Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Iron Wolf on February 12, 2007, 12:03:40 am
-
I've heard many people state the Aeolus Crusier is expensive. Where is the evidence of this?
-
The tech description says that "only two dozen of these cruisers were manufactured." Since it's pretty effective in the game (better than any other GTVA cruiser), the best explanation for its production ending early is that it was too expensive for what it was.
-
However IIRC the tech description didn't actually appear in game in Retail, making it quasicanon though I might well be wrong.
-
I'm not sure if that is the case, and it shouldn't matter anyway. It is in the official ships.tbl and certainly fully canon.
-
Actually, I always thought it was less the fact the Aeolus was expensive then the fact RNI systems sucked at keeping thier heads above water in the ship building industry.
-
It's never actually stated the Aeolus is too expensive; that's just what people seem to want. IMO it was more probably the victim of political manuvering or plain stupidity.
-
How many of the aeolus were destroyed? since most of them went to the NTF. were there more when derlict, warzone during that time or those campaign don't count??
-
The Aeolus was too efficient for GTVA Command. Those ships lasted way too long - and hey, a high rate of turnover guarantees industrial jobs for millions of disillusioned citizens!*
*Kind of like the auto industry today. Nobody makes cars that last anymore :(
-
Well more likely they were cut short because of the new corvette class being introduced which has significantly more powerfull puch both in ac firepower and aaaf firepower.
However i do believe an aeoulous is very usefull ship much more then is generaly thought of. Sure most of them got destroyed but that is because they were involved in some very heavy fighting and they were the main target of everyone from cap ship comanders to bommber/fighter pilots.
-
How many of the aeolus were destroyed? since most of them went to the NTF. were there more when derlict, warzone during that time or those campaign don't count??
They don't count, they're not canon. 24 Aeolus were constructed. Out of that, 10 defected to the NTF, all of which are destroyed. Out the remaining 14, 5 were destroyed. This means that 15 Aeolus cruisers were destroyed, leaving only 9 still in service. It is also likely that some of those are destroyed as well. (info from Wiki)
-
The NTF controlled Freedom Shipyards in Polaris, which could probably have made a few Aeoli there along with the Iceni.
Note that the tech description only states
Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets
meaning there's weasel room there for the NTF to have produced a few of their own. :D
-
Ferk the NTF. :P
-
You could also weasel by saying that the production run ending in 2365 was only the first run, with more runs after the war began in 2366. :D
Or you could say that only 24 were produced in Laramis.
After all, it's a little odd for 15 of those 24 cruisers to migrate all the way from Laramis to up near Capella, isn't it? :D
-
Well they needed to be deployed where they were needed when there's a war, I guess.
-
So there isn't any real conclusive evidence that the aeolus was expensive to create?
-
So there isn't any real conclusive evidence that the aeolus was expensive to create?
That would be true. As usual there are some bits and pieces of leftover community debates that have somehow taken on their own meaning and attempted to be canon. There's a bunch of things about Shivans, Capella, and subspace that some folks assume to be actually what happened and then when you go back in the game fiction there's nothing of the sort. Its ok...its just natural communication...I'm sure we can now better appreciate how folk stories grew from pretty mundane to fantastical in past centuries.
The tech room always said that there were a limited number of Aeolus produced but I've always assumed that they revived production as the war with the NTF continued. Corvettes are all well and good but if you're trying to cover ground or protect convoys then you want smaller more flexible ships to fill the gaps. The Aeolous packs a serious punch against just about everything.
-
Hooray for the Aelous!!! :D
-
If you extend it beyond the campaign to multi then Blockade Run may hold the answer. An Aelous overloads while firing it's primaries. Maybe they were all defective in this manner and could blow up just by drawing too much power to weapons systems.
-
IMHO Aeolus wasn't mass-produced because of:
- cost
- wrong desing (like 75% of GTVA warships :p )
- unnesseserity.
During IIGW Command wanted to replace all cruisers with corvettes. It was pointless to keep Aeolus with smaller survivability in GTVA philosophy of war. After Capella everything changed, GTVA left with no fleet and learnt that classical iron fist strategy simply won't work with Shivans. There would be probably also lots of pirates over there. With no decent fleet GTVA must change strategy. I bet Aeolus would be redesinged and put back to duty as full-AF and less expensive ship which would be effective against pirates.
-
If you extend it beyond the campaign to multi then Blockade Run may hold the answer. An Aelous overloads while firing it's primaries. Maybe they were all defective in this manner and could blow up just by drawing too much power to weapons systems.
I always assumed that was just idiocy on the Retribution commander's part. :D Or maybe he knew they would die but did it anyway in order to take down the Hakiki. (or the Murakami, can't remember which one gets hit by the beams)
But it's as good an explanation as any.
-
It was the Murakami.
Also the Aeolus, you notice, the Aeolus just has a lot of flak, while the Leviathan has more AAA beams. Perhaps the GTVA decided that AAA is better than flak, and went and said that the Aeolus is 'undergunned' by other cruisers (hardly :P).
-
It was the Murakami.
Also the Aeolus, you notice, the Aeolus just has a lot of flak, while the Leviathan has more AAA beams. Perhaps the GTVA decided that AAA is better than flak, and went and said that the Aeolus is 'undergunned' by other cruisers (hardly :P).
... how hard would it be to retrofit the flak cannons with AAA? I'd think it'd be worthwhile... unless they had another ship that already filled the Aeolus' role perfectly that had AAA already included. If even the Leviathon cruiser was fitted with beam cannons, I'd think an Aeolus would be a prime target for overhaul.
-
You think Command has the capacity to do that?
-
It was pointless to keep Aeolus with smaller survivability in GTVA philosophy of war.
I can take out a Deimos in a bomber, easy. It's much harder to kill an Aeolus with bombers.
-
True actually. Mainly because the Aeolus throws all that Flak at you which makes it difficult to acquire lock.
-
True actually. Mainly because the Aeolus throws all that Flak at you which makes it difficult to acquire lock.
Yeah, but a heavy fighter with Tempests and a Maxim can make short work of an Aeolus if it can get close enough (which is what wingmen are for :P), whereas a Deimos is much harder to take out with the same loadout (though it can be done).
Herc II = Maxim + Tempests = dead Aeolus. The trick is knocking out the flak cannons on the starboard side, followed by the engine subsystem.
-
Yeah, bombers are slow, and flak is excellent against slow targets.
-
IMHO Aeolus wasn't mass-produced because of:
- cost
- wrong desing (like 75% of GTVA warships :p )
- unnesseserity.
During IIGW Command wanted to replace all cruisers with corvettes. It was pointless to keep Aeolus with smaller survivability in GTVA philosophy of war. After Capella everything changed, GTVA left with no fleet and learnt that classical iron fist strategy simply won't work with Shivans. There would be probably also lots of pirates over there. With no decent fleet GTVA must change strategy. I bet Aeolus would be redesinged and put back to duty as full-AF and less expensive ship which would be effective against pirates.
None of that is canon information. Nowhere in the game does it mention the Aeolus as too expensive, the wrong design, or being unecessary. That was the point of this discussion. In a hypothetical discussion those would all be valid points.
-
I say it's just perfectly dandy otherwise what's the point of putting a completely flawed clunker-junker in a game?
-
You mean the Fenris, Zane? That thing is a clunker-junker... quite useless everywhere. The only thing it's good for is swarming corvettes or destroyers... they can't hit anything else with the main beam. The fusion mortar (iirc) is the only good thing on the ship... its not placed particularly well; either the beam or the mortar can hit a ship easily.
The Aeolus is extremely effective against anything AI. No ship stands a chance against the player, save the Big C or Sath... it's quite nearly impossible to destroy either without serious help. I couldn't do it with about 60 ships for fighter escort and 40 ships as bombers. It took forever to disable and disarm everything... the AI killed it self (unscripted Kamikaze) so often... it was sickening.
-
IMHO Aeolus wasn't mass-produced because of:
- cost
There's that whole cost thing again...
-
The only reasonable asumption for the Aeolos production beeing stoped is the introduction of the Deimos corvette and the somewhat stupid plan IMO of the GTVA to replace the cruiser class with the corvette class. That is just stupid. You can not alocate an entire corvette like the Deimos to guard or patroll some backwater sistem which is a job that can be done by something far smaller . But then agin 60 or so corvettes seems a lot of good powerfull ships for the GTVA.
But I still believe the Aeolos to be a very efective and a proven death machine for fighter/bommber pilots.
-
The United States Navy recently announced that they plan to replace all their Oliver Hazard Perry frigates with Ticonderoga Cruisers...
:rolleyes:
-
What are those and why do i get the feeling it was a joke? Sory Mars i'm not up to date with these kind of things.
-
A frigate is a small naval vessel for escorting things
A cruiser is a large naval vessel for destroying things
You can figure it out from there.
-
What the.....is the USNavy planning on starting a world war or something? cuz if the picture I have in mi head is corect then that is one huge bad *** cruiser fleet !
Btw how many frigate class vesells does the USNavy have 50 or 60 or...how many? I'm just curios!
Geez the Romanian navy has just 2 (I think)! *sad* such a small fleet ! *even sad*
-
50... and look at the bright side, at least your country isn't famous for being a power hungry arrogant SOB.
-
The Ticonderoga class cruiser has been out of production for more than a decade. No one wants any more of these designs. The OHP frigates are to be replaced by about 55 Littoral Combat ships, vessels only slightly larger than the OHPs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship)
-
Well... shows how much I know.
That's a cool boat
-
You mean the Fenris, Zane? That thing is a clunker-junker... quite useless everywhere. The only thing it's good for is swarming corvettes or destroyers... they can't hit anything else with the main beam. The fusion mortar (iirc) is the only good thing on the ship... its not placed particularly well; either the beam or the mortar can hit a ship easily.
The Aeolus is extremely effective against anything AI. No ship stands a chance against the player, save the Big C or Sath... it's quite nearly impossible to destroy either without serious help. I couldn't do it with about 60 ships for fighter escort and 40 ships as bombers. It took forever to disable and disarm everything... the AI killed it self (unscripted Kamikaze) so often... it was sickening.
You're right, but ships like the Fenris, Aten, and Cain were made to serve as cannon fodder for eyecandy. It even says on the tech room that they're poorly built and horribly outdated (I think).
-
The US Navy has 12 aircraft carrier groups, all of which are based around a supercarrier. All but two of said carriers are nuclear (the exceptions being USS Kitty Hawk CV-63, and USS John F. Kennedy CV-67).
No other nation has more than one aircraft carrier in operation except the British, and those two carriers aren't as big. Tho the Russians, Indians, Chinese, British, and French are all developing or buying new ones, either to replace or augment their existing ones (or in the case of the Chinese navy, to have their first carrier altogether).
USN strength:
12 supercarriers (Kitty Hawk, JFK, Enterprise, 9 Nimitz-class; all are humongous)
22 cruisers (Ticonderoga class, being phased out)
50 destroyers (Arleigh Burke class)
30 frigates (Oliver Hazard Perry class)
72 submarines (mostly Los Angeles class, but some Ohio's, Seawolfs, and new Virginia's too)
Plenty of logistics
If all of Europe were to be lumped together, it would have a fairly decent naval force -- albeit one skewed towards smaller ships like frigates and patrol boats.
Russia of course still has much of its old fleet, tho they had to mothball or sell off parts of it in the face of cashflow problems. Skewed towards submarines.
China's navy has grown quite a bit in the past decade or two, and they were the main buyers of the old Russian stuff. 29 destroyers, 43 frigates. No carriers yet, tho they have studied at least four (HMAS Melbourne, and Soviet carriers Minsk, Kiev, and Varyag) so it's fairly obvious they're planning to build at least one in the near future.
Japan, India, and South Korea have pretty impressive navies too.
Romania actually has 3 frigates, counting the Marasesti, and a buncha smaller craft. Not bad considering Romania doesn't have all that much coastline. Tis a slightly bigger fleet than New Zealand's.
-
Actualy the Marasesti was originaly designated by the Romanian Navy as a destroyer but i guess they downgaded it. It is the Flag ship of the fleet. Also the RoNavy has quite a few corvette class hips and quite a decent fleet on the Danube. But there are rumour they are tryng to reinforce the existing navy by at least 1 submarine and if I understood corectly they are planning to buy some more frigates and perhaps even one or 2 destroyers. But these are all rumours.
Also those are quite impresive fleet numbers.
Also to get back on topic the Fenris and Aten class cruisers are mainly cannon fodder for....fighters. Yeah that is corect. I can take mi perseus arm it with tempest and a kayser and there goes a fenris killer fighter.
-
The United States Navy recently announced that they plan to replace all their Oliver Hazard Perry frigates with Ticonderoga Cruisers...
They're being replaced with Arleigh Burkes.
And yes, this is for real. Most of the first-flight and second-flight Perrys have been sent into the reserve. The third-flight Underwoods are the majority of the remaining active ones. They will be replaced by the next class of DDGs. I haven't heard diddly about the Littoral Combatant in years and have good reason to believe the project is either on hold or canceled in favor of the new DDGs.
Understand this very clearly: The Ticos are going nowhere. There are no plans to phase them out, they remain the primary escorts of a carrier and they are still the most capable surface warships afloat. At most they might drop the Blk 1s, which don't have VLS launchers, but this is unlikely. There are also still ships from the Belknap and Leahy classes in service.
Mad, you forgot the Spruance class DDs. They don't get any of the press since they're not as flashy but they're still some the best antisubmarine ships out there, and they have Mk41 VLS launchers to boot now. Perhaps people are confusing them with the Ticos. They use the same hull.
France has the Charles De Gaulle, which is a CVN like US carriers but has only about half the air group. Germany intended to buy a conventionally-powered De Gaulle but I don't know if that ever went through. I suspect not.
Russia has a single CVN of similar size to the De Gaulle. The Varyag was never completed. The Kiev and its three sisters are not properly classed as full CVs; they are more comparable to Britain's jump-jet carriers and in any case have the front end of a CG bolted on. Only the Minsk remains in service in any case. Everyone from India to China to Iran expressed interest in buying a slightly used Kiev but ultimately no one did.
The Brits have the Invincibles which are not full CVs either and have pathetically small airwings. They are however the only major power besides the US and Russia that could hope to muster a decent group of escorts. (The French have no AA shooters worthy of the name and their ASW ships are out of date.)
The Indians have two carriers but both are relatively small (one is the ex-British Hermes and the other they built themselves) and operate only jumpjets. The largest combatants in the remainder of the Indian Navy are modified Russian Kashin-class destroyers and they would be horribly outmatched by a modern combatant.
Rounding out the world the Italians have a pair of hybrid cruiser-carriers that are very respectable combatants but operate only helicopters at the moment (perversely, the Italians too could muster a respectable escort group), and Spain has the Principe de Asturias, which is very similar to the British Invincible.
-
They're being replaced with Arleigh Burkes.
And yes, this is for real. Most of the first-flight and second-flight Perrys have been sent into the reserve. The third-flight Underwoods are the majority of the remaining active ones. They will be replaced by the next class of DDGs. I haven't heard diddly about the Littoral Combatant in years and have good reason to believe the project is either on hold or canceled in favor of the new DDGs.
The first LCS has already been launched and will be commissioned in 2007.
Understand this very clearly: The Ticos are going nowhere. There are no plans to phase them out, they remain the primary escorts of a carrier and they are still the most capable surface warships afloat. At most they might drop the Blk 1s, which don't have VLS launchers, but this is unlikely. There are also still ships from the Belknap and Leahy classes in service.
All of the first 5 Ticos have been retired, and one has been sunk as a target. Leahys and Belknaps vanished 10 years ago.
Mad, you forgot the Spruance class DDs. They don't get any of the press since they're not as flashy but they're still some the best antisubmarine ships out there, and they have Mk41 VLS launchers to boot now. Perhaps people are confusing them with the Ticos. They use the same hull.
All retired, with many expended as targets. Taiwan has the 4 Kidd class ships in service.
Russia has a single CVN of similar size to the De Gaulle. The Varyag was never completed. The Kiev and its three sisters are not properly classed as full CVs; they are more comparable to Britain's jump-jet carriers and in any case have the front end of a CG bolted on. Only the Minsk remains in service in any case. Everyone from India to China to Iran expressed interest in buying a slightly used Kiev but ultimately no one did.
The Russian ship is Admiral Kuznetsov, which not not nuclear powered. Minsk was sold to China for use as an amusement park many years ago. India bought the last unit of the Kiev class, Admiral Gorshkov. It is being converted into a proper aircraft carrier.
-
How did this get so off-topic...?
-
I blame John Major and buckminsterfullerene.
-
Rounding out the world the Italians have a pair of hybrid cruiser-carriers that are very respectable combatants but operate only helicopters at the moment (perversely, the Italians too could muster a respectable escort group), and Spain has the Principe de Asturias, which is very similar to the British Invincible.
Actually, the Italian Navy has one carrier, the Giuseppe Garibaldi, which is exactly like the Principe de Asturias, only slightly smaller, that can carry Harriers and will carry F-35s (and maybe E-2s, but I doubt we have the economic power to buy even one of them... :doubt:). In the next years also the Camillo Benso Conte di Cavour (longest carrier name, ever!) will enter service, and will be almost exactly like the Principe the Asturias.
Unless you were talking about the Tarawa-like San Giorgio, San Marco and San Giusto. In that case, you are true: they can carry only helicopters (so, they are not so Tarawa-like). :)
-
How did this get so off-topic...?
Seconded. :p
-
I can merge the two topics.... :)
USS Aeolus (ARC-3)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/FS2/arc3_4.jpg)
-
:lol:
Hehe, good one, man. Is that one expensive too? :lol:
-
:lol:
Hehe, good one, man. Is that one expensive too? :lol:
Only if someone comes in here and makes it up that it is :)
-
Might have to split threads here but RE the carrier/escort combos in the world...the UK and France are collaborating on a new class of full size CV for operating fixed wing aircraft like the F-35 or the Rafael carrier version. Also, Russia has announced its building new ships including at least one carrier.
-
Dates 9/1/00 11/16/01
Battleships - -
Carriers 12 12
Cruisers 27 27
Destroyers 54 54
Frigates 35 35
Submarines 56 54
SSBNs 18 18
Mine Warfare 27 27
Patrol 13 13
Amphibious 39 39
Auxiliary 60 58
Surface Warships 116 116
Total Active 341 337
To clarify the ship numbers included in this table, the year 2000 entries include active commissioned ships, those in the Naval Reserve Force (NRF) and ships operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC). Row entries are self-explanatory, with the auxiliary category including combat logistic ships (such as oilers, ammunition, combat store ships), mobile logistics ships (such as submarine tenders) and support ships (such as command, salvage, tugs and research ships). Command ships have been subsumed into that category and the separate line entry removed.Hope that helps a bit...
Don't forget the USA is commissioning another Nimitz; the Bush iirc.
Oh you might find this interesting too...
Bahrain
* USS Ardent (MCM-12)
* USS Cardinal (MHC-60)
* USS Dextrous (MCM-13)
* USS Raven (MHC-61)
Bangor, Washington
* USS Alabama (SSBN-731)
* USS Alaska (SSBN-732)
* USS Florida (SSGN-728)
* USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730)
* USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)
* USS Kentucky (SSBN-737)
* USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)
* USS Nebraska (SSBN-739)
* USS Nevada (SSBN-733)
* USS Maine (SSBN-741)
* USS Ohio (SSGN-726)
* USS Pennsylvania (SSBN-735)
Bremerton, Washington
* USS Columbus (SSN-762)
* USS Houston (SSN-713)
* USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Charlestown, Massachusetts
* USS Constitution
Everett, Washington
* USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
* USS Ford (FFG-54)
* USS Ingraham (FFG-61)
* USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG-60)
* USS Shoup (DDG-86)
Gaeta, Italy
* USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20)
Groton, Connecticut
* USS Albuquerque (SSN-706)
* USS Alexandria (SSN-757)
* USS Augusta (SSN-710)
* USS Connecticut (SSN-22)
* USS Dallas (SSN-700)
* USS Hartford (SSN-768)
* USS Memphis (SSN-691)
* USS Miami (SSN-755)
* USS Philadelphia (SSN-690)
* USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720)
* USS Providence (SSN-719)
* USS San Juan (SSN-751)
* USS Seawolf (SSN-21)
* USS Toledo (SSN-769)
* USS Virginia (SSN-774)
Guam
* USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN-705)
* USS Frank Cable (AS-40)
* USS San Francisco (SSN-711)
Ingleside, Texas
* USS Avenger (MCM-1)
* USS Black Hawk (MHC-58)
* USS Champion (MCM-4)
* USS Chief (MCM-14)
* USS Cormorant (MHC-57)
* USS Defender (MCM-2)
* USS Devastator (MCM-6)
* USS Falcon (MHC-59)
* USS Gladiator (MCM-11)
* USS Heron (MHC-52)
* USS Kingfisher (MHC-56)
* USS Oriole (MHC-55)
* USS Osprey (MHC-51)
* USS Pelican (MHC-53)
* USS Pioneer (MCM-9)
* USS Robin (MHC-54)
* USS Scout (MCM-8)
* USS Sentry (MCM-3)
* USS Shrike (MHC-62)
* USS Warrior (MCM-10)
Kings Bay, Georgia
* USS Maryland (SSBN-738)
* USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740)
* USS Tennessee (SSBN-734)
* USS West Virginia (SSBN-736)
* USS Wyoming (SSBN-742)
La Maddalena
* USS Emory S. Land (AS-39)
Little Creek, Virginia
* USS Ashland (LSD-48)
* USS Carter Hall (LSD-50)
* USS Chinook (PC-9)
* USS Firebolt (PC-10)
* USS Grapple (ARS-53)
* USS Grasp (ARS-51)
* USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44)
* USS Oak Hill (LSD-51)
* USS Sirocco (PC-6)
* USS Tempest (PC-2)
* USS Thunderbolt (PC-12)
* USS Tortuga (LSD-46)
* USS Typhoon (PC-5)
* USS Whidbey Island (LSD-41)
* USS Whirlwind (PC-11)
Mayport, Florida
* USS Boone (FFG-28)
* USS Carney (DDG-64)
* USS De Wert (FFG-45)
* USS Doyle (FFG-39)
* USS Farragut (DDG-99)
* USS Gettysburg (CG-64)
* USS Halyburton (FFG-40)
* USS Hue City (CG-66)
* USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)
* USS Klakring (FFG-42)
* USS McInerney (FFG-8)
* USS Philippine Sea (CG-58)
* USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49)
* USS Roosevelt (DDG-80)
* USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58)
* USS Simpson (FFG-56)
* USS Taylor (FFG-50)
* USS The Sullivans (DDG-68)
* USS Underwood (FFG-36)
* USS Vicksburg (CG-69)
Norfolk, Virginia
* USS Albany (SSN-753)
* USS Anzio (CG-68)
* USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)
* USS Austin (LPD-4)
* USS Barry (DDG-52)
* USS Bataan (LHD-5)
* USS Boise (SSN-764)
* USS Bulkeley (DDG-84)
* USS Cape St. George (CG-71)
* USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
* USS Carr (FFG-52)
* USS Cole (DDG-67)
* USS Donald Cook (DDG-75)
* USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
* USS Elrod (FFG-55)
* USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
* USS George Washington (CVN-73)
* USS Georgia (SSGN-729)
* USS Gonzalez (DDG-66)
* USS Hampton (SSN-767)
* USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
* USS Hawes (FFG-53)
* USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN-709)
* USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7)
* USS Jacksonville (SSN-699)
* USS James E. Williams (DDG-95)
* USS Kauffman (FFG-59)
* USS Kearsarge (LHD-3)
* USS Laboon (DDG-58)
* USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)
* USS Mahan (DDG-72)
* USS Mason (DDG-87)
* USS McFaul (DDG-74)
* USS Minneapolis Saint Paul (SSN-708)
* USS Mitscher (DDG-57)
* USS Monterey (CG-61)
* USS Montpelier (SSN-765)
* USS Nashville (LPD-13)
* USS Nassau (LHA-4)
* USS Newport News (SSN-750)
* USS Nicholas (FFG-47)
* USS Nitze (DDG-94)
* USS Norfolk (SSN-714)
* USS Normandy (CG-60)
* USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723)
* USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79)
* USS Ponce (LPD-15)
* USS Porter (DDG-78)
* USS Ramage (DDG-61)
* USS Ross (DDG-71)
* USS Saipan (LHA-2)
* USS San Antonio (LPD 17)|
* USS San Jacinto (CG-56)
* USS Scranton (SSN-756)
* USS Shreveport (LPD-12)
* USS Stout (DDG-55)
* USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
* USS Trenton (LPD-14)
* USS Vella Gulf (CG-72)
* USS Wasp (LHD-1)
* USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81)
Pascagoula, Mississippi
* USS John L. Hall (FFG-32)
* USS Stephen W. Groves (FFG-29)
Pearl Harbor
* USS Bremerton (SSN-698)
* USS Buffalo (SSN-715)
* USS Chafee (DDG-90)
* USS Charlotte (SSN-766)
* USS Cheyenne (SSN-773)
* USS Chicago (SSN-721)
* USS Chosin (CG-65)
* USS Columbia (SSN-771)
* USS Crommelin (FFG-37)
* USS Greeneville (SSN-772)
* USS Honolulu (SSN-718)
* USS Hopper (DDG-70)
* USS Key West (SSN-722)
* USS La Jolla (SSN-701)
* USS Lake Erie (CG-70)
* USS Los Angeles (SSN-688)
* USS Louisville (SSN-724)
* USS O'Kane (DDG-77)
* USS Olympia (SSN-717)
* USS Pasadena (SSN-752)
* USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60)
* USS Port Royal (CG-73)
* USS Reuben James (FFG-57)
* USS Russell (DDG-59)
* USS Salvor (ARS-52)
* USS Santa Fe (SSN-763)
* USS Tucson (SSN-770)
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
* USS Annapolis (SSN-760)
* USS Springfield (SSN-761)
San Diego, California
* USS Antietam (CG-54)
* USS Asheville (SSN-758)
* USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3)
* USS Benfold (DDG-65)
* USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)
* USS Boxer (LHD-4)
* USS Bunker Hill (CG-52)
* USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93)
* USS Cleveland (LPD-7)
* USS Comstock (LSD-45)
* USS Coronado (AGF-11)
* USS Curts (FFG-38)
* USS Decatur (DDG-73)
* USS Denver (LPD-9)
* USS Dolphin (AGSS-555)
* USS Dubuque (LPD-8)
* USS Duluth (LPD-6)
* USS Germantown (LSD-42)
* USS Halsey (DDG-97)
* USS Helena (SSN-725)
* USS Higgins (DDG-76)
* USS Howard (DDG-83)
* USS Hurricane (PC-3)
* USS Jarrett (FFG-33)
* USS Jefferson City (SSN-759)
* USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)
* USS Lake Champlain (CG-57)
* USS McCampbell (DDG-85)
* USS McClusky (FFG-41)
* USS Milius (DDG-69)
* USS Mobile Bay (CG-53)
* USS Momsen (DDG-92)
* USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
* USS Ogden (LPD-5)
* USS Pearl Harbor (LSD-52)
* USS Peleliu (LHA-5)
* USS Pinckney (DDG-91)
* USS Preble (DDG-88)
* USS Princeton (CG-59)
* USS Rentz (FFG-46)
* USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
* USS Rushmore (LSD-47)
* USS Salt Lake City (SSN-716)
* USS Squall (PC-7)
* USS Tarawa (LHA-1)
* USS Thach (FFG-43)
* USS Topeka (SSN-754)
Sasebo, Japan
* USS Essex (LHD-2)
* USS Fort McHenry (LSD-43)
* USS Guardian (MCM-5)
* USS Harpers Ferry (LSD-49)
* USS Juneau (LPD-10)
* USS Patriot (MCM-7)
* USS Safeguard (ARS-50)
Yokosuka, Japan
* USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19)
* USS Cowpens (CG-63)
* USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54)
* USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62)
* USS Gary (FFG-51)
* USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)
* USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
* USS Lassen (DDG-82)
* USS Mustin (DDG-89)
* USS Shiloh (CG-67)
* USS Stethem (DDG-63)
-
Don't forget the USA is commissioning another Nimitz; the Bush iirc.
Named after which Bush? Junior or Senior?
And btw, wasn't it only a few years ago that the Ronald Reagan was commissioned? Where are we getting the money for these things? A carrier is not a cheap toy........
-
I can merge the two topics.... :)
USS Aeolus (ARC-3)
...
:p
-
The USS Bush Junior? USS Oil Monger.
-
Hey that is corect is the US in arms race again? I mean 2 carriers in less the what 5 years or what? Whats next 4 balistic subs in less then a decade? Wow US citizens must be really rich to go along with this much arms spending!
-
They do that with everything except for hand-held equipment.
The Air Force pops around just about every ten years with a brand-spanking new prototype aircraft constantly.
The Navy, I don't know.
The Army, they're still using something that appeared on the drawing board in the 50's as a standard issue firearm.
-
Hell most of the armies in the world still use the AK-47 ! Or variants of it. It is a proven deadly reliable cheap efective weapon. So unless you can bring about laser hand held guns or something like that the world will just keep using them.
-
From http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm :
XM8
XM8 rifle in basic infantry configuration, as displayed in January, 2004, at the ShotShow-04 in USA
(http://world.guns.ru/assault/xm8.jpg)
XM8 rifle in "automatic rifle" (light machine gun) configuration. Note longer barrel and folded bipods under the forearm
(http://world.guns.ru/assault/xm8-ar.jpg)
XM8 rifle in "sharpshooter" (parasniper) configuration. While sight looks similar to red-dot, mounted on other variants, it is of 3.5X magnification; spare magazine is clamped to the right side of the magazine inserted into the rifle.
(http://world.guns.ru/assault/xm8-s.jpg)
XM8 rifle in Compact (SMG / PDW) configuration, with shortened barrel.
(http://world.guns.ru/assault/xm8-c.jpg)
Author of that website is posing with XM8 at the ShotShow-2004, Las Vegas, USA.
(http://world.guns.ru/assault/xm8-max.jpg)
... I guess this supposedly may or may not go into production... they're thinking about it now.
EDIT: if you painted it grey, is it just me, or does that look like Halo's Assault Rifle? ;7
-
You know what's funny? The M8 rifle was discontinued for five years since April 2006.
Honestly, I'd say that'll just happen from now to Doomsday, and the M16 / M4 and the AK47 will STILL be the typical standard issue combat firearm in existance.
-
I thought the FN-SCAR was going to replace the M-16 now
The USS Bush will be named after Bush Sr. who, although stupid, arrogant, and capitalistic, wasn't half as bad as his son.
-
Yeah it's all interesting with the politics here. Republicans like to spend money on military and stuff related to it whenever possible. Democrats are all more on idk really, i forget, but they don't do no where near as much military spending as republicans do.
After that, the m16 is still in use because it's a very good and dependable gun. It's the longest running military gun being manufactured. The m16 comes in different designs, especially the navy one which has like a grenade launcher.
And then there's several old designs for helicopters and fighters that will be phased out in like 2020 or 2050 for the army. Why switch out stuff that works good? Besides that innovation these days tends to be aimed at new weapons a lot more than new vehicles of any kind.
Then again i never thought of all these new weapon stuff as an arms race, that's an interesting way to think about it. We all live in a day and age where many countries are acceling at pumping next gen advanced weaponry.
American military is pumping out some really interesting stuff, the newest of it is ray gun meant to be a nonlethal and less cumbersome means of detering crowds and riots without tear gas and stuff like that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6300985.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6300985.stm)
Of course i like how bbc writes under the picture of the blaster how it makes an easy rpg target (as if anything wouldn't be an rpg target...just one of those useless comments they'd like to include for god knows what reason).
The information is supposed to be classified, but i think it's obvious how it works employing microwaves (it's obviously an em weapon). I like how the ray gun looks like an fs radar dish.
It would be nice over here if like stuff slowed down, i mean new stuff is always going to come out, but there's a whole bunch of it coming out all at once, which is where everyone starts up the fact that my country is like pulling money out no where somehow, warspending, inflation, and the works (not to mention international debt which last i remembered was like some 350 billion or whatever, it's definitely increased since then and my memory probably isn't close to scratching what it actually is).
-
lols, I think you guys overspent guns.ru's bandwidth for the month... I checked their site; the pics don't show there either. Should I take the img tags off and leave them as clickable links?
-
Going back to the actual topic, the key probably lies in the TR description of the Deimos: They're planning to use them to replace the Leviathan and Fenris-class ships, not all cruisers in the GTA fleet. My guess is that the Aeolus-class would be the only type of cruiser built after the planned re-armament.
-
The Deimos entry suggests that the Terrans won't include cruisers in their fleets.
It's quite a contrast with the Mentu, but "foundation of a fleet"....
The tech entry of the Alcyone gives some not-canon infos about a possible reason beyond the replacement of the Aeolus...
-
The Deimos entry suggests that the Terrans won't include cruisers in their fleets.
It's quite a contrast with the Mentu, but "foundation of a fleet"....
Well, there's no such suggestion at all, just that the Leviathan and Fenris are about to go the way of the dodo. The Deimos is going to be their basic line-of-battle ship, while escort duties would be handled by the Aeolus. After all, if the new plan was to not have any cruisers, why would they go through all of the trouble of re-tooling a shipyard, drafting a design, going through the approval process, develop the manufacturing and transport infrastructure, suffer through development and testing of all of the various components, updating all of their recog manuals, etc. etc.?
-
You forget that the production of the Aeolus ended in 2365 and only 24 exemplars have been produced. Also, remember that many Aeolus were destroyed during the NTF civil war and the second shivan encounter(Camisard, Hellespont, Loyola,Epigoni, Mylae,Liberty...).
Only a few Aeolus survived the wars and they can't replace all the Fenris and Leviathans.
In Steadfast, the production of the Aeolus resumed before the introduction of the Alcyone simply because the Aeolus is a valid cruiser(we mention the defense of the Bastion).
The entry of the Aeolus underestimates it...geez, it has two frontal SGreens!
-
In Steadfast, the production of the Aeolus resumed before the introduction of the Alcyone simply because the Aeolus is a valid cruiser(we mention the defense of the Bastion).
The entry of the Aeolus underestimates it...geez, it has two frontal SGreens!
I wouldn't be surprised if the thing has more forward firepower than a Deimos, myself.
-
In Steadfast, the production of the Aeolus resumed before the introduction of the Alcyone simply because the Aeolus is a valid cruiser(we mention the defense of the Bastion).
The entry of the Aeolus underestimates it...geez, it has two frontal SGreens!
I wouldn't be surprised if the thing has more forward firepower than a Deimos, myself.
Those two frontal SGreens have the nasty habit of being shot off.
-
In Steadfast, the production of the Aeolus resumed before the introduction of the Alcyone simply because the Aeolus is a valid cruiser(we mention the defense of the Bastion).
The entry of the Aeolus underestimates it...geez, it has two frontal SGreens!
I wouldn't be surprised if the thing has more forward firepower than a Deimos, myself.
Those two frontal SGreens have the nasty habit of being shot off.
But the flak guns have a nasty habit of shooting off your wingmates. I wouldn't dare go after an Aeolus without a few wingmen or some trebs or stiletto ii's. I know the flak will likely get the best of me...
The best weapon PERIOD is the swarms of fighters... you could take out a Sathanas with about 50 bombers and a complete fighter escort.
I would have liked to see the GTVA engage other Sathanas with bombers primarily, then jump in a destroyer to damage it badly... not much the Sath can do when disabled and disarmed by 50+ bombers and 50+ fighters.
-
Really, though...
How many pilots, fighters, and bombers does the GTVA have?
How many can it warp to a needed location within a few hours?
2000? Imagine that. Now imagine the Shivan response. BOE, but I think it'd still be fun...
-
Cruisers are useful strike ships. If it were up to me i'd keep the leviathen, and the aeolus especially. Cruisers as weak as a fenris and aten are worthless, and can't stand up to anything or pump out good firepower.
-
Really, though...
How many pilots, fighters, and bombers does the GTVA have?
How many can it warp to a needed location within a few hours?
2000? Imagine that. Now imagine the Shivan response. BOE, but I think it'd still be fun...
The GTVA has approximately 6720, assuming 2 destroyers per fleet with 120 fighters each... but you're point still stands.
-
The GTVA had about 3 weeks to send most of its fleet to Capella; the first Sathanas is spotted on Nov11, destroyed Nov15, and Capella goes supernovae on Nov30. The GTVA definitely had the time to send most of its (even weakened) fleets; at least half of each fleet would make for a damn-big battle with simply Terran ships. The Vasudans have many more ships....
I, for one, know that a single Destroyer worth of fighters and bombers could take out a Sathanas; true the Sath has many more fighters, but the Shivans don't seem to be ready to send out 120+ fighters to counter the Terran and Vasudan strike. They send out only a few wings when their main beams are being destroyed... how can you expect them to have 120+ ships ready in 2 minutes? Besides... jump in about 15 wings of fighters and 15 wings of bombers. The fighters disarm the Sathanas while the bombers disable it. Keep about 5 wings of fighters around the Sath's fighterbay and they can't get any real number of fighters to counter the attack. The best thing they could do is to run... but then you have at least 60 bombs hitting you, 90% of the ones that hit are aimed at various engines. I don't care if the Sath has 350+k HP to its engines; I was able to have the Big C (with much better fighter coverage, mind you!) disabled, disarmed, and without any functioning subsystems in about 10 minutes. First orders were to have all fighters disarm it and all bombers disable it. It happened very quickly (though confusing with so many similar letters of the Greek Alphabet). We had it down to 15% hull in 6 hours. One quarter of the force died in the actual attack, the other three quarters (save Alpha 1) killed themselves by colliding.
-
Quite different from the battle between the Sathanas and the Colossus I want to design for "Colossus".
-
The GTVA had about 3 weeks to send most of its fleet to Capella; the first Sathanas is spotted on Nov11, destroyed Nov15, and Capella goes supernovae on Nov30.
And from what source did you derive this information?
-
Really, though...
How many pilots, fighters, and bombers does the GTVA have?
How many can it warp to a needed location within a few hours?
2000? Imagine that. Now imagine the Shivan response. BOE, but I think it'd still be fun...
*cough*
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35794.0.html
-
No, no... you want them organized into wings, waves... like WWII. Basically the same concept as that.
-
Hmmm, yeah, that doesn't seem to be something the gtva is good at doing. Yes they release all the tactical wings of fighters and bombers they need, but they release them all at once, which is not a good idea. Release them in turns, such as fighters first, open a line for the bombers, then unleash bombers. No gtva is all like ok, all tactical wings out at once. Then all of the bombers get dessimated while the fighters were still opening up a line for the bombers. Reminds me of that mission where you have to escort two transports and take out the anvil.
-
The GTVA had about 3 weeks to send most of its fleet to Capella; the first Sathanas is spotted on Nov11, destroyed Nov15, and Capella goes supernovae on Nov30.
And from what source did you derive this information?
Freespace Wiki... it should be fairly accurate too...
Still, they continued the evacuation of Capella even past the destruction of the Sathanas; Command knew that something worse could happen; there could be another Sathanas (or 80-100, like was stated later on) so they continued to leave Capella.
-
The GTVA had about 3 weeks to send most of its fleet to Capella; the first Sathanas is spotted on Nov11, destroyed Nov15, and Capella goes supernovae on Nov30.
And from what source did you derive this information?
Freespace Wiki... it should be fairly accurate too...
Still, they continued the evacuation of Capella even past the destruction of the Sathanas; Command knew that something worse could happen; there could be another Sathanas (or 80-100, like was stated later on) so they continued to leave Capella.
That surely shouldn't be in there; AFAIK there is no canon date given to any even in FS2.
-
It's probably taken from Su-tehp's old timeline, which was entirely a fanmade extrapolation. Some of the FREDZone missions needed more specific dates than what was given in the campaign. It should definitely not be on the wiki though.
-
Is there a fan sub-section of the wiki?
-
Go to The Universe and then The Timeline.
Anyways... it should be about 2 weeks at least between seeing the first Sath and the Capellan Supernovae.
-
It's probably taken from Su-tehp's old timeline, which was entirely a fanmade extrapolation. Some of the FREDZone missions needed more specific dates than what was given in the campaign. It should definitely not be on the wiki though.
All of that was approved by V unfortunately. It was why I quit working on all my missions back then. If they didn't meet that time line they were not even to be considered for validation. Of course going by those guidelines most of V's missions weren't valid but that's the way it was.