Republic of Denton: Revisited

Ok, thank you Thiel. You offer some very valid points, but I still want one!

Eswube, several things. I went with your idea of 3 task forces, but I only listed the sjips that would constantly be in service. (that's why I only listed 2 HACs). I'll edit the numbers to better reflect that.

eswube wrote:

... reducing number of "possible" task forces from 4 to 3 (3 CVV, 3 CG, 6 DDG, 12-18 FFG) with 2/3 of it active and 1/3 in reserve...

You raise a good point for cruisers. Since I have the Aviation Cruisers, there's no need for regular cruisers.
With the aviation cruisers, I am thinking about going with something like the Moskva Class, because it is a little bit smaller than the Kiev (but it doesn't have as many weapons). The whole reason I wnet with the Kiev in the first place, was becasue of the amount of wepons it carried.

_________________
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.

Why carry heavy anti ship missiles on the aviation cruisers? Unlike the Soviet Union your primary enemy does not have ten super carriers waiting to stomp on your face. Better to remove them and carry more helos and spares. In fact I'd also ditch the guns since if you get close enough to use them then you've screwed up something major anyway.
Better to carry more helos.

_________________
“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.

They could have though you don't have to have enemy's that 100% IRL.

Well, I'm following what travestytrav said, where China would be bitter with the fact that we would have a sizeable navy in the Pacific. So, there is always the possibility that they could attack me. In that situation, I would prefer to have some P-500s.
Concerning the guns, better to have some protection if you need it. While the ship is a Fleet Leader, I want it to be able to cruise alone and protect it self in any situation.

ezgo394 wrote:

To do what? Unlike the Soviet Union (And China apparently) you can't count on the fact that all ships in the area will be enemies. That means you have to bring a recon asset close enough to ID your target. Unless you're really lucky, satellites will be too slow to do that in a timely manner, so that means aircraft, and if you can bring an aircraft into range then you might as well launch a couple of missiles while you're there.

ezgo394 wrote:

Concerning the guns, better to have some protection if you need it. While the ship is a Fleet Leader, I want it to be able to cruise alone and protect it self in any situation.

Or you could carry more helicopters with which you can keep said screw-up from happening in the first place.

ezgo394 wrote:

Ah, ok then. But if You didn't listed them, I couldn't know about it.

Remember though, that even with 2 active ships and 1 in reserve, 2 TF's at sea is a contingency number, not a routine number. Usually one would be "on station", one on its way to replace it there or to return to port or being in port ready to go on short notice while the third one would be in refit, deep maintenance or simply in reserve with skeleton crew - Royal Navy's Invincible class carriers usually operated that way - 3 ships but only 2 air groups for them.

ezgo394 wrote:

In the US Navy cruisers (at least before Ticonderogas) were usually flagships of CVBG's escorts. But Your task forces are much smaller in the first place, plus You don't use "full" CV's, so separate CVH and CG seemed bit redundant.
I like the general idea of Your heavily armed heli-cruiser, but I'd suggest, that it's general layout to be modeled rather on Kiev, because the Moskva class was generally a poor design. Esp. its superstructure made air operations very difficult.
Also note, that the size of the Kiev was because it had also airplanes (12 Yak-30 and 16 helicopters - You need only those helicopters and not necessarily in this number) and because it's missiles and electronic equipment was very big. First three Kiev's carried about 120 missiles in total, which is almost the same number as carried by Ticonderoga class cruisers (with VLS).
Perhaps someting in size of (for example) Colossus class carrier but with Kiev-esque layout would work for You?

Btw. one thing that perhaps could be interesting comparison for You. I've found information, that in the 1950s Royal Australian Navy had 2 aircraft carriers, 1 cruiser (training), 4 destroyers, 17 frigates and 16 minesweepers/escorts (plus support and naval aviation) with 14 000 personnel. Although I don't know how many of those ships was active and how many in reserve. And of course they were on average smaller than modern ships.

Well the way I was thinking would be to have one HAC in reserve/refitting/updating, while one HAC would be on station in the south/west sector and the other in the north/east sector. Whenever a Task Force needs to go back to port, the other Task Force on station would take over duties of the one going off station, OR if the other HAC is waiting in port, it would take over the duties. Does that make sense?

I will most likely go with the Kiev, because a fixed wing asset will be beneficial. For the size, I might go down to 750-800 feet long.

Thanks for the info on the 1950 Australian navy. It seems that some of the ships would have to be on reserve because 14000 men wouldn't be enough to equip all the vessels.

The thing about having antiship missiles on a carrier is if you're close enough to launch missiles at them, they're close enough to launch missiles at you. If you have an aircraft carrier with fixed wing aircraft your goal should always be to keep the enemy far enough away from your task force that it can't hope of getting within range of launching an attack on you. Carriers are always your most valuable asset, so you want them to be nice and safe a long way from the bad guys.

And room dedicated to large offensive weapon systems on a carrier just eat into room for aircraft, aircraft fuel, and aviation ordinance. Your carrier's dimensions are large enough that you could actually put catapults and arresting gear on it and make it a CATOBAR carrier and launch conventional aircraft from it. And one fixed-wing aircraft is much more valuable than a launcher with a couple of P-500s in it. Even if you don't want to invest in an expensive CATOBAR carrier, a full-deck CVH like say the Italian Cavour would give you room for more aircraft and, in the end, more offensive power.

Well, basically, it is a Cruiser, but with a large aviation facility. I originally intended for the facilities to support only helicopters, but considering the size it is I went ahead with a few VTOL aircraft. I won't go with a CATOBAR carrier because of the increased cost, plus the size required to actually support those facilities. For the size my HAC is, it seems a little far out. TBH, (besides the LPH) I don't want a full deck carrier.
I don't want it to be like an American carrier, with 2 SeaRams, 2 SeaSparrows, and nothing else. I prefer to have a little more defense than that, plus the offensive capability of some 130mm, and the missiles.

Also, how many air launched or VLS launched missiles does it take to sink a ship?

One in the right place.

Shipbucket

Who is online