Why can't stealth bombers use aircraft carriers?

[Socratatus]

They would not have required bigger carriers. The bombers wouldn't have been that big.

I've already adressed that it's largly irrevlevant that no one built them in WWII. This is a game of what if, not what happened. And on that note it's especially irrelevant what thw admiraty thought or the rivalry between the AAC and naval air wing was. They don't exist in the game, nor are they modeled in it.

I don't mean to be flippant or a jerk, I just feel like no one is actually reading my posts. They just post over me to reiterate things i've already addressed.

You are not making sense.

In WW2 the tech was not available to have smaller bombers to take off Carriers like today, so WW2 bombers on carriers, save for the one -off doolittle raid were, to all intents and purposes, not possible, because it would`ve had no real effect. The doolittle raid actually did nothing to the Japanese in a military manner at all. It was just a moral issue as explained earlier.

Present day carriers and bombers benefit from modern technology, again, NOT available in WW2.

You`re mixing two time periods up and trying to argue for it. You`re talking at cross purposes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Sorry, wasn't trying to be flip or insulting. Just didn't realize we were leaving reality and history out entirely. If that's the case, then yeah, you can base flying GDR's off of a submarine, for all I care. And if you don't think a carrier based strategic bomber built in the 1940's wouldn't have had to be at least somewhat bigger than the existing one-bomb carrier aircraft of the time, then I highly suspect your credentials as an engineer. Sorry, but I'm not taking just your word for it.

I said over and over again that I was leaving out [the finer points of] history entirely....argh. The game does this all the time in pretty much every way and everyone rolls with it till something comes up that for whatever reason grinds someones gears. Like bombers on a carrier.

And no, leaving out 'history', in the sense that the game doesn't track with the finer points of history, doesn't mean abandoning all rules of physics or the general sweep of history.

That's why you have the tech tree laid out the way it is. You can play around with some of the order, but essentially it tracks with real life.

That also isn't to say that because the game ignores the fact that in WWII the US didn't base strategic bombers on carriers that it wasn't possible at the time and especially now (and again, both carriers and bombers stick around to the end of the game, which makes it reasonable to assume they are upgraded without the hassle of changing them graphically).

It also doesn't mean that a stealth bomber (which in all current forms can't fly off a carrier) should be able to be based on a carrier, or that a GDR can piggyback on a sub. Those violate physics. Strategic bombers on carriers don't.

Is my point really that hard to get? I don't mean that as an insult on your intelligence, I just want to know if I'm not being clear or something because we're essentially talking past one another at this point and making the same points.


Edit: I never said a carrier based strategic bomber wouldn't be bigger than the attack/torpedo bombers used in WWII. I said the carriers wouldn't have to be bigger to accomodate a carrier based strategic bomber. Sure, you couldn't fit as many of them on the carrier as the smaller planes. But then again, you wouldn't necessarily need to as they would carry more bombs. But the carriers would not have to be bigger.

You are not making sense.

In WW2 the tech was not available to have smaller bombers to take off Carriers like today, so WW2 bombers on carriers, save for the one -off doolittle raid were, to all intents and purposes, not possible, because it would`ve had no real effect. The doolittle raid actually did nothing to the Japanese in a military manner at all. It was just a moral issue as explained earlier.

Present day carriers and bombers benefit from modern technology, again, NOT available in WW2.

You`re mixing two time periods up and trying to argue for it. You`re talking at cross purposes.

Yes, the tech was available to make a strategic, carrier based bomber in WWII. It would have been smaller with less range and defensive armaments, flown lower and slower (like all carrier based planes of the day) and possibly carried slightly less bombs than land based counterparts. But it was still possible.

And the US didn't do it because they didn't have to with all the forward air bases they took from the Japanese on the way across the Pacific. That doesn't mean it wasn't possible and it doesn't mean it should be taken out of the game.

I know my credentials have been called into question but whatever. I don't think anyone is getting what I'm writing to begin with so I don't take offense at the statement that my credentials are suspect.

And one last time, bombers and carriers stay around till the end of the game. Given the wonkiness of the tech tree (GW bombers before combustion!) why are you all surprised at the notion that *maybe* the bombers and carriers in the game are actually supposed to be a bit more advanced than their graphical representations make them look?

Why is it so hard to accept that they could also be upgraded over time as you have them for 50+ years. Surely you don't think the longbowmen you have in game are using the exact same longbows for the 200 years you use them?

Or maybe you do, in which case I can't argue with you.

 

[nokmirt]

Missouri.

Come correct!



When it comes to bombers on aircraft carriers, I think we're all getting a little confused over what consititutes a bomber.

Yes, a B-29 (WW II era strategic bomber) will not fly off a carrier.

But the B-29 was huge because it had to carry all the fuel to get from an airbase to a target and back. It was also loaded with machine guns because it couldn't count on fighter escorts in all cases. Finally, an aircraft like the B-17 (basically a predecessor to the B-29, both were used in WWII, but the B-17 was used a lot more because it existed from the outset and the B-29 came very late) didn't actually carry as big of a bombload as you might think.

Why not? Because it was loaded with fuel and machine guns for reasons stated above.

When you consider that Carrier based bombers don't need all the fuel (the carrier can get them closer to the target than a fixed airbase) or all the machine guns (because escorts could fly with them all the way because again the carrier is closer), you will realize that carrier-based bombers can be much smaller than land based counterparts and still pack a bigger bombload.

Thus, it's not unrealistic to have a WWII bomber on a carrier. It would be a hassle to have to construct a seperate bomber type for use only on a carrier.

It's really not as crazy to have a WWII bomber on a carrier as you might think. They were (and are) a lot smaller than the B-29 or B-17's used by the airforce and still packed a huge punch.

In fact, most planes these days can carry bigger bombloads than the B-17 in a smaller airframe, but that's a whole other issue.

They built carrier specific planes for that purpose though. The B-25s launched from the Hornet did so, for a specific mission. It was therefore not common. The devs should add a divebomber, for a typical carrier aircraft.

In the meantime you should be able to transport bombers to across the ocean, but should not be able to fly missions from the carrier, except to send it to a coastal city under your control. A divebomber should be created for more realistic carrier battles. I hope they add it in the 2nd expansion.

 

[aluelkdf]

The B-25 was small and lightweight compared to the B-17, B-24, and especially the B-29. Yet even the B-25 could barely take off from a carrier. And this was after they removed all defensive armorment and everything.

If they made a bomber that was so small and lightweight that it could efficiently utilize a carrier, it would not be a heavy bomber by WWII standards.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They built carrier specific planes for that purpose though. The B-25s launched from the Hornet did so, for a specific mission. It was therefore not common. The devs should add a divebomber, for a typical carrier aircraft.

In the meantime you should be able to transport bombers to across the ocean, but should not be able to fly missions from the carrier, except to send it to a coastal city under your control. A divebomber should be created for more realistic carrier battles. I hope they add it in the 2nd expansion.

Man I've spent like 5 huge posts explaining not that it was common or that it did happen, but that it could happen and should therefore be in the game.

But hey what do I know I'm an aero engineer by training with suspect credentials.

The B-25 was small and lightweight compared to the B-17, B-24, and especially the B-29. Yet even the B-25 could barely take off from a carrier. And this was after they removed all defensive armorment and everything.

If they made a bomber that was so small and lightweight that it could efficiently utilize a carrier, it would not be a heavy bomber by WWII standards.

The B-17 was barely a 'heavy' bomber by payload size.

And you don't need a 'heavy' bomber to strategic bomb.

The Germans nearly leveled London in the Blitz without one.

And don't forgot a bomber without it's bomb load and gasoline would have a decent time trying to land on a carrier provided it was designed to do that to begin with, which the B-25 wasn't. All I'm saying is that it was possible guys.

 

[nokmirt]

The B-25 was small and lightweight compared to the B-17, B-24, and especially the B-29. Yet even the B-25 could barely take off from a carrier. And this was after they removed all defensive armorment and everything.

If they made a bomber that was so small and lightweight that it could efficiently utilize a carrier, it would not be a heavy bomber by WWII standards.

They did, tactical bombers. WWII dive bombers and torpedo planes. Strategic bombers are simply not built for use on carriers.

 

[nokmirt]

Man I've spent like 5 huge posts explaining not that it was common or that it did happen, but that it could happen and should therefore be in the game.

But hey what do I know I'm an aero engineer by training with suspect credentials.

Me Too!

The whole point is this. Strategic bombers were not built for carriers. Otherwise, why would they have bothered building specific aircraft to fly off of carriers, namely fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers? Do any of you smart guys have an answer? I mean why would they waste their military budget to train pilots, and put specific planes, with specific roles on aircraft carriers, when they could just simply slap some strategic bombers on there?

Also, there is no way your getting a B-17 to fly off a WWII aircraft carrier. No way man! I don't care if you strip it down to the bare minimum and find the skinniest air crew ever. You'll never do it.

 

[Socratatus]

Man I've spent like 5 huge posts explaining not that it was common or that it did happen, but that it could happen and should therefore be in the game.

But hey what do I know I'm an aero engineer by training with suspect credentials.

Well I highly suspect this from your words so far. I suspect if you really were an aeronautical engineer, you certainly wouldn`t be here to go on about it. However, even if you are you seem to go off reality to prove your points, so why do you use the `i`m an aero-engineer`, if you don`t stick to the reality?

Your knowledge of WW2 is also highly suspect.

The B-17 was barely a 'heavy' bomber by payload size.

It was a heavy bomber at the time and considered by all at the time to be and still is now (as a WW2 bomber). It certainly held a much larger bombload than the German HE111s or Stukas were able to. It was a heavy bomber and a big aircraft too.

The Germans nearly leveled London in the Blitz without one.

No they did not. London was not even remotely in danger of being levelled. Read the books, watch the docus. Yes, London took a lot of bombing, but it was not even close to civilian defeat or even disrupted in any real meaningful way. It more made people angry against the enemy. German bombers simply didn`t have the right planes to do bombing any real justice on London. They should have stuck to hitting strategic targets.

And don't forgot a bomber without it's bomb load and gasoline would have a decent time trying to land on a carrier provided it was designed to do that to begin with, which the B-25 wasn't. All I'm saying is that it was possible guys.

But could it take off and be effective? No. And what`s the point taking off with no ordnance or barely any and little fuel? Also, bombers need a LONG landing runway. A wire used to catch fighters would never have the strength or power to hold a landing WW2 bomber. in fact, if they tried the wire, with say strengthened wire, it would probably snap and the bomber carry on over the carrier or the `Hook` would snap- either way it would not work.

You say it`s possible, well sure, ANYTHING is possible, but we`re looking here at what`s probable in reality.

 

[Udey1]

I wish people would stop bringing up the doolittle raid as some sort of precedent. The reason i say this isthose bombers couldnt LAND again on the AC -they were losses.

Landing the bombers is a horrendous prospect that would never- and DID never come into practice. Real life is not a skematic

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Me Too!

The whole point is this. Strategic bombers were not built for carriers. Otherwise, why would they have bothered building specific aircraft to fly off of carriers, namely fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers? Do any of you smart guys have an answer? I mean why would they waste their military budget to train pilots, and put specific planes, with specific roles on aircraft carriers, when they could just simply slap some strategic bombers on there?

Also, there is no way your getting a B-17 to fly off a WWII aircraft carrier. No way man! I don't care if you strip it down to the bare minimum and find the skinniest air crew ever. You'll never do it.

I did partially elaborate on why they didn't
use strategic bombers on carriers before but I'll give you some more.

Those specialist planes you mentioned? They were for sinking ships and making precision tactical strikes on defended positions, not leveling cities.

When they wanted to level cities, they just sent in land based bombers because they had close enough air bases (thanks to island hopping) to do so. Carrier based bombers would've been redundant. Take away those land bases (which is a reasonable scenario in most CiV games, and suddenly carrier based strategic bombers are desirable.

Also, most island attacks had the benefit of accompanying ship based guns to further flatten defenses. This is another reason why there wasn't a need for carrier based strategic bombers. Strategic attacks against inland citites didn't have this luxury, but again land based bombers were within striking distance by the time the military was ready to do that.

But all of these scenarios aren't especially likely in the game, nor are carrier based bombers impossible. So that's why we have them in the game.

Simple stuff really.

Well I highly suspect this from your words so far. I suspect if you really were an aeronautical engineer, you certainly wouldn`t be here to go on about it. However, even if you are you seem to go off reality to prove your points, so why do you use the `i`m an aero-engineer`, if you don`t stick to the reality?

Your knowledge of WW2 is also highly suspect.


It was a heavy bomber at the time and considered by all at the time to be and still is now (as a WW2 bomber). It certainly held a much larger bombload than the German HE111s or Stukas were able to. It was a heavy bomber and a big aircraft too.


No they did not. London was not even remotely in danger of being levelled. Read the books, watch the docus. Yes, London took a lot of bombing, but it was not even close to civilian defeat or even disrupted in any real meaningful way. It more made people angry against the enemy. German bombers simply didn`t have the right planes to do bombing any real justice on London. They should have stuck to hitting strategic targets.


But could it take off and be effective? No. And what`s the point taking off with no ordnance or barely any and little fuel? Also, bombers need a LONG landing runway. A wire used to catch fighters would never have the strength or power to hold a landing WW2 bomber. in fact, if they tried the wire, with say strengthened wire, it would probably snap and the bomber carry on over the carrier or the `Hook` would snap- either way it would not work.

You say it`s possible, well sure, ANYTHING is possible, but we`re looking here at what`s probable in reality.

Strawman much?

So much of this ignores what I've said, attacks points I didn't make or only requires obvious rebuttals based off things I've already posted that this is the only response you'll get from me.

 

[aluelkdf]

When they wanted to level cities, they just sent in land based bombers because they had close enough air bases (thanks to island hopping) to do so. Carrier based bombers would've been redundant. Take away those land bases (which is a reasonable scenario in most CiV games, and suddenly carrier based strategic bombers are desirable.

If this situation happened, the bombers that where based on an island that was about to be taken would probably re-base further behind the front lines. Then the bombers would take off from land to attack the island to assist ground troops in taking it back. Once the island was secured, the bombers would re-base back to it again.

The bombing raids routinely contained hundreds of bombers. And by the end of the war it was common for raids to contain 1,000 bombers, or even more. How are you going to fit 1,000 bombers onto carriers? You would have to build 100 carriers just to carry them. This would be an enormous waste of resources when you could build 10 carriers to carry 1,000 fighters/tactical bombers.

And even if 100 carriers where built, the bombers would be useless becasue there is no way a heavy bomber could ever take off from a carrier. Maybe something equivalent to a B-25 could be used, IF it was specifically designed for that purpose, and even then it would not qualify as a heavy bomber. But there is no way something equivalent to a B-17 could ever take off from a carrier, it doesn't matter how it's designed or what you do with it, it's not going to take of from a carrier. A WWII bomber can't even take off from a modern "super-carrier", never mind a WWII carrier.

 

[Smokeybear]

Man I've spent like 5 huge posts explaining not that it was common or that it did happen, but that it could happen and should therefore be in the game.

But hey what do I know I'm an aero engineer by training with suspect credentials.

The B-17 was barely a 'heavy' bomber by payload size.

And you don't need a 'heavy' bomber to strategic bomb.

The Germans nearly leveled London in the Blitz without one.

And don't forgot a bomber without it's bomb load and gasoline would have a decent time trying to land on a carrier provided it was designed to do that to begin with, which the B-25 wasn't. All I'm saying is that it was possible guys.

I'm sure some form of smaller, low flying, defenseless semi-strategic bomber with a moderate payload could have been made to work on carriers of that era (although far fewer planes per carrier, unless they seriously enlarged the vessels). But it would have been a raft of major compromises on all counts, which is no doubt why it was never done, or even seriously considered. Then, or ever after. But yeah, 40+ years later, US Navy carriers did carry enough ordinance-heavy lighter tactical aircraft to do far more serious damage to a city, even without nukes, so I'll spot you the point that carrier airgroups of the modern era can 'stand in' for heavier strategic bombers, to some degree, even though they have none.

 

[nokmirt]

And even if 100 carriers where built, the bombers would be useless becasue there is no way a heavy bomber could ever take off from a carrier. Maybe something equivalent to a B-25 could be used, IF it was specifically designed for that purpose, and even then it would not qualify as a heavy bomber. But there is no way something equivalent to a B-17 could ever take off from a carrier, it doesn't matter how it's designed or what you do with it, it's not going to take of from a carrier. A WWII bomber can't even take off from a modern "super-carrier", never mind a WWII carrier.

Exactly right. They could have made a special purpose medium bomber. Although, I still feel it would be impractical and very costly on a large scale. On a smaller scale if it was needed, could have been possible. Most likely they would have built a carrier with a longer flight deck, along with the ability to supply, and service that kind of aircraft. It would be a whole new class of aircraft carrier that's for sure.

 

[Socratatus]

Remember, most WW2 carrier fighter aircraft had wings that could fold (to save space) and could land on a shorter deck but still needed to hook on a wire to stop which was never easy.

A heavy bomber carrier would have to be huge and even then the bomber wings would need to be folded to save on carrier space. 2-4 engined bombers would be unlikely to fold wings.
This means carriers would have to be a gargantuan size width (for the wings) and length for more landing space. Then there`s the manpower.

There`s a good reason why they never bothered with such a ludicrous idea in WW2.

An aeronautical engineer would know this.

 

[Adjuvant]

Ok, we get the idea from 3 pages everyone argues a stealth, ground attack vehicle is too big to fit on a carrier. This isn't true, and it's not the reason stealth vehicles aren't part of a carrier compliment. F117, although designated "fighter" doesn't dogfight. It's a ground attack vehicle, and you can go read why the designation is different, because I want to be brief here.

Over the decades, even the technological advancements of the U.S. military can't make practical the facilities of accommodating such stealth vehicles for a number of reasons, however three issues stand out as the most substantial.
A) The material of the vehicle fuselage is particularly intolerant of the saline (salt) environment of the atmosphere at or near sea level. Additionally repairs and maintenance to such material require facilities too robust and inconvenient to afford the space on a carrier vessel.
B) The aircraft's fuselage, because of the "stealth design", until the revolutionary F35c, prohibited additional doors or ports for landing mechanisms required for safe carrier use (hooks, mechanical braking, etc). To this day, the F35c faces a small list of similar yet-unresolved issues, but engineers are sure the problems are not insurmountable given a higher budget, but even then, the F35c does not/can not carry the size/amount of munitions one would attribute a vehicle with "bomber" designation.
C) Operation of stealth vehicles generates too much classified data, which is impossible to protect without an entirely new dimension of security, consuming precious space on an already-crowded carrier vessel.

In short, the logistics for a fighter-sized, carrier-capable stealth "bomber" aren't practical. Regardless of size they are "another animal" than a carrier compliment.

 

[Socratatus]

A) The material of the vehicle fuselage is particularly intolerant of the saline (salt) environment of the atmosphere at or near sea level. Additionally repairs and maintenance to such material require facilities too robust and inconvenient to afford the space on a carrier vessel.
B) The aircraft's fuselage, because of the "stealth design", until the revolutionary F35c, prohibited additional doors or ports for landing mechanisms required for safe carrier use (hooks, mechanical braking, etc). To this day, the F35c faces a small list of similar yet-unresolved issues, but engineers are sure the problems are not insurmountable given a higher budget, but even then, the F35c does not/can not carry the size/amount of munitions one would attribute a vehicle with "bomber" designation.
C) Operation of stealth vehicles generates too much classified data, which is impossible to protect without an entirely new dimension of security, consuming precious space on an already-crowded carrier vessel.

In short, the logistics for a fighter-sized, carrier-capable stealth "bomber" aren't practical. Regardless of size they are "another animal" than a carrier compliment.

Sorry pal, but it sounds like you`re making all that up.

A, You`re telling me that stealth bombers can`t handle the salty environment and the materials to maintain them would be too difficult for a carrier. What? There`s no evidence at all that Stealth bombers would be any more affected by the sea salty environment than the standard high-tech carrier aircraft and the technology maintenance wouldn`t hold back a carrier at all. All it needs are the right personell.

B, Disputable. A hook could be internal until needed.

C, So you`re telling me a military Carrier is LESS secure than a miltary aircraft ground base? Why? Ground bases don`t have less personel and I would`ve thought an isolated carrier would be even MORE secure than a land based site that people can get to.

Don`t agree at all.

 

[Adjuvant]

Don`t agree at all.

It doesn't matter what you agree, nor do I care. Answers like this are the reasons I don't like posting here anymore. It's like a free-for-all for people who don't really care if they make other people stupid.

You're not entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to your educated opinion.

 

[Smokeybear]

Sorry pal, but it sounds like you`re making all that up.

A, You`re telling me that stealth bombers can`t handle the salty environment and the materials to maintain them would be too difficult for a carrier. What? There`s no evidence at all that Stealth bombers would be any more affected by the sea salty environment than the standard high-tech carrier aircraft and the technology maintenance wouldn`t hold back a carrier at all. All it needs are the right personell.

Out of curiosity, I googled around a bit and came up with several incredibly technical and esoteric documents and essays regarding US stealth aircraft, which made at least passing mention to the corrosive affect of salt water on the stealth coatings of those aircraft. It appears his statement does have a basis in some fact.

 

[nokmirt]

My edudated (no typo, just so you know) opinion is that I am getting a headache. To hell with it, if you want bombers on carriers fine. I have no problem with that. However, you dudes are not helping me out with the devs, in my campaign to get a dive bomber unit added to the game, if there is a second expansion.