Is the Carrier too weak on defense? - Page 6

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:10

hi ,

a pic of some action , ....

they should place more of these babies on the carriers and on other surface ships , ....

have a nice day

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:15

The Navy's RIM-7M Sea Sparrow and the Air Force's AIM-7 Sparrow are radar-guided, air-to-air missiles with high explosive warheads. They have a cylindrical body with four wings at mid-body and four tail fins. The Navy uses the Sea Sparrow version aboard ships as a surface-to-air anti-missile defense. The versatile Sparrow has all-weather, all-altitude operational capability and can attack high-performance aircraft and missiles from any direction. It is widely deployed by U.S. and NATO forces. The Sea Sparrow is found aboard many U.S. and NATO surface warships.

The NATO SEASPARROW Surface Missile System (NSSMS) Mk 57 is a medium-range, rapid-reaction, missile weapon system that provides the capability of destroying hostile aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and airborne and surface missile platforms with surface-to-air missiles. The NSSMS can also be used to detect missile launchings by a surface vessel utilizing the NSSMS surveillance radar capability. The NSSMS consists of a Guided Missile Fire Control System (GMFCS) Mk 91 and a Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 29. The GMFCS is a computer-operated fire control system that provides automatic acquisition and tracking of a designated target, generates launcher and missile orders, and in the automatic mode initiates the firing command when the target becomes engageable. Although most of the NSSMS operations are carried out under automatic or semi-automatic conditions, the GMFCS permits operator intervention and override at any time. The GMLS is a rapid-reaction, lightweight launching system that provides on-mount stowage and launch capability of up to eight missiles. The GMLS responds to launcher position commands, missile orders, and control commands issued by GMFCS. The NSSMS employs AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow III series, surface-to-air/surface-to-surface semi-active homing missiles. The RIM-7 version is commonly referred to as SEASPARROW. The missile utilizes the energy reflected from the target and from rear reference RF (transmitted from the director system) for developing missile wing movement orders enabling target intercept.

The NATO SEASPARROW Surface Missile System (NSSMS) Mk 57 Mod 6 is a medium-range, rapid-reaction system uses a semi-active homing missile. This version of the NSSMS is a restructured design utilizing the Reflected Memory Local Area Network fiber optic cable. The NSSMS Mod 6 consists of a Tracking Illuminator System (TIS) Mk 9 Mod 0 and a Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 29 Mod 2. The TIS is a computer-operated fire control system that provides automatic acquisition and tracking of a designated target, generates launcher and missile orders, and in the automatic mode initiates the firing command when the target becomes engageable. Although most of the NSSMS operations are carried out under automatic or semi-automatic conditions, the TIS permits operator intervention and override at any time. The GMLS is a rapid-reaction, lightweight launching system that provides on-mount stowage and launch capability of up to eight missiles. The GMLS responds to launcher position commands, missile orders, and control commands issued by TIS. The NSSMS employs Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) or RIM-7M/P/R, which is a high velocity and extremely agile missile with semi-active radar homing.

Originally developed by Sperry and the U.S. Navy, Sparrow's later versions were developed and produced by Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics.

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is a short range missile intended to provide self-protection for surface ships. It is expected to be available to the fleet around 2002. It will provide each ship with the capability to engage a variety of antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and aircraft to support self defense. It will be more capable against low observable highly maneuverable missiles, have longer range, and can make flight corrections via radar and midcourse uplinks. ESSM is a coordinated effort with numerous nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This coordinated effort allows all NATO countries to have the same self defense capability and at the same time, reduce the cost to each country associated with developing and testing new systems.
On Aegis ships, ESSM will be launched from the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, requiring a thrust vector control system on the ESSM rocket. On non-Aegis ships (aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, other surface combatants), it will be fired from other launch systems. ESSM uses an 8 inch diameter forebody that includes a modified guidance section from the in-service RIM-7P Sea Sparrow. The guidance section, which includes a radome-protected antenna for semiactive homing, attaches to a new warhead section. The forebody is attached to a new 10 inch diameter rocket motor which provides higher thrust for longer duration than predecessor Sea Sparrow missiles. ESSM will use skid-to-turn steering (tail control) whereas earlier Sea Sparrows were wing-controlled. ESSM will retain capability of the RIM-7P missile but will also have capability against maneuvering anti-ship missiles. ESSM is being developed as a multinational cooperative effort with several allied nations.

The new RIM-7P software features advanced guidance algorithims that enable Seasparrow to counter the most formidable threats. The missile’s Improved Low Altitude Guidance (LAG) mode makes the RIM-7P exceptionally effective against very low altitude threats, such as sea skimming cruise missiles. In addition, the missile has proven to be highly effective in stressing Electronic Attack (EA) environments.

A Jet Vane Control (JVC) unit allows the RIM-7P to be vertically launched. The JVC unit rotates the missile immediately after it has cleared a ship’s superstructure, cancels the missile’s initial upward velocity, and controls transition to the initial intercept path. Once the seeker is pointing toward a target, the JVC is jettisoned. Vertical launch capability provides quick-reaction, 360-degree defense and eliminates trainable firing restrictions and time consuming slew requirements.

hi ,

there are plenty of countries that have frigates and other large ships with only one launcher , ......

the carriers have four

have a nice day

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:28

hi ,

the russian's go a bit further , ..... then again the ships specification reads ; "heavy aircraft carrying cruiser" , ....

full info above

have a nice day

MISSILES

The ship has a Granit anti-ship missile system equipped with twelve surface-to-surface missile launchers. The Granit missile (NATO codename SS-N-19 Shipwreck) is reported to have a range greater than 400km and is capable of carrying either a nuclear or conventional warhead.

The Klinok air defence missile system, with 24 vertical launchers and 192 missiles, defends the ship against anti-ship missiles, aircraft and surface ships. The system has a multi-channel electronically steered phased array radar and can achieve a firing rate of one missile every 3s. Four targets can be engaged simultaneously in a 60 x 60° sector. The range of the system is 12 to 15km.

The Kashstan Air Defence Gun/Missile System, supplied by the Instrument Design Bureau and Tulamashzavod JSC in Tula, provides defence against precision weapons including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, aircraft and small sea targets. Eight systems are fitted, combining missile launcher, 30mm twin gun and radar/optronic director. The range of the laser beam-riding missiles is from 1.5 to 8km. The gun can fire up to 1,000 rounds/min in the range 0.5 to 1.5km. Six AK630 AD 30mm air defence guns are also fitted.

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:31

hi ,

here is a list of all US carriers ;

have a nice day

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:35

hi ,

all US carriers ever build , .....

have a nice day

Aircraft Carriers
Hull Name Class Authorized Launched Decommissioned
Laid Down Commissioned Disposition

CV 1 Langley Langley 20 Mar 1922 27 Feb 1942 Conv. to AV 3; Sunk as a result enemy action about 75 miles south of Tjilatjap.
CV 2 Lexington Lexington 14 Dec 1927 8 May 1942 Sunk as a result of enemy action at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
CV 3 Saratoga Lexington 16 Nov 1927 26 Jul 1946 Used as a test target and sunk at Bikini Atoll
CV 4 Ranger Ranger 4 Jun 1934 18 Oct 1946 Sold for scrap 31 Jan 1947 to Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.
CV 5 Yorktown Yorktown 1934 1936 30 Sep 1937 7 Jun 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of Midway
CV 6 Enterprise Yorktown 1934 1936 12 May 1938 17 Feb 1947 Sold, 1 Jul 1958
CV 7 Wasp Yorktown 25 Apr 1940 15 Sep 1942 Sunk due to enemy action southeast of San Cristobal Island
CV 8 Hornet Yorktown 1939 1940 20 Oct 1941 26 Oct 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands
CV 9 Essex Essex 1941 1942 31 Dec 1942 30 Jun 1969 Stricken 1 Jun 1973 and sold
CV 10 Yorktown Essex 1941 1943 15 Apr 1943 27 Jun 1970 Stricken 1 Jun 1973. Established as a floating
CV 11 Intrepid Essex 1941 1943 16 Aug 1943 15 Mar 1974 Established as a floating museum in New York City.
CV 12 Hornet Essex 1942 1943 29 Nov 1943 26 May 1970 Stricken from the Navy List 1989.
CV 13 Franklin Essex 1942 1943 31 Jan 1944 17 Feb 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 10 Oct 1964
CV 14 Ticonderoga Essex 1943 1944 8 May 1944 1 Sep 1973 Stricken from the Navy List 16 Nov 1973.
CV 15 Randolph Essex 1943 1944 9 Oct 1944 13 Feb 1969 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Jun 1973.
CV 16 Lexington Essex 1941 1942 17 Feb 1943 8 Nov 1991 Stricken from the Navy List 30 Nov 1991. Now a
CV 17 Bunker Hill Essex 1941 1942 25 May 1943 9 Jul 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Nov 1966; retained as moored electronic test ship in San Diego until Nov. 1972. Scrapped 1973.
CV 18 Wasp Essex 1942 1943 24 Nov 1943 1 Jul 1972 Sold for scrap 21 May 1973.
CV 19 Hancock Essex 1943 1943 15 Apr 1944 30 Jan 1976 Stricken from the Navy List 31 Jan 1976; sold
CV 20 Bennington Essex 1942 1944 6 Aug 1944 15 Jan 1970 Stricken from the Navy List 1989
CV 21 Boxer Essex 1943 1944 16 Apr 1945 1 Dec 1969 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Dec 1969
CV 22 Independence Independence 14 Jan 1943 28 Aug 1946 Sunk as target 29 Jun 1951.
CV 23 Princeton Independence 25 Feb 1943 24 Oct 1944 Sunk due to enemy action in the Sibuyan Sea.
CV 24 Belleau Wood Independence 31 Mar 1943 13 Jan 1947 Transferred to France 1953-1960. Returned. Stricken 1 Oct 1960.
CV 25 Cowpens Independence 28 May 1943 13 Jan 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Nov 1959.
CV 26 Monterey Independence 17 Jun 1943 16 Jan 1956 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Jun 1970.
CV 27 Langley Independence 31 Aug 1943 11 Feb 1947 Transferred to France 1951-1963; Sold 19 Feb 1964.
CV 28 Cabot Independence 24 Jul 1943 21 Jan 1955 Transferred to Spain 30 Aug 1967; returned to private U.S. organization 1989.
CV 29 Bataan Independence 17 Nov 1943 9 Apr 1954 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Sep 1959.
CV 30 San Jacinto Independence 15 Dec 1943 1 Mar 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Jun 1970.
CV 31 Bon Homme Richard Essex 1943 1944 26 Nov 1944 2 Jul 1971 Stricken from the Navy List 1989. Scrapped 4 Feb 1992.
CV 32 Leyte Essex 1944 1945 11 April 1946 15 May 1959 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Jun 1969
CV 33 Kearsage Essex 1944 1945 2 May 1946 15 Jan 1970 Stricken from the Navy List 1 May 1973
CV 34 Oriskany Essex 1944 1945 25 Sep 1950 20 Sep 1979 Stricken from the Navy List 1989; sold 29 Sep 1995
CV 35 Reprisal Essex 1944 - 1945
CV 36 Antietam Essex 1943 1944 28 Jan 1945 8 May 1963 Stricken from the Navy List 1 May 1973
CV 37 Princeton Essex 1943 1945 18 Nov 1945 30 Jan 1970 Stricken from the Navy List 30 Jan 1970
CV 38 Shangri-La Essex 1943 1944 15 Sep 1944 30 Jul 1971 Stricken from the Navy List 15 Jul 1982; disposed of 9 Aug 1988.
CV 39 Lake Champlain Essex 1943 1944 3 Jun 1945 2 May 1966 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Dec 1969.
CV 40 Tarawa Essex 1944 1945 8 Dec 1945 13 May 1960 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Jun 1967.
CV 41 Midway Midway 1940 1943 1945 10 Sep 1945 11 Apr 1992 Stricken 17 Mar 1997; at Navy Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton, Wash.
CV 42 Franklin D Roosevelt Midway 1940 1943 1945 27 Oct 1945 1 Oct 1977 Stricken from the Navy List 30 Sept 1977; sold.
CV 43 Coral Sea Midway 1940 1944 1946 1 Oct 1947 26 Apr 1990 Sold for scrap 7 May 1993
CV 44 - Midway 1940 - - 1943
CV 45 Valley Forge Essex 1940 1944 1945 3 Nov 1946 15 Jan 1970 Stricken from the Navy List 15 Jan 1970; sold for scrap 29 Oct 1971 to Nicolai Joffre Corp., Beverly Hills, Calif.
CV 46 Iwo Jima Essex 1940 1945 - 1945
CV 47 Phillipine Sea Essex 1940 1944 1945 11 May 1946 28 Dec 1958 Stricken from the Navy List 1 Dec 1969.
CV 48 Saipan Saipan 14 Jul 1946 14 Jan 1970 Name changed to Arlington 8 Apr 1965 and served as an communications relay ship until decomm. Sold
CV 49 Wright Saipan 9 Feb 1947 - '11 May 1963 15 Mar 1956 -27 May 1970 Converted to and commissioned as a command ship. Sold.
CV 50 - Essex - - - 1945
CV 51 - Essex - - - 1945
CV 52 - Essex - - - 1945
CV 53 - Essex - - - 1945
CV 54 - Essex - - - 1945
CV 55 - Essex - - - 1945
CVB 56 - Midway 1940 - - - 1943
CVB 57 - Midway 1940 - - - 1943
CVA 58 United States United States 1949 - - - 1949
CV 59 Forrestal Forrestal 1952 1952 1954 1 Oct 1955 30 Sep 1993 Stricken from the Navy List 11 Sep 1993; presently in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Philadelphia, Penn.
CV 60 Saratoga Forrestal 1953 1952 1955 14 Apr 1956 20 Aug 1994 Stricken from the Navy List 30 Sep 1994; presently in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Philadelphia, Penn.
CV 61 Ranger Forrestal 1954 1954 1956 10 Aug 1957 10 Jul 1993 In inactive reserve in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Bremerton, Wash.
CV 62 Independence Forrestal 1955 1955 1958 10 Jan 1959 1998 Active
CV 63 Kitty Hawk Kitty Hawk 1956 1956 1960 29 Apr 1961 2008 Active
CV 64 Constellation Kitty Hawk 1957 1957 1960 27 Oct 1961 2002 Active
CVN 65 Enterprise Enterprise 1958 1958 1960 25 Nov 1961 2013 Active
CV 66 America Kitty Hawk 1961 1961 1964 23 Jan 1965 9 Aug 1996 In inactive reserve in the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Philadelphia, Penn.
CV 67 John F Kennedy John F Kennedy 1963 1964 1967 7 Sep 1968 2018 Active - training Reserve
CVN 68 Nimitz Nimitz 1967 1968 1972 3 May 1975 2027 Active
CVN 69 Dwight Eisenhower Nimitz 1970 1970 1975 18 Oct 1977 2029 Active
CVN 70 Carl Vinson Nimitz 1974 1975 1980 13 Mar 1982 2034 Active
CVN 71 Theodore Roosevelt Nimitz 1980 1981 1984 25 Oct 1986 2038 Active
CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln Nimitz 1983 1984 1988 11 Nov 1989 2042 Active
CVN 73 George Washington Nimitz 1983 1986 1990 4 July 1992 2044 Active
CVN 74 John Stennis Nimitz 1988 1991 1994 9 Dec 1995 2048 Active
CVN 75 Harry S. Truman Nimitz 1988 1993 1996 1998 2050 Launched 7 Sep 1996, under construction
CVN 76 Ronald Reagan Nimitz 1995 08 Feb 1998 2001 2002 2054 Under construction
CVN 77 Nimitz 2000 2003 2005 2008 2058 CV 64 Kitty Hawk replacement
CVN 78 CVX 2007 2008 2012 2013 2063 CVN 65 Enterprise replacement
CVN 79 CVX 2011 2012 2016 2017 2067 CV 67 John F Kennedy replacement
CVN 80 CVX 2015 2016 2020 2021 2071
CVN 81 CVX 2019 2020 2024 2025 2075
CVN 82 CVX 2023 2024 2028 2029 2079

Panag · February 26, 2003, 06:48

hi ,

a very rare pic of a carrier with a special job , ...

have a nice day

Panag · April 20, 2003, 06:29

hi ,

since some people need some info , *bump*

have a nice day

Cruddy · April 20, 2003, 22:35

I think the carriers have about the right defense - maybe a little too much! In a standard game, only ships and subs can sink them. A sub has an even chance, a destroyer or battleship a better than even chance.

Few carriers have been lost to submarines I seem to remember from my Silent Service 2 days, but they're just dogmeat for surface vessels.

Personally, I'd have 2 carrier types - nuclear and conventional. Give the nukes an extra move and make them available (but VERY expensive in shields) with fission.

I was advised to look at this thread for help with modding a helicopter assault carrier - sigh - oh well, better get out the shovel... not even sure if possible but only one way to find out.

Master Zen · April 20, 2003, 22:51

wow... almost two months...

Actually quite a number of carriers were lost to subs, at the moment I can think of the Courageous (or was it the Glorious?), Ark Royal, Shinano, two during the Battle of the Phillipine Sea... a few US carriers were also sunk by japanese subs, don't remember which at the top of my head.

So, actually subs are lethal carrier hunters and besides aircraft are their greatest threat.

Panag · April 21, 2003, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
wow... almost two months...

Actually quite a number of carriers were lost to subs, at the moment I can think of the Courageous (or was it the Glorious?), Ark Royal, Shinano, two during the Battle of the Phillipine Sea... a few US carriers were also sunk by japanese subs, don't remember which at the top of my head.

So, actually subs are lethal carrier hunters and besides aircraft are their greatest threat.

hi ,

yes , but those days seem to be history , .....

one would have to be tired of this world , cause a normal human being shall not go after a carrier , its sheer madness , .... the pack a punch to defend themselfs from subs to rockets , .....

aldo , if one looks at the testing of an Israeli missile , ....

, they never saw it coming

fired from a sub in the Indian ocean , went overhead by a couple meters and landed in the Med , ....

have a nice day

Unconquered · April 24, 2003, 13:08

So... what's the verdict?

Is the Carrier too weak on defense and is it balanced properly against other naval units (given the impotence of air power in Civ 3)?

Panag · April 24, 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Unconquered
So... what's the verdict?

Is the Carrier too weak on defense and is it balanced properly against other naval units (given the impotence of air power in Civ 3)?

hi ,

...... , nope its not , why , well take one cruise missile and its bye - bye , ...... the carrier should be able to withstand a couple of them , in return it should cost more and be able to hold twice the amount of aircraft , ....

and make it require three resources , example > oil , rubber , uranium or oil aluminium and uranium , .....

have a nice day

Mad Bomber · April 26, 2003, 13:41

Panag:

You deserve a PCR for all of the Spam you have unleashed in this thread....

As far as Carriers that have fallen victim to subs they are:

HMS Glorious
HMS Ark Royal
HMS Audacity (CVE)
HMS Avenger (CVE)
IJN Shinano
IJN Taiho
IJN Shokaku
USS Yorktown (most damage was caused by air but sunk by I-168)
USS Block Island (CVE)

Also a modern Nucular sub can and would sink any carrier afloat today if the carrier is improperly escorted.

The Verdict:

I think the carrier is balanced as far as its defensive value is considered but it needs additional capacity for aircraft and also its speed needs increased.

Have a nice day

Master Zen · April 27, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Panag:

You deserve a PCR for all of the Spam you have unleashed in this thread....

I second that motion. Not only that but the fact that the Mods have been here and said nothing...

I mean, all that could have just been linked in one post as it was copy/paste anyways

Quote:

Also a modern Nucular sub can and would sink any carrier afloat today if the carrier is improperly escorted.

The Verdict:

I think the carrier is balanced as far as its defensive value is considered but it needs additional capacity for aircraft and also its speed needs increased.

Have a nice day

Yes, 6 aircraft IMO would be best. As for speed, ALL naval units are too slow. I'd give carriers 6-7 movement points. Anyway, that's what the editor is for

Panag · April 27, 2003, 08:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

I second that motion. Not only that but the fact that the Mods have been here and said nothing...

I mean, all that could have just been linked in one post as it was copy/paste anyways

Yes, 6 aircraft IMO would be best. As for speed, ALL naval units are too slow. I'd give carriers 6-7 movement points. Anyway, that's what the editor is for

hi ,

well 8 messages back then from people saying they found the info usefull and wanted some more , .... not a single complaint till now , .....

let the ones who are not quilty trow the first stone , ....

a link , yeah sure , wake up , then you would get pop-ups , .... and most of the info is locked away with protection , not to mention about how many info is closed to the public due to the war in iraq , so you can see it like that , .... but then again , you forgot to think about that one , ...

not only that , why would people have to go true a thousand pages before they get what they need , .... so i looked up the most usefull pages to give some unit creation ideas , .....

and stop now to get on my back , the last weeks it has been more then plenty , it starts to sound like a broken record , ....

and talking about spam , personal views to one and another dont belong in this thread , stay on topic , .... each and everone of the post are related to the topic , ......

and what is wrong with "cut , copy , paste" , nothing , i have the go-ahead from each source to do so , .....

bye

Ming · April 27, 2003, 12:56

Master Zen seconding the motion that somebody should get a PCR for spamming...

Something about the pot calling the kettle black...

Master Zen · April 27, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Master Zen seconding the motion that somebody should get a PCR for spamming...

Something about the pot calling the kettle black...

Please show me the thread where I've hogged 2 entire pages with posts.

And for the record, a high post count does not equate to spamming util you actually take into account the context of each post. I didn't get all these nice positions in the demo games (see my sig) by spamming my way into them, and if you don't believe me, ask any demogamer to see what he thinks of my contribution.

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 13:56

MZ is right. The period where I got most of my postcount was the one when I was the most productive in the DGs.

Ming · April 27, 2003, 15:24

MZ... I just look at your posts in the communtiy forum, and only one thing comes to mind...

SPAM

Master Zen · April 27, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
MZ... I just look at your posts in the communtiy forum, and only one thing comes to mind...

SPAM

How many posts in the community forum, 20-30 in total out of my almost 2,500?? Thats about 1%. I'm not saying I haven't spammed, of course not, everyone has, I'm no less guilty than the average Apolytonian, but please Ming, don't compare those with with the bulkload of my posts which have been in the demo games/strat forum/and general sites.

It's quite obvious I'm not one in your buddy list, but I find it highly biased that you judge me just by a few posts and completely ignore all the other ones. Again, before you start critizising my posting habits, I dare you to ask what other people think of them, especially the demogaming community.

Finally, again, high post count does not equate to spamming no matter how you look at it. In fact, you should be grateful that out of every hour spent on the net, half of it is spent here. You know why? BECAUSE I LOVE THIS SITE.

Nuff said.

Ming · April 27, 2003, 15:42

Zen... you never met a thread you didn't like

Now get back on topic. Stop accusing somebody of spamming.

I see you got insulted and offended when I accused you of it... How do you think Panag feels with your comments...

If you have a complaint about a poster, bring it up in PRIVATE to a mod. NOT in a thread.

Because if you continue it here, you will see a PCR and a restriction.

YOU GOT THAT.

ChrisiusMaximus · April 27, 2003, 16:03

I have to say that as a poster who has just been reading this from the sidelines and not commenting on this thread I have found the posts by Panag very informative and interesting. I fail to see why anyone should get uppitty over them and can only suppose its easier to criticise than to search for and compile evidence to corroborate ones own argument, shame though.

Mad Bomber · April 28, 2003, 13:10

CM and Panag:

In general I'm not opposed to someone providing information that is of some help to the related topic. However, when the information becomes so volumous that it leads to information overload then it no longer helps the posters and crosses the line of Spamming IMO. Most of what Panag posted was helpful to posters. but the amount of it was simply too much.... Understand I am not a moderator and this is just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

I will not take up any further space on this thread in regards to Spamming, however when one provides info can you Please keep it concise and short (three pages on the sea sparrow and three different listings of US aircraft carriers are too much)

Jaybe · April 28, 2003, 14:59

Brief descriptions and web links would be an improvement.

Panag · April 28, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
CM and Panag:

In general I'm not opposed to someone providing information that is of some help to the related topic. However, when the information becomes so volumous that it leads to information overload then it no longer helps the posters and crosses the line of Spamming IMO. Most of what Panag posted was helpful to posters. but the amount of it was simply too much.... Understand I am not a moderator and this is just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

I will not take up any further space on this thread in regards to Spamming, however when one provides info can you Please keep it concise and short (three pages on the sea sparrow and three different listings of US aircraft carriers are too much)

hi ,

huh , after going painstakenly shiffting true a couple gigabyte's in order to post the shortest , without a lot of technical details et all the above was the result , ......

if you say a you must say b , you just can post brazil has two carriers , .....

link , well , sorry but i see no need to post a link from panags server , .... two ; the reasons are explained above , .....

as of now only two people have complained , ages after the last post , ....

while 8 people have requested more info of site then , .....

as of today 14 have , .... each and everyone saying the info was good and usefull , ..... 3 people asked after the above incident why not more was posted , ......

one can only wonder , ......

have a nice day

edit > and can we now get back to topic ? thanks in advance

Qilue · April 30, 2003, 04:11

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus that thinks there should be both conventional and nuclear carriers.

As to a carrier's def (assuming the carrier unit represents a conventional ww2 era carrier).

US and Japanese had similiar construction, specifically the wooden flight deck. British were constructed differently having an armoured flight deck due to the closer battle confines of the North Atlantic and the Mediteranian. This resulted in the British losing fewer carriers to kamikazi attacks than the US. But I digress.

Many here seem to be basing their estimates of a carrier's defence while assuming a standard compliment of aircraft. Without aircraft, a carrier's combat capability is very limited and as one poster described, are little more than a target for other warships like cruisers and battleships.

Carrier without aircraft vs aegis cruiser?
Carrier with aircraft vs aegic cruiser?

MattH · April 30, 2003, 16:31

I really liked the CIV II method that a carrier had to be surrounded by escorts for protection. That said, I like the idea of aircraft interdicting nearby ships before they can attack the carrier. boosting the defense to 32 or so seems acceptable.