[ChronoReverse]

@kara

You may be right, but that still doesn't imply that carrier would have to be larger than a destroyer.  That alone means that if you need two destroyers to kill the carrier, you'd be on the the short end of the stick.

Additionally, the carrier wouldn't need as many/large reactors since it doesn't have to power the beams.  I've discounted double-jumps already so the engine recharge rate simply has to be equal to a destroyers.  Servicing and launching fighters may require energy, but all the destroyers are perfectly capable of launching fighters while firing the beams.



In any case, I've already said multiple times that destroyers would still be needed, just that they'd lose the hangar bay (which takes a lot of room) and pack a more beam weapons (which you seem to think don't take up a lot of room), more armor and most importantly an extra reactor to power the beams.

Voila, you have a destroyer that has more beams that fire quicker.


Supplement it with a carrier that's capable of launching fighters like there's no tomorrow and you'd have the amazing duo.  One slugs it out while the other launches a swarm to quickly disable beam turrets so that the other doesn't get blown up under the combined firepower of two destroyers.

[TrashMan]

1. Dedicated Carrier Groups and DEstroyer groups have both pros and con's, but since today's military focuses on the first, they must be doing that for a good reason..

2. Carrier are built to carry fighters/bombers and a Carrier of a same size as a Destroyer would carry more fighters...It would have less plating and weapons tough..

3. Toda'ys carriers are pratty well armed I must say, and can fare for themselvs , even if that's NOT advisable.

4. In lot of posts I see people debating like the carriers hace no anti-cap weapons at all!? They would have something (even if it's only 1-2 SGreen). So to return to the example 3 Destroyers vs. 2 carrier and 4 corvettes.... the carriers would win...

If the Destroyer take on the Carriers first, the Corvettes would pound them good all that time..not to mention the beams on the carriers themselves and theri fighter/bombers (Helios are killers)

If the Destroyers take on the Corvettes firts, then the Carriers would lunch a supperior fighternumber and all that time the destroyers would still be under fire..

The destroyers would loose in 80% of the cases I wager...

5. We don't know the fuel requirements for the fighters(as far as we know, their reactor could last for months... remember Kappa 3?), so we cannot talk about fuel taking up tons of space....

6. Destroyers are carrier-battleship hybrids, thus they don't either have the speed and fightercapacity of a carrier, nor the armour and firepower of a batleship, but are well-rounded and effective.

7. Carriers are usualy fast... todays carriers reach about 35 knots (some battleship can allso go this fast, alltough it is rare).

8. Destroyers don't need more hull, they need better ani-fighter weapons. I charge a Ravana in a HercII and laugh where I should feel dread.

9. While I think that havng battleship and Carriers is a more powerfull combination than having destroyers, one can't say that they suck. Due to their jack-of-all-trades build, they are usefull. A smart miitary would have all - carriers, battleship AND destroyers..

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ChronoReverse
You may be right, but that still doesn't imply that carrier would have to be larger than a destroyer.  That alone means that if you need two destroyers to kill the carrier, you'd be on the the short end of the stick.

I keep saying it again and again. You have to include the tonnage of the support ships you are including in the carrier fleet.  You're saying that a carrier needs an escort to protect it - if said escort has to go with the carrier everywhere the carrier goes to protect it from being toasted by enemy capships -  the tonnage of the escort HAS to be included when you're making any comparison.  

Let me put it this way. Suppose you have two planets at war which have equal production facilities.

Planet A produces carriers and their surrounding fleet.
Planet B produces destroyers.

 It's obvious that planet B would complete more destroyers than Planet A because Planet A has to devote some of their production capabilities to producing cruisers, corvettes and even this new battleship class you keep suggesting (i.e the cut down destroyers).

You're then turning around and telling me that to make a fair comparison of the strengths of the destroyer and carrier classes Planet B would only send in 1 destroyer for every carrier fleet Planet  A sent in even though the carrier is allowed to bring its entire group with it?  That's patent nonsense.  If Planet B produces 2 destroyers for every carrier it will have 2 destroyers to kill every carrier if it needs them.  There is no short end of the stick here. I'm mearly being fair.

Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Additionally, the carrier wouldn't need as many/large reactors since it doesn't have to power the beams.  I've discounted double-jumps already so the engine recharge rate simply has to be equal to a destroyers.  Servicing and launching fighters may require energy, but all the destroyers are perfectly capable of launching fighters while firing the beams.

Again we get to another point I dispute with you.
 First we don't know what percentage of a ships reactor power is needed for beams. It could be a relatively tiny percent in comparison with what they need to work their jump engines. In that case both the destroyer and the carrier would both have to have large and powerful reactors.
 Secondly a destroyers reactors are not necessarily larger or more massive than a carriers. Don't believe me? Well the Orion and Typhon were both capable of being retrofitted with beams without the need to make them any larger. Hell even the tiny Fenris could be upgraded with beams.
 Maybe the more powerful reactors a destroyer needs are more expensive than the ones on a carrier but there is no evidence whatsoever that they are larger.  In fact there is evidence that the GTVA has made progress in making more powerful reactors smaller.

Originally posted by ChronoReverse
In any case, I've already said multiple times that destroyers would still be needed, just that they'd lose the hangar bay (which takes a lot of room) and pack a more beam weapons (which you seem to think don't take up a lot of room), more armor and most importantly an extra reactor to power the beams.

Voila, you have a destroyer that has more beams that fire quicker.

Supplement it with a carrier that's capable of launching fighters like there's no tomorrow and you'd have the amazing duo.  One slugs it out while the other launches a swarm to quickly disable beam turrets so that the other doesn't get blown up under the combined firepower of two destroyers.

Again dependant on the size of the carrier. Remember that two destroyers can launch twice as quickly. They might be able to hold of the enemy fighter for quite a while.  If they take down either ship the remaining one is left with a huge problem. If the battleship goes down first they can concentrate beam fire on the carrier which won't have much firepower to retaliate with.  If they take the carrier down first they can simply jump out and take out the battleship using bombers against the now unsupported battleship.

The other problem is that the carrier group lacks versatility. The battleship has to remain with the carrier and the carrier has to remain away from combat. With two destroyers you can split them up and have them go after seperate targets. With a carrier the battleship must always stay near the carrier or risk it being jumped.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
1. Dedicated Carrier Groups and DEstroyer groups have both pros and con's, but since today's military focuses on the first, they must be doing that for a good reason..

Todays military doesn't have to worry about enemy ships teleporting in unexpectedly.

Originally posted by TrashMan
[B9. While I think that havng battleship and Carriers is a more powerfull combination than having destroyers, one can't say that they suck. Due to their jack-of-all-trades build, they are usefull. A smart miitary would have all - carriers, battleship AND destroyers.. [/B]

Well I disagree with you over which is more powerful on a ton for ton basis I fully agree with your last statement.

[Killfrenzy]

Why don't we leave Alpha 1 out of this?

[Havock]

it would be usufull though to have a small, corvette sized ships specifically designed as a mini-carrier.

they carry enough fighetrs to psoe a threat, and are not as cumbersome as large carriers, they can get out of troublespots easily.

[Jal-18]

It makes me cringe to see how many people use the excuse: "well, everyone else does it, so this is a fact and I'm right."

[Eishtmo]

Okay, my turn to dive into this.

Destroyers and carrier groups are, for all practical purposes, equal in strength and ability to project power.  So the question we should be asking is why did the species in FS begin using destroyers and all but abandoned carrier groups?  For the Shivans, it's probably a simple issue of "because they can" given their numbers.  The Vasudans probably did it because the GTA did it (the Typhon came after the Orion).  So why did the GTA do it?

I think it's because the Orion WASN'T designed to replace carrier groups.

Okay, I know that sounds strange, but it makes sense if you think about it.  The Galactic Terran Alliance was an originzation tasked with defending the human race and exploration of space.  We can assume (reasonably) that the GTA was formed before the Vasudans entered the equation, and if so, then who would the GTA defend against?  Pirates, criminals, the occasional errant asteroid, that's about it.  So the carrier group makes more sense here as it's more flexible when dealing with this kind of enemy.

Again, reasonably, we can assume that the Orion was built and or designed prior to the discovery of the Vasudans (there is no real canon evidence for this, I might add, but it will seem reasonable in a moment), so why would they build it?  Well, the Orion is a very big ship, capable of carrying a lot of supplies for very long duration voyages.  It's more than capable of defending itself, has giant hanger bays for fighters and other small craft, and thus it seems to me that it's mission was to explore, the second half of the GTA's mission.

It's your spearhead, a giant ship going out into the unknown, where any number of dangers might exist.  Perhaps a new race whom you'll want to impress, or asteroids that cloud the node, or something really unpleasent that wishes to destroy the ship.  An Orion is much more capable of protecting itself and surviving a long journey against just about anything than a flimsy carrier and it's battle group in these situations.

The Orion changes from this exploration role to that of a main capital ship simply by the fact that the bulk of the 14 Year War is fought in places far from supply, remote locations that were likely only found because of the war itself (this, btw, is a true statement, most of the war was fought not in Vega and Antares but in the same places as FS2, Epsilon Pegsi, Capella, etc.  See CB_starmap02.ani for the proof).  As time goes on, and admirals cut their teeth on destroyer tactics, they start using them more and more, finding them much more effective (whether true or not) than their carrier group counterparts.

It is in this way that the destroyer takes over.  It's really no different than what happened in WWII.  Before the war, admirals were dedicated to the battleship, but when they were forced to use carriers to fight the war (due to Pearl Harbor), they began finding new, more effective ways to fight a war at sea.  Thus the battleship was regulated to shore bombardments and the carrier became the jewel.  The destroyer came up the same way.

[karajorma]

Makes good sense Eishtmo.  Another factor is the one I suggested that unlike a carrier ground destroyer fleets can split up. That would be very useful if your main task is taking on pirates etc because sending in an entire carrier fleet seems a little bit like overkill.

[TrashMan]

One thing people forget is that Carriers would be able to launh fighter MUCH faster than destroyers. Every carrier I made has 4 fighterbays+ 1 large hangarbay (compared to 1 fighterbay of the Orion/Hecate, it can launch 5-6 times more fighters/bombers in the same amount of time, and that is very dangerous, since even if the carrier is destroyed, the fighter/bombers will fight on - and let's not forget that a single heavy bomber wing can take out a destroyer)

Secondly, destroyers would probably be more expensive than carriers, since they have greater armour and firepower, while retaining a fighter/bomber complement(alltough smaller).

I agree that Destroyer are better exploartion vessels (since they would go alone), but carriers aren't exactly pushovers either...sonce they carry less anti-cap weaponry and armour, they would probably have a good anti-fighter defense.

[StratComm]

Yeah, that's been said, what, 20 times already?  I agree with Eishtmo wholeheartedly.

[Ghostavo]

Secondly, destroyers would probably be more expensive than carriers, since they have greater armour and firepower, while retaining a fighter/bomber complement(alltough smaller).

Actually... carriers would cost a lot more... unless you want them to fight without fighters and bomber!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
One thing people forget is that Carriers would be able to launh fighter MUCH faster than destroyers. Every carrier I made has 4 fighterbays+ 1 large hangarbay (compared to 1 fighterbay of the Orion/Hecate, it can launch 5-6 times more fighters/bombers in the same amount of time, and that is very dangerous, since even if the carrier is destroyed, the fighter/bombers will fight on - and let's not forget that a single heavy bomber wing can take out a destroyer)

Secondly, destroyers would probably be more expensive than carriers, since they have greater armour and firepower, while retaining a fighter/bomber complement(alltough smaller).

I agree that Destroyer are better exploartion vessels (since they would go alone), but carriers aren't exactly pushovers either...sonce they carry less anti-cap weaponry and armour, they would probably have a good anti-fighter defense.

Yeah, but i could just as easily make a corvette class with 8 small fighterbays, it wouldn't make corvettes better than destroyers.

[TrashMan]

The cost of fighter is not counted in! Not for the carrier, not for the destroyer.

If side A has 20 Destroyers and 20000 fighters and side B 20 carriers and 20000 fighters? They spend equal ammount of resources on the production of fighters, but the destroyers would cost more..
The fact remains that side A would be able to carry only approx.3000 fighters to battle, and side B 4000-5000 while the others would remain behind.
Of course, the maintainence cost of the ships is in question, since we do not know how difficult is to mantain beam cannons/armour compared to fighters, but the crew cost would definatley be higher for the Carrier... (again, fighter pilots not included)

[Jal-18]

TrashMan, if you're going to argue logistics, don't contradict yourself in the same post.  

If you're going to make a point that destroyers cost more to build, and then turn around and say that the maintenance on a carrier is more costly, you've negated your own point very neatly.  

I have to say I support the destroyer side on this.  It is my opinion that a destroyer is a much more offensive weapon then a carrier.  All the arguements I've seen have the carrier running away at the first sign of trouble and launching strikes at a distance.  A smart enemy wil force the carriers to jump out of the theater of operations long enough for them to complete a goal. (ie, neutralizing a planet) A destroyer can charge right into the thick of battle and cause serious complications for the enemy fleet.  While the strike craft capacity of a destroyer is less then that of a carrier, it mounts heavy beams that can deal an equivalent amount of damage in a shorter amount of time then a reasonably sized bomber wing could.  

Also notice the trend of destroyer construction in the GTVA and the consequence of that trend.  Specifically, compare the Orion and Hecate.  The Orion is a more powerful anti-capital ship weapon then the Hecate at the expense of fighters and anti-fighter armament.  The Hecate is more geared towards fending off large groups of fighters while launching large numbers of them in return.  

It is my opinion that the Hecate represents the first step in the ladder towards carrier construction.  It houses more fighter/bomber craft then the Orion, and has the weaponry to defend against a similiar type of ship.  As I said before, this comes at the expense of anti-capital weaponry.

The differances in the two ships can be seen in how they are used offensively.  Orions are time and again seen jumping into hot battle areas and engageing the Shivan/ NTF forces head on.  I can't recall a single time in the main campaign when a Hecate engaged another destroyer in an offensive mission.  (The Aquitaine engaging the Moloch corvette in one of the escort missions was self defense against a smaller ship)  Instead, the Aquitaine acted as a mobile fighter base, launching strikes against enemy forces in the system from far away.  

From my expieriences, the destroyer is a much more effecient and centralised offensive weapon then a carrier.  What it lacks in fighter complement and fighter defense, it makes up for with the firepower to destroy enemy capital ships faster and at less risk then a bomber squadron.  The destroyer is an individualised unit of warfare, self-reliant and capable of carrying out it's assigned task.  The carrier is a weapon that relies on others to defend it as it hangs back and launches strikes.  Against the Shivans, I'll take the Orion.

[TrashMan]

Building cost and maintainence cost are two different things....
Don't mix them together.

Carriers are weaker than destroyer but are not defensless. They allso have teeth.

And as for another scenario - In the same system, but on opposite sides, you have a a carrier group(2 carriers, 4 corvettes) and a destroyer group (3-4 destroyers).
---------
Carriers can launch a massive fighter/bomber force at the destroyers (FS2 fighters have inter-system jump drives). They will probably outnumber the destroyer fighter by AT LEAST 2 to 1. Destroyers themselves are slow and they can't use their anti-fighter weaponry to protect eachother, which means that evry destroyer in the group is defended only by it's own guns and fightercover. The fightercover will be ripped to shreads fast, and the bombers will take out the destoyers one by one. It the case the destroyers are really a tough nut to crack, two corvettes can jump later in, or even the whole task force.

Now those destroyers could jump out to the carriers position, but they couldn't do it instantly and would be damaged, if not destroyed by then. (Think what 4 wings of Ursas with Helios bombs can do to a destroyer). Even then, the carrier would still be defended by the corvettes, their escort fighters/bombers (the few that remained) and their own guns (not to mention that their fighters can allways jump back).
--------
If the destroyer group would attack, the Corvettes would tie them up long enough for carrier to build up fighter superiority (since carriers can lauch fighter MUCH faster than destroyers). Even if the carriers are destroyed, their bombers/fighters (and corvettes, in case the carriers were attacked first) would still be powerfull enough to finish off the destroyers.
----

Destroyers can use the same tactics (launch all fighters first, then jump) when attacking carriers, but they culd never achive fighter superiority (since there are ALLWAYS many fighters guarding carriers), but they COULD tie them up long enough to take out the carriers. That would stll leave them, damaged by now, against corvettes and remaining fighters/bombers..

It's close, but I think a carrier group has better chances of winning with fewer losses....(what are 20 fighters compared to 15000 of ONE destroyer?)

[aldo_14]

Carriers have to be well balanced if you're going to introduce them into FS2.  Unless you increase thier size (and reduce their numbers as a consequnce), you can;t justify a carrier as superior.

Now, we have no definition of what a carrier is, beyond the description of the Orion as being one.

By nature, a carrier is a dedicated fighter/bomber carrying vessel.  This implies that, in order to be different, it must have more internal space and power devoted to this task.  

This means that either
a/ it's the size of a destroyer with sacrifices to armour, power and weaponry to accommodate these extra ships and supplies.
or
b/ it's much larger than, but equivalently armoured and armed to,  a destroyer.
(or rather, the 2 most likely cases to make a fair comparison).

If you look at FS2, all the ships are balanced more or less based on size and role - i.e. in the general case there are no disproportionately powerful ships.  If you want to make a carrier properly, you need to observe this rule.

[Ghostavo]

TrashMan... about your building cost... why build fighters if they are not going to be used? If you focus on a Carrier fleet of course you are going to build more fighters and bombers!!! You can't make up the same number of fighters and bombers for the destroyers!!!!

As for Scenarios...
-------------------------------
A destroyer group jumps on a carrier group (all fighter/bombers in the destroyer group were launched previously!!!) destroyers blow fleet apart, the end!! (simplistic isn't it? )
-------------------------------

This is just to say that atackers always have superiority and that scenarios are too dependant on situation at hand.

[Jal-18]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Now, we have no definition of what a carrier is, beyond the description of the Orion as being one.

Orions have never been described as carriers  If you mean this line from the Tech Room:

The Orion's cavernous hanger bays easily accommodate more than two dozen fighter or bomber wings.

That does not make the Orion a carrier or imply it is one.  I could say of a battleship "...the Yamato carried an unusually large number of aircraft, with four scout planes situated aft of number three turret."  No one would be foolish enough to classify a Yamato as a carrier, right?

[Singh]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Building cost and maintainence cost are two different things....
Don't mix them together.

Carriers are weaker than destroyer but are not defensless. They allso have teeth.

And as for another scenario - In the same system, but on opposite sides, you have a a carrier group(2 carriers, 4 corvettes) and a destroyer group (3-4 destroyers).
---------
Carriers can launch a massive fighter/bomber force at the destroyers (FS2 fighters have inter-system jump drives). They will probably outnumber the destroyer fighter by AT LEAST 2 to 1. Destroyers themselves are slow and they can't use their anti-fighter weaponry to protect eachother, which means that evry destroyer in the group is defended only by it's own guns and fightercover. The fightercover will be ripped to shreads fast, and the bombers will take out the destoyers one by one. It the case the destroyers are really a tough nut to crack, two corvettes can jump later in, or even the whole task force.

Now those destroyers could jump out to the carriers position, but they couldn't do it instantly and would be damaged, if not destroyed by then. (Think what 4 wings of Ursas with Helios bombs can do to a destroyer). Even then, the carrier would still be defended by the corvettes, their escort fighters/bombers (the few that remained) and their own guns (not to mention that their fighters can allways jump back).
--------
If the destroyer group would attack, the Corvettes would tie them up long enough for carrier to build up fighter superiority (since carriers can lauch fighter MUCH faster than destroyers). Even if the carriers are destroyed, their bombers/fighters (and corvettes, in case the carriers were attacked first) would still be powerfull enough to finish off the destroyers.
----

Destroyers can use the same tactics (launch all fighters first, then jump) when attacking carriers, but they culd never achive fighter superiority (since there are ALLWAYS many fighters guarding carriers), but they COULD tie them up long enough to take out the carriers. That would stll leave them, damaged by now, against corvettes and remaining fighters/bombers..

It's close, but I think a carrier group has better chances of winning with fewer losses....(what are 20 fighters compared to 15000 of ONE destroyer?)

You forget....Destroyers always have cruiser and corvette escorts of there own....especially to deal with other fighters. And those 4 wings of ursas will be reduced to 1 by enemy fighters easier than you may think......