[The E]

One thing you are ignoring, IronForge, is that jump drives have recharge times. If you jump out at the first sign of an enemy, chances are that that enemy can track your jump and vector his other craft to intercept you. You do not want to be caught in a little carrier with no anticap firepower with your drives down.
Oh, sure, you can sortie a CAP, but if you get shock-jumped by a couple of beam platforms (meaning, anything mounting a few anticap beams), the question becomes whether your CAP and your reinforcements will be enough to save your bacon before your carrier gets all asplodey. A hybrid ship (AKA The Battlestar) has the ability to take down a few heavy beam platforms using her onboard weapons, which is arguably faster than using a bomber wing to do the same. If you can use both at the same time, why, that would be a mighty fine idea, would it not?

[Scotty]

Flaks, Blobs and AAA are not effective vs cruiser-sized or larger targets (anything mounting big beams, really). Putting at least minimal amounts of anti-capital firepower on your carrier (aside from the fighter wing) is the prudent thing to do.

I told you. They are not to hit other cruiser sized ships. The second a cruiser appears to be warping in, WARP OUT. These are to destroy incoming bombers before they can deal too much damage. We've seen the hecate do its thing, this won't make things any worse.

But then what happens when it gets ambushed?  Sit there and wait to die while its drives recharge?  Slap a beam on it to take care of those really annoying cruisers that won't go away, and you won't have that kind of problem.

[QuantumDelta]

IF....

Jump drives have recharge rates on them.
Initiate combat with a feint, track through subspace deploy real strike force (needn't even be much more than something to take out all it's engines (4 strike bombers, or even a few skilled fighter pilots) and 2 corvettes and it's dead and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
The moment your carrier needs a destroyer for backup, the carrier concept is pointless.

[ChronoReverse]

What about simply having a sub-subspace drive in addition to the main one?  A smaller and simpler one for only intra-system jumps.  With two quick jumps, the idea of sending other forces to deal with said carrier loses meaning since it'd be gone and untrackable.

Nevertheless, until the very end of Freespace 2, where strike craft became more deadly than corvettes due to the Trebuchet and Maxim, a carrier didn't really have any place considering the capabilities of the existing ships.  The only time a carrier makes sense is when strike craft are far more effective than capships but beams says no to that =)

[el_magnifico]

What about simply having a sub-subspace drive in addition to the main one?  A smaller and simpler one for only intra-system jumps.  With two quick jumps, the idea of sending other forces to deal with said carrier loses meaning since it'd be gone and untrackable.

I was just about to post exactly that, as an option to make this idea viable.

[ChronoReverse]

Ultimately still pointless though since making a great big target that's good at running away seems a rather poor use of resources

However, in a way, throughout FS1, destroyers were pretty much relegated to lightly armed carrier duty.  The advent of the Avenger and shielding meant strikecraft were more effective at killing cruisers than destroyers were.  And then there was the Lucifer which destroyers posed zero threat to

[el_magnifico]

By the way:

Well allright, calm down everyone, hows this.

I'm calmed. I believe you're wrong, but this is a video game.
I've been wrong on so many things that actually mattered (and that's approximately a third of the times that I'll be wrong in the future at the current rate).

Who the hell needs three carriers? Brazil is an emerging world power with a lot of sea to guard and they can barely maintain one!

[Scotty]

There are four in that picture.  Only two are Nimitzes, it looks like.

The U.S. has eleven IIRC.

[The E]

It's a NATO maneuver. Two American carriers, one British one (probably either Illustrious or Ark Royal, Invincible being decommissioned), and the french Charles de Gaulle. So, there are actually four carriers in that pic .

EDIT: Ninja'ed

[el_magnifico]

The U.S. has eleven IIRC.

Are you planning on waging another world war or something? (and even then...)
Maintaining 11 carriers is just an overkill. I really doubt you need that many. Even for psychological warfare, only 6 or 7 would suffice.

EDIT: And wikipedia states you're building yet another one...

So, there are actually four carriers in that pic .

Oops! Sorry, I'm visually impaired.

[Thaeris]

I like that pic...



...And man... After FS, those ships just look tiny! 

[Scotty]

The U.S. has eleven IIRC.

Are you planning on waging another world war or something? (and even then...)
Maintaining 11 carriers is just an overkill. I really doubt you need that many. Even for psychological warfare, only 6 or 7 would suffice.

The U.S. has more tonnage in combat ships than the next highest 13 countries.  Carriers aren't the only part (and according to the wiki, there's one under construction as well).

[el_magnifico]

The U.S. has eleven IIRC.

Are you planning on waging another world war or something? (and even then...)
Maintaining 11 carriers is just an overkill. I really doubt you need that many. Even for psychological warfare, only 6 or 7 would suffice.

The U.S. has more tonnage in combat ships than the next highest 13 countries.  Carriers aren't the only part (and according to the wiki, there's one under construction as well).

Oops! You posted while I was editing my own post.

[Gamma_Draconis]

I don't think fleet formations work well in the FS universe.

1) Clusters of ships are vulnerable to bombs. Even if the bombs don't land near the intended target, the explosion has a fairly decent chance of hitting other ships in the formation.

2) Depending on Carrier ships for the bulk of your fighters does limit your fighting capabilities. A carrier and an optimized destroyer would only be able to conduct strikecraft operations at one area, whereas two destroyers would be able to conduct strikecraft operations at two areas. I suppose an optimized destroyer would be a valuable asset if you're looking to dominate in ship-to-ship engagements, but it would still need a decent fighter screen from a nearby carrier if it's to launch offense operations. The defensive squadron it carries is simply not enough to actually attack with.

3) Given how many active operations there are, it seems unlikely that Command (Vasudan, Terran, Neo-Terran, Hammer of Light, or even the Shivans) would have the resources to form a large fleet. Chances are, cruisiers and corvettes will be too busy launching strikes or defending against strikes. Sure, if you gather a large fleet, you can wipe the floor against a single target, but then you've just left all your own assets vulnerable to enemy strikes.

[Scotty]

1) Clusters of ships are vulnerable to bombs. Even if the bombs don't land near the intended target, the explosion has a fairly decent chance of hitting other ships in the formation.

I think you overestimate the power of bomb shockwaves, even if they hit, which is much less likely with a higher volume of fire to intercept them.  Look at the mission where you escort the Bastion to the node to seal it off.  Three Aeolus cruisers, all damaged below 20% hull integrity, along with three wings of fighters successfully defend against 60+ enemy fighters and bombers.  The weight of fire added by the three Aeolus greatly outweighs the risk, even if bomb shockwaves were that effective against ships.

2) Depending on Carrier ships for the bulk of your fighters does limit your fighting capabilities. A carrier and an optimized destroyer would only be able to conduct strikecraft operations at one area, whereas two destroyers would be able to conduct strikecraft operations at two areas. I suppose an optimized destroyer would be a valuable asset if you're looking to dominate in ship-to-ship engagements, but it would still need a decent fighter screen from a nearby carrier if it's to launch offense operations. The defensive squadron it carries is simply not enough to actually attack with.

No argument.

3) Given how many active operations there are, it seems unlikely that Command (Vasudan, Terran, Neo-Terran, Hammer of Light, or even the Shivans) would have the resources to form a large fleet. Chances are, cruisiers and corvettes will be too busy launching strikes or defending against strikes. Sure, if you gather a large fleet, you can wipe the floor against a single target, but then you've just left all your own assets vulnerable to enemy strikes.

Might have a point.  However, we only ever see one or two GTVA fleets, and both of those always in high risk theaters and engagements, it might be going a little far to say fleets formations would be ineffective.  Look at the Blue Planet campaign as a way to use fleet formations to devastating effect.  You destroy, what, eight Shivan destroyers in the space of six missions, five of which in one mission?  That speaks heavily to using fleets to mass firepower and defense.

[Paladin327]

if im getting the idea correctly, you're propossing a 2 kilometer long ship, which probably costs 10's of billions of dollars to make, who's sole purpose to carry all the fighters of the fleet, and is designed to run when the enemy sorties anything bigger than a bomber against it? that just seems like a bad idea tactically. therewill be times when a friendly destroyer gets ambushed. it will take some time for a carrier, which may be in another system entirely, to launch fighters to protect the destroyer which has a minimal antifighter armament and no fighters? it is also not a good idea to make 2 new ships to do the job of 1 ship of the same size already does for half the price of the two new ships. all you have to do, is give the orion some more anti-fighter guns and our problem is solved.

[ChronoReverse]

I dunno if you need something 2km long to carry a significant complement of fighters and armament.  However, in the end it's a question of effectiveness and it's not particularly hard to at least have some beams on a "carrier".  That's pretty much what a Hecate is and I doubt there'd be a huge savings in removing the beams.

[Paladin327]

I dunno if you need something 2km long to carry a significant complement of fighters and armament.  However, in the end it's a question of effectiveness and it's not particularly hard to at least have some beams on a "carrier".  That's pretty much what a Hecate is and I doubt there'd be a huge savings in removing the beams.

one of the main points in this thread is "take off the hecate's anti-capital argument and put it on the orion. next, make the hecate's hanger bigger" the hecate is 2km-ish long

[ChronoReverse]

Well, I'm just saying that there's plenty of room already lol.

[IronForge]

Well, so you're saying you like them just how they are now?
Thing is, you keep emphasizing that a few beam turrets on the carrier will let it fight. But it will NOT save its sorry butt. If the carrier really gets ambushed, with or without beams, it is going DOWN. There is no way a hybrid ship can stand up to heavily armored hard hitting destroyers.

However, what was the carrier doing alone? What about its escort?

Point is, carrier warps out at the slightest sign of trouble. MEANWHILE support fleet warps with carrier. Enemy will have to wait for warp drive to recharge, giving you time to recall the destroyer fleet.
And if the enemy sends ANOTHER fleet to wipe out carrier, the carrier's support will be able to defend until the destroyer group can arrive. And it can scramble fighters. Never underestimate a couple wings of bombers going for your anti capital beams.

Point is, we need some specialized destroyers. Imagine having a destroyer with 2x pwnage power.

Yes, having anti cap weapons on carriers is nice. However, you can't have everything. So which would you prefer. 2 beam cannons or a dozen extra wings.
Thing is, you will likely not have a chance to fire the anti cap weapons. You should be running. Because thing is, a carrier will still not survive.

And the carrier isn't the main point actually. Its the destroyers. We want the destroyers to hit hard, and there is no reason why the fighters can't be based elsewhere. Move the 2 beams from carrier to destroyer, move the hangars from destroyer to carrier. There is a reason why modern aircraft carriers are defended only by a few flaks and we use another ship for heavy artillery.

I mean, you gotta admit there is SOME merit in this plan...