CS Aircraft Carriers

For anything not in the above. Ground combat/personal combat. Anything to do with CS, but not already covered.
User avatar
Cyagen
PostsCOLON 341
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:53 pm
LocationCOLON République of Québec

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Cyagen » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:49 am

They are called parachutes Thom :D
Malphas, over and out

User avatar
Thom
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Thom » Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:21 pm

NO, a parachute is just the equivalent of a life jacket, not a lifeboat!


Though for those so inclined I suppose that something like a collapsible glider could be designed, and given the love of Zeps in the CS universe, perhaps they are already in wide, but unspoken, service.
Flying the Crimson Skies

Jester
PostsCOLON 57
JoinedCOLON Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:50 am
Are you a Human?COLON Yes
LocationCOLON Western Australia

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Jester » Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:33 am

Cyagen wroteColon54 planes (3x18 planes) seems to me like the upper realistic limit, let stretch it to 60 for pulp purposes.

72 planes is pushing it very hard, even for a 2 000 ft long Zep (600 meters).


Well the important thing is that the average CS military zep is going to have a lot less than 54 planes - I'd say 24 or maybe 36 for a dedicated carrier with little armament - I can't see Texas ever deploying the Legacys in a fair fight and 54 planes would make for a ridiculous game of CS.

Thom wroteColonThough for those so inclined I suppose that something like a collapsible glider could be designed, and given the love of Zeps in the CS universe, perhaps they are already in wide, but unspoken, service.


How about those unpowered autogyro things that appeared in that other thread? Should work a treat.
4L3C - 4R3E

User avatar
Thom
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Thom » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:24 pm

Yes, I love the Rotachute concept. Those whacky ole Brits had a pretty clever idea with this one, though to be fair it was conceived by an Aussie! Perhaps we would see it appear first on British and/or Aussie owned Zeps, but I can envision something of that nature eventually becoming a universal standard! Mounted in blisters outside on the hull they would be perfect escape/survival vehicles with the ability to fly like a glider for a safer controlled landing.
Flying the Crimson Skies

User avatar
Grant
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 913
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Grant » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:58 pm

Frag..I lost a long post..

Anyway..I'll start over.

Legacy zeppelins. 2000 feet. carried 72 fighters.
Republic Zeppelins. 1800 feet. Carried 36 fighters.
San Jacinto zeppelins. 1500 feet, carried 18 fighters.

I figured that as unrealistic as deck guns would be, that in CS, there is still a differentiation between Battle zeppelins and carrier zeppelins. While carriers would focus on aircraft, much of a battle zeppelin's construction would be put into reinforcing the structure and mountings.

However, I do agree on the importance of Naval vessels. I sorta view zeppelins as "In addition" rather than "Instead of".

I plan on making up some IJNAF scenarios (someday), and I figure naval carriers would be important. And Japan would be one of the first to recognize the importance of "escort carriers" would could be semi-cheaply converted from merchantmen.

Jester
PostsCOLON 57
JoinedCOLON Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:50 am
Are you a Human?COLON Yes
LocationCOLON Western Australia

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Jester » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:09 am

Thom wroteColonThose whacky ole Brits had a pretty clever idea with this one, though to be fair it was conceived by an Aussie! Perhaps we would see it appear first on British and/or Aussie owned Zeps, but I can envision something of that nature eventually becoming a universal standard!


Remember that they were designed to solve a specific problem in our world. In CS, with passenger airships commonplace I don't think it would take much to design a 'lifeboat' by taking the engine off an autogyro, so I imagine they could just as easily spring up all over North America.

I wonder if you could tow one away after hitting it with a harpoon rocket...

Grant wroteColon However, I do agree on the importance of Naval vessels. I sorta view zeppelins as "In addition" rather than "Instead of".


Exactly, CS is mostly localised to North America, which tends to be difficult to sail ships across so Zeppelins make sense in that context. Naval powers however would still rely on surface craft.
4L3C - 4R3E

User avatar
Thom
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Thom » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:40 am

Jester wroteColon. . .<Snip!> I wonder if you could tow one away after hitting it with a harpoon rocket... <Snip!>. . .



Entirely plausible and a very fitting scenario for a piratical kidnapping story! The original RotaJeep/RotaTank was designed to be towed home through the air or towed to a launch point. A well placed Harpoon should be able to accomplish the same thing. A rather clever idea Jester, well done!
Flying the Crimson Skies

Phoenix
PostsCOLON 164
JoinedCOLON Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Phoenix » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:33 pm

I seem to recall there being a brief mention in the Airman's Gazetteer that Japan uses naval carriers since they don't have that many zepps. They need the mobile airfield capability, and without enough zepps and a couple carriers, they decided to use both.

In regards to carrying capacity, I would guess that the Legacy class are probably more of a deterrent than an actual weapon. They're not out hunting pirates; instead they're sitting around to scare off anyone who might attack Texas. In regards to civilian zepps, it's implied in the description of the Fairchild Kingfisher (Aircraft Manual) that many civilian zepps aren't equipped to carry fighters, as they note that it would have been exceedingly expensive to refit that many zepps to carry fighters.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.
"Is it heavy?" "Yes." "Then it's expensive - put 'em back." -Jurassic Park
With me surprises are rarely unexpected. - Any Pink Panther movie

User avatar
Dragonjaj
PostsCOLON 22
JoinedCOLON Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:04 pm
Are you a Human?COLON Yes

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Dragonjaj » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:27 am

Thom wroteColonThere will never be a zep that can carry as many planes or as much fuel and munitions for a sustained fight as a surface carrier can. Zep's do have a very real speed and terrain advantage, but really, those are their only clear benefits. As for manufacturing and operating costs? Well I am not convinced. . . Perhaps in initial cost the zep might be cheaper to build, but when looking at the cost over the operational life of the vehicle in terms of the cost per ton per mile? I don't think the zep can ever come close to the surface carrier!





On that same note the bismark and yamouto and eachs repcetive sister ship might not be the largest battle ship or ships. Ther was the idea the US had of the pike-creet carrier that could hold 100+ air craft. Inclouding large heavy bombers like the fling fortess and other heavy /stratigc bombers. pluse there would be miltary zeps larger then hindinburg. Like my oun dsign. ^_^

User avatar
The Leviathan
PostsCOLON 47
JoinedCOLON Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:33 am
Are you a Human?COLON Yes
LocationCOLON Outer Banks Protectorate

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby The Leviathan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:47 pm

Anyone ever given some thought to trying to stat out the British Submersible Aircraft Carrier from the Kingdom of Hawaii-based missions in the CS video game?


Return to

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1 and 0 guests

cron