It's so ridiculous battleship is the most powerful naval unit in the game. Battleships might have been the naval icon of might and power in the first world war, but in WWII its military value was already diminished with the extensive use of aircraft carriers and submarines.

Generals and military strategist now dismissed battleships as being too vulnerable to small crafts, sea mines and now submarines and missiles. Battlesships are not worth it in terms of cost/efficiency ratio when compared to aircraft carriers.

Today, no battleships are produced by any nation. Battleships no longer serve any navy.

In March 2006 USA officially took off battleships on its Naval Vessels Register as no battleships will serve the US navy.

It makes you wonder if the producers of CIV IV has any idea about naval warfare.

In contrast, I strongly think that aircraft carriers should be a lot more powerful. It should be able to carry at least 5 jet fighters/stealth bombers and fighters and bombers can actually destroy units, but they can't take over a city.

This would make naval warfare much more realistic.

this is why battleships upgrade to missile cruisers in BTS. Which is easily the most powerful naval unit.
And carriers do not carry bombers IRL. Only fighter-bombers and fighters which is quite accurately represented.

this is why battleships upgrade to missile cruisers in BTS. Which is easily the most powerful naval unit.
And carriers do not carry bombers IRL. Only fighter-bombers and fighters which is quite accurately represented.

They do.

Just to give you an example.

The B29 superfortresses were carried on carriers to bomb Japan during WWII.

Missile cruisers.....hmmm, reminds me of the ones from Red Alert 2.

Yeah should be time I get the expansions. Can't wait to build the Great Walls :)

Carriers NEVER carried B29s. During the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo a US carrier (Wasp, I believe) deployed B25 Mitchell twin-engine medium bombers on a one way mission (they were to bail out of their aricraft over China and hope ChiNat forces would find them).

Here's an idea: with Rocketry and Fission, carriers can be upgraded to Modern Carriers with +1 movement, +5 strength, +2 aircraft, and +10% vs enemy air.

Carriers NEVER carried B29s. During the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo a US carrier (Wasp, I believe) deployed B25 Mitchell twin-engine medium bombers on a one way mission (they were to bail out of their aricraft over China and hope ChiNat forces would find them).


The Doolittle Raid carried the B-25B Bomber off of the USS Hornet. The B-25B had a maximum takeoff weight of about 29,300 lbs (It had to weigh less to take off the Hornet. )

Modern Carrier Fighters now weigh more that that. Not only can they take off with these weights, they can land with them too.

F-14D-Max Take Off Weight- 43,600 lb
F-18C-Max Take Off Weight- 51,900 lb
F-18E-Max Take Off Weight- 66,000 lb

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/misc-42/doolt-a.htm

Carriers NEVER carried B29s. During the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo a US carrier (Wasp, I believe) deployed B25 Mitchell twin-engine medium bombers on a one way mission (they were to bail out of their aricraft over China and hope ChiNat forces would find them).

Here's an idea: with Rocketry and Fission, carriers can be upgraded to Modern Carriers with +1 movement, +5 strength, +2 aircraft, and +10% vs enemy air.

And as an added idea, aircraft carriers would not be allowed to operate Jet aircraft; that would only be allowed to Modern Carriers.

This thread subject reminds me of MOO 3 and the best tactic in the game being to make fleets of nothing but Carriers Point defence and radar/jammer ships.

Uhmmm yea... Aircraft carriers ARE more powerful than battleships... because of the air power they project. In a battle where an acft carrier and a battleship go toe-to-toe...the carrier becomes a large sub!
The power of a carrier (in naval combat) has always been that it can engage an opposing fleet and maintain it's own core fleet unmolested, unless of course it is engaging another carrier fleet. I personally feel that the carrier is well modeled in Civ, they are only powerful when properly supported! And being a surface Navy officer for 18+ years, I do have the experience of modern naval tactics...

The battleship represents the most powerful naval unit from the last quarter of the 19th century through some point in the 1930s. That's when aircraft became sufficiently advanced to be the more effective weapon.

The game makes aircraft too weak in historical terms because otherwise they are too powerful in game terms.

I've explained in another thread what I would change about that.

However, in the absence of improvements to air warfare, clearly the battleship is the strongest ship type. The game battleship is kind of a generic of the type rather than say the Iowa class (which was eventually upgraded to carry cruise missiles and the speed was greater than the Aegis cruisers that icon represents. )

Other things wrong with the navy war in the game is that all the steel ship types should have an anti aircraft capability. A missile cruise is primarily an anti aircraft/anti missile ship. Offense is an afterthought.

As a whole, air and naval warfare is represented poorly, but it's at least partially for a reason.

Carriers NEVER carried B29s. During the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo a US carrier (Wasp, I believe) deployed B25 Mitchell twin-engine medium bombers on a one way mission (they were to bail out of their aricraft over China and hope ChiNat forces would find them).

Here's an idea: with Rocketry and Fission, carriers can be upgraded to Modern Carriers with +1 movement, +5 strength, +2 aircraft, and +10% vs enemy air.

Isn't a medium sized bomber still a bomber? :confused:

I'm really confused here.

You were close with US Wasp, the bombers (i still considered bombers) were launched from US Hornet.

And as an added idea, aircraft carriers would not be allowed to operate Jet aircraft; that would only be allowed to Modern Carriers.

nah it's not enough. The CIV series really undermines the power of the airforce in its games IMO. It's so annoying that you have to have land units to finish an enemy off because both air and sea units simply cannot destroy land enemies, which is very ironic since the most powerful of weaponries usually come from the airforce or navy.

I know it's a balance in the game between the usage of land, sea and air units and so a player cannot just mass air units and win the game. But in the very least let air and sea units the ability to destroy land units, but retain the inability to conquer cities.

This would be more balanced and realistic IMO.

The Doolittle raid on Japan used B-25 bombers that were barely capable of launching from a carrier deck as a one shot deal. There was no expectation of recovering those planes.

The largest aircraft to ever land on a carrier was a C-130 cargo plane, but that was on a post WWII supercarrier. And that wouldn't be possible for ongoing operations.

The aircraft that could take off and land on a WWII carrier are better represented in the game by the fighter because they were small and carried a small bomb load over short distances. When jets arrived, the ranges and the bomb load increased.

I agree that B-29s never took off or landed from carriers in WWII, that was the whole reason for the bloody campaigns by the US Marines to seize islands such as Iwo Jima from the Japanese. (Note here that refers to the number of casualties on both sides from these conflicts.) Soon as the US Marines seized an island, the US Engineers would move in and build an airstrip so that they could move closer to Japan in a leap-frog movement. The atomic bombs carried by the B-29s to be dropped on Japan were transported by ship. One of them was transported to the Marshall Islands and I think was sunk on the way back having dropped off its cargo. Do you think the US Military would really have gone to all the trouble to seize Iwo Jima and some other islands from Japan if the B-29s could be flown and retrieved from Carriers"? Probably not, as the casualties probably exceeded expected losses from the start as the Japanese were very clever fighters...

In contrast, I strongly think that aircraft carriers should be a lot more powerful. It should be able to carry at least 5 jet fighters/stealth bombers and fighters and bombers can actually destroy units, but they can't take over a city.

Your beef isn't with the Battleship's strength rating, then; it's with the transportation capacity of the carriers, and the nature of air combat in Civilization 4. That said, the fact that the battleship is stronger than the carrier is just fine, since it's obvious that a carrier without a complement of aircraft would be easy prey to a battleship.

Furthermore, the idea that a carrier should be able to carry a stealth bomber is ludicrous. B-2s taking off and landing on decks? That's nuts. Even the smaller F-117 (which is used for bombing despite its "fighter" designation) can't use carriers. Stealthy aircraft will make their debut in the navy with the Joint Strike Fighter, but that's a stealth strike aircraft, not something like the B-2.

Again, your complaint pertains to the way Civilization 4 depicts air power, not naval power. What you're looking for is modifications to air combat and possibly the addition of a new class of aircraft, like carrier-based strike planes such as the F-4 and F/A-18.

"Small bombers" are modeled with fighters in Civ4. They can hit ground targets, just not as well as full-scale bombers.

Air power, especially against naval targets, needs to be upgraded. Heck, naval power needs upgrades!

Thoughts:
Navies should move much faster. Land units on a boat should lose all movement points when the boat moves, to allow for coast-defense fleets.

Patrol orders should exist for boats. A boat on patrol will attack any hostile boat who comes within vision range automatically.

Aircraft patrolling will automatically attack boats as well. Aircraft will defend against aircraft trying to sink boats!

Aircraft have to be effective at sinking boats.

The F-117N Nighthawk was actually specially designed to take off from carriers. The design unfortunately never proceeded due to a US lobby that wanted to restrict stealth aircraft to the USAF. The US Navy was never interested because I believe it was being black-mailed not to be interested. Ie. develop that aircraft and you will lose funds and thus the US Navy is at the moment stuck with aircraft that are obsolete. A serious operational mission against China or something and you would quickly lose all carrier aircraft... Look it up for yourself and you will find this was actually seriously proposed. That's my guess as to why stealth was or probably might not be allowed into the US Navy anytime soon.

The URL is http://www.f-117a.com/af117x.html

That's my guess as to why stealth was or probably might not be allowed into the US Navy anytime soon.

The JSF (specifically, the F-35C) will be serving as the Navy's stealthy carrier-based aircraft in the coming years (starting in 2012, I believe).

The JSF (specifically, the F-35C) will be serving as the Navy's stealthy carrier-based aircraft in the coming years (starting in 2012, I believe). maybe. if it can be made affordable enough to buy in useful numbers. based on past performance, it's likely that won't happen.

maybe. if it can be made affordable enough to buy in useful numbers. based on past performance, it's likely that won't happen.

Mind citing a source that is leading you to this prediction?


This is mine:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35c.htm

The Navy's plans initially called for 480 aircraft. In 2002 the Navy - concerned that it could not afford the number of tactical aircraft it planned to purchase - reduced the number of JSF aircraft for joint Navy and Marine Corps operations from 1,089 to 680 by reducing the number of backup aircraft needed. News reports in 2002 indicated that the proposed reduction would cut 259 jets from the Marine Corps buy, and 50 from the Navy purchase, resulting in a total F-35C buy of 430. However, as of early 2005 the Navy had not indicated to the developer the exact mix of the carrier and short takeoff and vertical landing variants it intended to purchase.

The US Navy, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, is scheduled for a 2012 IOC [Initial Operating Capability].

Nothing indicates that the JSF's entrance into the Navy is in jeopardy, as you seem to suggest. The exact number of F-35Cs the Navy will receive isn't clear, but the fact that the aircraft will begin to arrive in 2012 isn't in question.

Mind citing a source that is leading you to this prediction?


This is mine:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35c.htm



Nothing indicates that the JSF's entrance into the Navy is in jeopardy, as you seem to suggest. The exact number of F-35Cs the Navy will receive isn't clear, but the fact that the aircraft will begin to arrive in 2012 isn't in question.


my comment was based more on politics than on the Navy's plans. certainly that is the goal they are aiming for. but consider the number of B2 and F22 aircraft that were planned versus how many Congress authorized the money for. now consider how many competing funding priorities the military has now that half the Army's equipment is worn out or blown up.

my comment was based more on politics than on the Navy's plans. certainly that is the goal they are aiming for. but consider the number of B2 and F22 aircraft that were planned versus how many Congress authorized the money for. now consider how many competing funding priorities the military has now that half the Army's equipment is worn out or blown up.

But the B-2 and F-22 have become operational aircraft. Hell, even the V-22 Osprey has become an operational aircraft.

I interpreted your point as saying that no F-35C variants will wind up with the Navy. Even if just one F-35C finds a parking space on a carrier deck, my point still stands: The JSF will be serving as the Navy's stealthy carrier-based aircraft in the coming years. I'll admit, if the Naval JSF complement consists of one airplane, that would be pointless, but obviously it's going to be a sizable force. Whether or not that force will eventually be the bulk of the Navy's air fleet or simply a notable minority doesn't really matter: the JSF will be the stealthiest carrier-based airplane in the fleet, and the Navy will use it to such an effect.

But the B-2 and F-22 have become operational aircraft. Hell, even the V-22 Osprey has become an operational aircraft.

I interpreted your point as saying that no F-35C variants will wind up with the Navy. Even if just one F-35C finds a parking space on a carrier deck, my point still stands: The JSF will be serving as the Navy's stealthy carrier-based aircraft in the coming years. I'll admit, if the Naval JSF complement consists of one airplane, that would be pointless, but obviously it's going to be a sizable force. Whether or not that force will eventually be the bulk of the Navy's air fleet or simply a notable minority doesn't really matter: the JSF will be the stealthiest carrier-based airplane in the fleet, and the Navy will use it to such an effect.


We're not quite arguing the same points here. If the Navy gets 100 of the F35, then that's 1 carrier fully loaded or 25 of each of 4 carriers. The Navy would have to buy 300 to put on squadron on each available carrier. 5 or 600 to phase out the F18 and well over 1000 to replace the F14 and the F18.

To me, looking at how procurement has gone over the past couple decades, that seems very unlikely to happen. Which means the F35s that do get purchased will be special purpose units, not general purpose units, and the 14 and 18 remain the mainstays until they're too old and worn out to fly.

To equip the AF and Marines as well will push procurement towards 3000. http://www.thehealthymom.com/wp-content/plugins/more-smilies/maidacollection/dunno.gif There are many factors involved, but i lack confidence in it being an affordable program in those numbers.

No more Tomcats; F-14 already retired. F-35 will be supplementing the F-18.

Which means the F35s that do get purchased will be special purpose units, not general purpose units, and the 14 and 18 remain the mainstays until they're too old and worn out to fly.

And I agree, since I agree that procurement issues will be likely. But still, even if the JSF will serve strictly as a special purpose unit, my original point still stands: "The JSF (specifically, the F-35C) will be serving as the Navy's stealthy carrier-based aircraft in the coming years." I never implied it had to be a general purpose airplane.

You're right, we're arguing two different points, especially since I agree that it's best to lowball procurement expectations.

Ok, but it still seems a bit too conventional and there is still the role of carrier-bomber that an F-35C would not be as good at. The F-117N had the perfect shape for a long-range carrier aircraft with large wings that could be filled with fuel for long flights. It was rejected. Therefore it seems the Navy will never have a good carrier-bomber in service...

the F35 will probably out perform the F117 in every respect. There's been a lot learned since the F117 was created.

Yes, but it is still hindered by having to carry bombs and its small size.

It's a bomber. It's supposed to carry bombs.

Bombers which don't carry bombs are more hindered than those that do. :)

F117 - Some stats

Specifications
An orthographically projected diagram of the F-117A Nighthawk
General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 69 ft 9 in (20.08 m)
* Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
* Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
* Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)
* Empty weight: 29,500 lb (13,380 kg)
* Loaded weight: 52,500 lb (23,800 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× General Electric F404-F1D2 turbofans, 10,600 lbf (48.0 kN) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 0.92 (617 mph, 993 km/h)
* Cruise speed: Mach 0.92
* Range: 930 NM[37] (1720 km)
* Service ceiling 69,000 ft (20,000 m)
* Wing loading: 65 lb/ft² (330 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.40

Armament

* 2× internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two weapons) equipped to carry:
o Bombs:
+ BLU-109 hardened penetrator
+ GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
+ GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
+ GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb
+ JDAM INS/GPS guided munition


F35 - some stats

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.37 m)
* Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m)
* Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
* Wing area: 459.6 ft² (42.7 m²)
* Empty weight: 29,000 lb A; 32,200 lb B; 32,100 lb C[75] (13,200 kg A; 14,600 kg B; 14,600 kg C)
* Loaded weight: 44,400 lb (20,100 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,200 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 25,000 lbf[22] (111 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 40,000+ lbf[22] (178+ kN)
* Secondary Powerplant: 1× General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan, >40,000 lbf (178 kN) [in development]
* Lift fan (STOVL): 1× Rolls-Royce Lift System driven from either F135 or F136 power plant, 18,000 lbf (80 kN)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[22] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
* Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nm; C: 1400 nm[22] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)
* Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
* Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight:
o With full fuel: A: 0.89; B: 0.92; C: 0.81[22]
o With 50% fuel: A: 1.12; B: 1.10; C: 1.01[22]

g-Limits[76]

* F-35A: 9 g
* F-35B: 9 g
* F-35C: 9 g

Armament

* Guns: 1 × GAU-12/U 25 mm cannon — slated to be mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C.[22]
* Hardpoints: 6 with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[22],
* Missiles: Internal: 6 air-air missiles or 2 air-air missile and 2 air-surface weapons; External: 2 missiles and 4 missiles/bombs[22]


I think it's clear which is the more capable aircraft. My point, as before, is not the ability of the aircraft, but the ability to purchase it in large enough numbers to make a real difference.

So the F117 was subsonic? No wonder they rejected it.

Truly remarkable how off-topic this thread has gotten. In any event, yes, the F117 is subsonic. The F117 was designed as a strategic platform to penetrate deep into Warsaw Pact integrated air defenses and eliminate high-value C3I targets. It is a very specialized platform, hence only two weapon hard points in the interior bomb bay and the lack of supersonic capability (afterburners compromise the stealth characteristics of the aircraft). Such a weapon system on a carrier is nice to have, but of limited usefulness. At the time the F117 was designed the Navy was trying to get away from specialized aircraft and reduce the different models of aircraft on its carriers. That is why over the last 20 years one platform, the F18, has assumed the responsibilities of the F14 (air defense), A7 (light attack), A6 (medium attack), and A5 (recon). The goal has been to reduce maintenance, upkeep, and increase interoperability, thus, the F117 was not the right aircraft for the Navy at the time it was designed. However, the F35, due to its versatility as a stealthy version of a traditional fighter-bomber, is very useful as a supplement to the F18 (particularly in assuming the A6's old missions).