern US carrier carries approx. 75-85 aircraft of which only 65-70 are capable of air to air or air to ground missions. Further, a carrier aircraft tends to be heavier than an aircraft that operates from land, which means in a comparable aircraft the carrier aircraft carries a lighter payload and has less range than those operating from land.
__________________
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Mad Bomber is offline  
Old February 12, 2003, 02:58   #35
Tattila the Hun
King
 
Tattila the Hun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tornio, Suomi Perkele!
Posts: 2,653
I quess it's not moddable, to make carriers defence dependable on the amount of aircraft it carries. Heck, with Hornets flying interception for bombng runs, and F-14 (Fleet Defenders?) with their air-to-surface missiles, no battleship or Badger wing would even get close!
__________________
I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"
Tattila the Hun is offline  
Old February 12, 2003, 04:06   #36
Daz
Prince
 
Daz's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Deaf forever
Posts: 599
Hmm. I dont see why alter the D of the Carrier. It's just like someone said. The more planes its carrying the safer it is. If you have lets say 3 bombers and 1 jet plane you can do some recon and bomb anything that comes close down to one hitpoint. I dont think a battleship can attack a carrier on one hitpoint and survive. This has only one flaw: submarines, hence my sugesstion on a flying, sub-spotting unit.

One Q: If a AEGIS or Sub spots a submarine, can I bomb it with planes or can it be done by the AEGIS/SUb only?
Daz is offline  
Old February 12, 2003, 06:02   #37
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber



Not true. A typical modern US carrier carries approx. 75-85 aircraft of which only 65-70 are capable of air to air or air to ground missions. Further, a carrier aircraft tends to be heavier than an aircraft that operates from land, which means in a comparable aircraft the carrier aircraft carries a lighter payload and has less range than those operating from land.
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
Panag is offline  
Old February 12, 2003, 06:04   #38
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Daz
Hmm. I dont see why alter the D of the Carrier. It's just like someone said. The more planes its carrying the safer it is. If you have lets say 3 bombers and 1 jet plane you can do some recon and bomb anything that comes close down to one hitpoint. I dont think a battleship can attack a carrier on one hitpoint and survive. This has only one flaw: submarines, hence my sugesstion on a flying, sub-spotting unit.

One Q: If a AEGIS or Sub spots a submarine, can I bomb it with planes or can it be done by the AEGIS/SUb only?
hi ,

yes you can bomb the sub after an other sub or aegis has spotted it , .....

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old February 12, 2003, 10:54   #39
metalhead
Warlord
 
metalhead's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
The units can represent an abstract grouping, in which the 'lead ship'/predominant technolgy is... a carrier, or an Aegis Cruiser or... so on and so forth.

The Battleship is a case in point... it has a high defence... but that doesn't match common Battleship experience: the predominant form of intership combat is Guided missile, and not gunnery. Any ship with multiple SM-1-ER or SM-2-ER batteries would outperform this ship from a defensive viewpoint. Even a destroyer.

Since formations use interrelated defense... (ASW and AAW) no ship can be... defensively... 'an island'.

Multiple 'forms' of attack mean that no defensive value makes sense, unless its considered to be part of a mini-BG.
This may be the case in the past 20 years, but the fact is, the Battleship, as represented in Civ3, is the early 20th century behemoth, whose only firepower was large artillery guns. To represent a ship with more modern technology, more ship types need to be added which correspond to more modern warships that use guided missile and other similar technologies. Of course, ship-to-ship combat is a largely obsolete concept nowadays - ships are engaged almost exclusively by air, and occasionally submarine.
__________________
Wadsworth: Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Professor Plum: Yes, but now I work for the United Nations.
Wadsworth: Well your work has not changed.
metalhead is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 00:08   #40
PresidentMike
Chieftain
 
PresidentMike's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United States
Posts: 78
I've incorporated cruise missiles into naval warfare, both by extending their range and by allowing nuclear submarines and surface ships to carry them. This gives my fleet the ability to bombard targets that are deep inland and also engage enemy warships over greater distances.

Now if only I could get my cruise missiles to perform precision strikes....

And speaking of navies, I'd like to see an amphibious assault ship capable of deploying troops inland with helicopters, or landing them right on the beach. This would allow you to do what the Marines did in Afghanistan: establish a strong base deep in hostile territory. It might have limited usefulness, given the way wars are fought in Civ3, but it would still be cool.
__________________
"Terminate, with extreme prejudice"
PresidentMike is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 07:08   #41
Tattila the Hun
King
 
Tattila the Hun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tornio, Suomi Perkele!
Posts: 2,653
Maybe a transport with paradrop ability of 1-2 squares? Similar to paratrooper in that sense, but carrying troops, and then activating them after "landing"...
__________________
I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"
Tattila the Hun is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 07:18   #42
TacticalGrace
Prince
 
TacticalGrace's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally posted by Th0mas

A Worker represents between 100-1,000 people

A Settler represents between 1,000 - 2,000
how come my galley is full when I put 2 worker units on board? I unload the workers and find that I can also get 2 settler units on board...
__________________
Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...
TacticalGrace is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 07:22   #43
Th0mas
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Th0mas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally posted by TacticalGrace


how come my galley is full when I put 2 worker units on board? I unload the workers and find that I can also get 2 settler units on board...
Good point.

Which was why I had the numbers for the Settler and Worker units overlap

(either that or the galleys have an extra-flexible hull )
__________________
tis better to be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

6 years lurking, 5 minutes posting
Th0mas is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 07:28   #44
Daz
Prince
 
Daz's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Deaf forever
Posts: 599
Wrong: the workers have their tools with them!



Hmmm, not so untrue when I think about it.....
Daz is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 07:34   #45
TacticalGrace
Prince
 
TacticalGrace's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Posts: 310
Panang,

In the default civ3 rules the carrier is meant to represent the WWII style carriers. Remember that at the battle of Midway 3 Japanese carriers were set ablaze by just 3 squadrons of SBD-3 "Dauntless" dive bombers within minutes of engagement.

In WWII what was very difficult indeed was (a) finding the carriers (b) getting through the screen of fighters.

but once this had been accomplished (which in Midway was mostly luck) the carriers were decisively defeated.

of course the default civ3 rules do not allow lethal bombardment...

also at midway bombardment by B-52s was a total failure. This is something else not modelled in civ: sometimes fighters are better at bombarding.
__________________
Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...
TacticalGrace is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 07:37   #46
TacticalGrace
Prince
 
TacticalGrace's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Posts: 310
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...
TacticalGrace is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 09:43   #47
Tattila the Hun
King
 
Tattila the Hun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tornio, Suomi Perkele!
Posts: 2,653
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've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"
Tattila the Hun is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 10:55   #48
Mad Bomber
King
 
Mad Bomber's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
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.
__________________
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Mad Bomber is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 12:44   #49
TacticalGrace
Prince
 
TacticalGrace's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Posts: 310
Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.
__________________
Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...
TacticalGrace is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 12:47   #50
TacticalGrace
Prince
 
TacticalGrace's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Posts: 310
Quote:
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?
__________________
Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...
TacticalGrace is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 14:43   #51
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
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
Attached Thumbnails:
Click image for larger version

Name:	f16railstores2.gif
Views:	107
Size:	8.7 KB
ID:	36830  
Panag is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 14:57   #52
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
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
Attached Thumbnails:
Click image for larger version

Name:	f18ef_load.jpg
Views:	106
Size:	41.7 KB
ID:	36831  
Panag is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 17:43   #53
dakooch
Settler
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29
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.
dakooch is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 17:52   #54
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
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
Panag is offline  
Old February 13, 2003, 23:16   #55
Underseer
Warlord
 
Underseer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: in the general vicinity of Chicago
Posts: 146
Quote:
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?
__________________
"It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." --Takeshi Kaga
Underseer is offline  
Old February 14, 2003, 03:37   #56
Daz
Prince
 
Daz's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Deaf forever
Posts: 599
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.
Daz is offline  
Old February 14, 2003, 05:26   #57
Tattila the Hun
King
 
Tattila the Hun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tornio, Suomi Perkele!
Posts: 2,653
I remember reading somewhere, that the structural decisions in japanese carriers made them more vulnerable, ie. use of wood? Can't be sure, though.
__________________
I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"
Tattila the Hun is offline  
Old February 14, 2003, 06:51   #58
Master Zen
PtWDG Glory of WarApolytoners Hall of FameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversPtWDG2 Latin LoversC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
Master Zen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: of naughty
Posts: 10,579
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!
__________________
A true ally stabs you in the front.

Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Master Zen is offline  
Old February 14, 2003, 10:23   #59
Mad Bomber
King
 
Mad Bomber's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
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)
__________________
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Mad Bomber is offline  
Old February 14, 2003, 11:58   #60
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
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
Panag is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team