Oldest Carrier
- Thread starter Sylvester
- Start date
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Hmm, I would disagree here. The reason why the Victory wasn't brought back in 2667 is, more than likely, because it was never deactivated in the first place. Remember, Eisen spent his whole career on the Victory, which he couldn't very well do if the ship was inactive. I would say that Ranger-class carriers were commonly used in more out-of-the-way locations before BOT - places like Gemini sector and such. So, the reason why Rangers weren't used for behind-the-lines raids wasn't because they were inactive, but because they were essentially pinned - somebody needed to defend those sectors. Later, as Confed got more desperate, presumably most of these ships were switched over to the main frontline in Vega.psych said:
In general, we know that in 2681 at least some if not most of Confed’s surviving “war-era fleet” is still active, if over half is “obsolete and failing”, according to Senator Taggart.
But the “40 series CVs”, which we take to be the Ranger-class since the Victory was CV-40, was mothballed soon after the Kilrathi war, as Eisen notes in The Price of Freedom (p. 60). We also know from Heart of the Tiger (p. 8) that the Ranger-class was designed “nearly half a century” before the start of the Kilrathi war.
As for the Victory herself, Eisen tells us in HOTT (p. 14) that his first assignment out of the Academy was as the ship’s communications officer, that it was the Victory’s “maiden voyage”, and that he had “been with her many times throughout [his] career”. He also tells us (p. 13) that the ship was “slated for retirement over a decade ago, but they put her back on the line instead”.
Concordia-class carriers are almost certainly still active in 2681, since they were clearly around and even still being built as of the end of the Kilrathi war–we know from WC4 and TPOF that the TCS Princeton was new and that the TCS Lexington had been effectively rebuilt. (The CIC’s “ship list”, which LOAF prepared, also identifies the TCS Kalamazoo, which is apparently referenced in Prophecy, as Concordia-class, but I don’t know the details.)
The real question mark is the Bengals (which, by the way, first entered service in 2619). If they were not all destroyed by the end of the Kilrathi war, then they were arguably still active as of the Border Worlds conflict since otherwise Eisen in TPOF would have mentioned them in the same breath as the Ranger-class (since he was specifically talking about what had been done after the war to "cut Fleet strength"). And though I don’t think we really know (i.e., I don’t think we have a specific reference), they could still be active in 2681 because they’re strike carriers after all and thus would have a place in rounding out the makeup of Confed’s (still in part war-era) fleets at that time.
As for the oldest active or inactive carrier as of 2681, we don’t really know since we don’t know each and every carrier that existed over time, or the entry dates for, let alone the ultimate fates of, every one of the carriers that we do know existed (though of course we do know them for some).
But the “40 series CVs”, which we take to be the Ranger-class since the Victory was CV-40, was mothballed soon after the Kilrathi war, as Eisen notes in The Price of Freedom (p. 60). We also know from Heart of the Tiger (p. 8) that the Ranger-class was designed “nearly half a century” before the start of the Kilrathi war.
As for the Victory herself, Eisen tells us in HOTT (p. 14) that his first assignment out of the Academy was as the ship’s communications officer, that it was the Victory’s “maiden voyage”, and that he had “been with her many times throughout [his] career”. He also tells us (p. 13) that the ship was “slated for retirement over a decade ago, but they put her back on the line instead”.
Concordia-class carriers are almost certainly still active in 2681, since they were clearly around and even still being built as of the end of the Kilrathi war–we know from WC4 and TPOF that the TCS Princeton was new and that the TCS Lexington had been effectively rebuilt. (The CIC’s “ship list”, which LOAF prepared, also identifies the TCS Kalamazoo, which is apparently referenced in Prophecy, as Concordia-class, but I don’t know the details.)
The real question mark is the Bengals (which, by the way, first entered service in 2619). If they were not all destroyed by the end of the Kilrathi war, then they were arguably still active as of the Border Worlds conflict since otherwise Eisen in TPOF would have mentioned them in the same breath as the Ranger-class (since he was specifically talking about what had been done after the war to "cut Fleet strength"). And though I don’t think we really know (i.e., I don’t think we have a specific reference), they could still be active in 2681 because they’re strike carriers after all and thus would have a place in rounding out the makeup of Confed’s (still in part war-era) fleets at that time.
As for the oldest active or inactive carrier as of 2681, we don’t really know since we don’t know each and every carrier that existed over time, or the entry dates for, let alone the ultimate fates of, every one of the carriers that we do know existed (though of course we do know them for some).
Good discussion.
I have a point/question about the CVE's effectiveness after the War. In a post-war environment (before the Nephilim Incursion) the CVE seems to be a great concept. In this situation, a military becomes like a police force, enforcing borders, taking care of pirates, etc something a carrier with 40+ craft could do fine. So why would you want to, as Zero puts it, "put all your eggs into one basket" with the Midway class (and to an extent the Vesuvius) carriers when Confed has an everexpanding territory to cover with their diminishing in size/increasing in strength fleet? One can argue that an area can put up with border disputes, piracy, etc until one of the huge carriers gets there and completely overpowers the situation, but this almost seems like overkill and a waste of resources. This I believe is a good arguement for the continued use of CVE's in the '80's.
Now time for devils advocate. With the introduction of more cruisers and destroyers with fighter squadrons attached, does this limit the effectiveness of the CVE? Even in the mid 2650's, cruisers and destroyers carried a fighter complement that gave them both the ability to provide a punch to a capship with its main armament (which a CVE lacks) and also put together limited strikes and provide protection for itself with its fighter complement. You now have a new cruiser design that can carry 30 craft in the Hades class (maybe more, this was of course her maiden voyage and her 'job' was to take part in a shakedown cruise and just test some new variants of fighters, not be at fully-loaded, battle ready status) and the murphy class destroyers that also carry maybe a single or half squadron (even the old Tallahassee and Destroyer classes from WC3 have a small fighter complement, though I'm pretty sure they may be retired sometime during the 70's). Do new/old cruisers make the CVE concept obsolete in a peacetime navy?
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
C-ya
I have a point/question about the CVE's effectiveness after the War. In a post-war environment (before the Nephilim Incursion) the CVE seems to be a great concept. In this situation, a military becomes like a police force, enforcing borders, taking care of pirates, etc something a carrier with 40+ craft could do fine. So why would you want to, as Zero puts it, "put all your eggs into one basket" with the Midway class (and to an extent the Vesuvius) carriers when Confed has an everexpanding territory to cover with their diminishing in size/increasing in strength fleet? One can argue that an area can put up with border disputes, piracy, etc until one of the huge carriers gets there and completely overpowers the situation, but this almost seems like overkill and a waste of resources. This I believe is a good arguement for the continued use of CVE's in the '80's.
Now time for devils advocate. With the introduction of more cruisers and destroyers with fighter squadrons attached, does this limit the effectiveness of the CVE? Even in the mid 2650's, cruisers and destroyers carried a fighter complement that gave them both the ability to provide a punch to a capship with its main armament (which a CVE lacks) and also put together limited strikes and provide protection for itself with its fighter complement. You now have a new cruiser design that can carry 30 craft in the Hades class (maybe more, this was of course her maiden voyage and her 'job' was to take part in a shakedown cruise and just test some new variants of fighters, not be at fully-loaded, battle ready status) and the murphy class destroyers that also carry maybe a single or half squadron (even the old Tallahassee and Destroyer classes from WC3 have a small fighter complement, though I'm pretty sure they may be retired sometime during the 70's). Do new/old cruisers make the CVE concept obsolete in a peacetime navy?
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
C-ya
Expendable
Spaceman
Escort Carriers by nature are quick to build. Which means thinner defenses, less fighters, smaller size, maybe different craft (Ex. the Tarawa had modifyed Sabres instead of Broadswords), and thus are more vulnerable than a Concordia or a Midway. But, their price tag is a lot less, and some situations do not need the massive bulk of a Concordia plus escorts. In the post Kilrathi war budget, the cheaper something is, the more likelyhood that one will purchase it. Hence, escort carriers.
As for destroyers and cruisers with squadrons, the situation with escort carriers (limited number of craft) is aggravated, for if a destroyer is in a tight spot with no assistance, those fighters are only good for point defense, for any strike launched with so small a number of fighters cannot be very effective.
They do add flexibility, for destroyers and cruisers can be used in situations where not even an escort carrier would be risked, but their strike capability is limited by nature, as several destroyers may have the fighter strength of a CVE, but lack the usual escorts that a CVE is accompanied by, thus reducing the amount of defenses the task force can put up.
Also, destroyers cannot mount heavy strike craft, right? Which removes much of their heavy strike capability, along with the fact that a half-squadron qould be hard-pressed to mount escorts for either the strike or the destroyer. While by the modern era, escort carriers lack the restraints and design flaws of the older model carriers, and should be able to mount strike craft, albeit in fewer numbers.
So, smaller ships with fighters is a good idea, but cannot fully replace escort carriers, for each is designed for a different purpose.
As for destroyers and cruisers with squadrons, the situation with escort carriers (limited number of craft) is aggravated, for if a destroyer is in a tight spot with no assistance, those fighters are only good for point defense, for any strike launched with so small a number of fighters cannot be very effective.
They do add flexibility, for destroyers and cruisers can be used in situations where not even an escort carrier would be risked, but their strike capability is limited by nature, as several destroyers may have the fighter strength of a CVE, but lack the usual escorts that a CVE is accompanied by, thus reducing the amount of defenses the task force can put up.
Also, destroyers cannot mount heavy strike craft, right? Which removes much of their heavy strike capability, along with the fact that a half-squadron qould be hard-pressed to mount escorts for either the strike or the destroyer. While by the modern era, escort carriers lack the restraints and design flaws of the older model carriers, and should be able to mount strike craft, albeit in fewer numbers.
So, smaller ships with fighters is a good idea, but cannot fully replace escort carriers, for each is designed for a different purpose.
Your in a large gunship with a capship-slamming main armament . . . your strike needs are minimal. All you need the fighters for are light strike, wild weasel and point defense. Exactly what would you be against in a peacekeeping situation as Confed? Pirates? Rogue Kilrathi? I'm not sure exactly why one would need a full carrier. I like the light carrier concept, I'm just 'on the fence' so to speak as to whether or not they are as good an investment in the late 70's early 80's as they were in the Kilrathi War.
C-ya
C-ya
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Keep in mind that, originally at least, destroyers were not anti-capship vessels. The name 'destroyer' is a highly misleading one, because it's a shortened version of their original name - 'torpedo boat destroyer'. All things considered, it's pretty unusual for destroyers to be operating alone, and even more unusual for them to undertake offensive actions alone. As such, they don't need strike fighters - nor do they need large escorts, because they already are escorts 
. Cruisers, on the other hand, are usually armed with more anti-capship weapons (both the Plunkett and the Hades class has anti-capship plasma weaponry), so they also don't really need strike fighters - although the Hades class certainly has them anyway.
. Cruisers, on the other hand, are usually armed with more anti-capship weapons (both the Plunkett and the Hades class has anti-capship plasma weaponry), so they also don't really need strike fighters - although the Hades class certainly has them anyway.
Death
gh0d (Administrator)
Escort carriers would also be on the chopping block, just not as to as great a degree as regular fleet carriers. Midway-class megacarriers may be able to cover more territory, with having plenty of fighters (most of which are jump-capable... I believe the Wasp is the only non-jump fighter type on Midway-class ships) to go around, but ultimately they can't be everywhere at once, and even without a major war going on there is likely to be circumstances that require something with a presence a little heavier than a few destroyers (each of which have only 8 fighters, compared to the 45 of Tarawa-type CVEs [presumably Eagle-type CVEs have a similar complement, considering it's in the same design class]), but not enough to divert a Midway-class ship.
Destroyers (and cruisers, to a lesser extent) are also somewhat poor platforms for coordinating activities where a presence higher than one or two escort type ships could be justified, as they generally don't have the communications gear such coordination usually requires. Destroyers and cruisers are lousy for longer-term presence, as well, due to logistical issues (carriers have more room for supplies like spare parts, obviously).
Simply put, there will always be need of a carrier presence of one kind or another, somewhere in the galaxy, and not all requirements for a carrier presence demand the attention of a full-sized fleet carrier.
Destroyers (and cruisers, to a lesser extent) are also somewhat poor platforms for coordinating activities where a presence higher than one or two escort type ships could be justified, as they generally don't have the communications gear such coordination usually requires. Destroyers and cruisers are lousy for longer-term presence, as well, due to logistical issues (carriers have more room for supplies like spare parts, obviously).
Simply put, there will always be need of a carrier presence of one kind or another, somewhere in the galaxy, and not all requirements for a carrier presence demand the attention of a full-sized fleet carrier.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The indication from the ICIS manual is that Confed's peacetime carrier fleet is based on heavy fleet carriers (Midway and Vesuvius class) supported by a fleet of modern escort carriers... with fighters like the Panther and the Shrike designed specifically for service onboard escorts.
Death
gh0d (Administrator)
Ocean-going ships aren't subject to the same stresses as spacecraft (even excluding things like active participation in a conflict). Comparing them is an "apples and oragnes" thing. There's also a lot more variables involved with deciding whether a ship will remain in service than simply hull age, like spare part availability, funding, and usefulness, among others.
Haesslich
Spaceman
I suspect the 'funding' and 'equipment onboard and costs of replacement to keep it in service' would be more telling - you could standardize fighter maintenance equipment to a great degree, but you'll still need newer gear to maintain modern fighters. Ditto communications gear, ditto engines, ditto power for shielding and all those other good things.
A lot of the Kilrathi-war era ships, those which survived the war, are damaged to some degree, having been patched and thrown back out there. Quite a few of these were very old vessels slated for decomissioning before being put onto the front lines as losses of modern ships near the war's end forced Confed to plug the gaps with them.
The fleet probably suffered a LOT of attrition during the Reduction in Force, which would've shelved the oldest and most-damaged carriers first, starting with the expensive-to-maintain heavy fleet carriers. Escorts would have had fewer decomissionings, mostly because those who had survived the war may either be in better shape - or were cheaper to crew and maintain, given their lack of weapons and other systems compared to the heavy carriers.
Now in the age of the Midway-class megacarrier deployment, some of these older ships are probably going away too as newer construction comes online. The older light fleet carriers are probably going or gone, replaced by more modern designs of CVEs or any new concepts in light carriers - the problem being that most of the light carriers we saw were either pre-war or slapdash designs like Tarawa. The more modern designs, like the TCS Eagle, are probably around because of their low cost and easy deployability, though they may not have the guns an older-style light carrier had, at least in comparison.
Besides, one of the lessons that Confed learned during the Kilrathi War was that carriers -do- matter, and heavy carriers are more effective than the light carriers tend to be. The pre-war emphasis on light carriers seemed to be based on the idea that fighters were only good for ground missions and light strike and recon, rather than being ship-killers in their own right. The post-war fleet has recognized the need for a fighter-heavy fleet, given their versatility as compared to the pre-war battleships or even wartime-era dreadnoughts, especially as cheaper destroyers can carry nasty weapons of their own while torpedoes are always useful. The presence of the huge plasma cannon on Nephilim ships must've come as a nasty surprise.
A lot of the Kilrathi-war era ships, those which survived the war, are damaged to some degree, having been patched and thrown back out there. Quite a few of these were very old vessels slated for decomissioning before being put onto the front lines as losses of modern ships near the war's end forced Confed to plug the gaps with them.
The fleet probably suffered a LOT of attrition during the Reduction in Force, which would've shelved the oldest and most-damaged carriers first, starting with the expensive-to-maintain heavy fleet carriers. Escorts would have had fewer decomissionings, mostly because those who had survived the war may either be in better shape - or were cheaper to crew and maintain, given their lack of weapons and other systems compared to the heavy carriers.
Now in the age of the Midway-class megacarrier deployment, some of these older ships are probably going away too as newer construction comes online. The older light fleet carriers are probably going or gone, replaced by more modern designs of CVEs or any new concepts in light carriers - the problem being that most of the light carriers we saw were either pre-war or slapdash designs like Tarawa. The more modern designs, like the TCS Eagle, are probably around because of their low cost and easy deployability, though they may not have the guns an older-style light carrier had, at least in comparison.
Besides, one of the lessons that Confed learned during the Kilrathi War was that carriers -do- matter, and heavy carriers are more effective than the light carriers tend to be. The pre-war emphasis on light carriers seemed to be based on the idea that fighters were only good for ground missions and light strike and recon, rather than being ship-killers in their own right. The post-war fleet has recognized the need for a fighter-heavy fleet, given their versatility as compared to the pre-war battleships or even wartime-era dreadnoughts, especially as cheaper destroyers can carry nasty weapons of their own while torpedoes are always useful. The presence of the huge plasma cannon on Nephilim ships must've come as a nasty surprise.
When it comes to the matter of the Ranger-class CVL, one also has to consider that perhaps the success of the TCS Victory might have had more to do with the crew than it did with the ship's capabilities. The Victory, as I understood it, was one step away from being made into razor blades, and would be valiantly fighting the war against unruly facial hair if it wasn't for the Kilrathi. The way I understood it, she was nearly obsolete at the time of HOTT. Perhaps her success against the Kilrathi had more to do with the fact that she was lugging Chris Blair, Maniac, and Hobbes around with her.
overmortal
Bearded Person
Perhaps not so much Hobbes, huh?
Expendable
Spaceman
What about Vagabond?
Ripper
Peace Through Superior Firepower
Sylvester said:
I stand corrected. (Or as GySgt. Soto would have said, "I wear a backbrace.")
And it's Langley. Sorry for the screwup. It's been a long time since my Naval History class in NJROTC.
And the Langley started out as a cruiser.
Going out on another limb: I think that what the deal was with the Ranger, was that it was the first carrier built from the keel up as a carrier. I think the first three were converted from other ships.
Expendable
Spaceman
Langley was built on the hull of the coaler Jupiter, while Lexington and Saratoga were built on battlecruiser hulls.
Haesslich
Spaceman
Spartan said:
According to the novel, she -was- obsolete ten years before the novel/game began, and was due to be scrapped... but because of the casualties of the BoT and the Enigma campaign, she was sent out onto the front line instead of being offered an honorable retirement.
She got that anyways, as a floating museum, post-Kilrathi War.
