|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 1, 2024 9:35:42 GMT -6
I have finally, for the first time in any of my games, made it to the jet age - and found that converting a carrier to be jet capable reduces its air capacity by approximately 40%. Does that mean the carrier can now carry 40% fewer propeller aircraft, too, in exchange for being able to operate LJFs? That would seem to be exceedingly silly, and probably not worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on May 1, 2024 9:49:48 GMT -6
I have finally, for the first time in any of my games, made it to the jet age - and found that converting a carrier to be jet capable reduces its air capacity by approximately 40%. Does that mean the carrier can now carry 40% fewer propeller aircraft, too, in exchange for being able to operate LJFs? That would seem to be exceedingly silly, and probably not worthwhile. I don't believe so. I think LJFs take up 1.5x the capacity of prop planes. But you can always stock it with props. |
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on May 1, 2024 10:21:16 GMT -6
Yes Jet capable does reduce the maximum number of planes you can carry, of any type including prop planes, however, you can only operate HJF and JA from Jet capable carriers with catapults and angled flight decks, so it is very worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 1, 2024 10:38:28 GMT -6
Yes Jet capable does reduce the maximum number of planes you can carry, of any type including prop planes, however, you can only operate HJF and JA from Jet capable carriers with catapults and angled flight decks, so it is very worth it. So can you operate LJFs from non jet capable CVs? |
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on May 1, 2024 10:42:02 GMT -6
Yes you can! but they cost 1.5x capacity so for every 3 props you can fit 2 jets, but jets are better than props. I think this is explained in the manual
|
|
|
|
Post by pratapon51 on May 1, 2024 21:57:13 GMT -6
It's only worth making this conversion if the carrier has a large enough displacement to handle HJFs and JAs. (30kt with catapults, don't know the minimum size without catapults.)
Otherwise, it's both cheaper and better to keep an older, smaller CV unconverted and stock it full of LJF for CAP and light strike capability.
|
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on May 1, 2024 22:29:58 GMT -6
It's only worth making this conversion if the carrier has a large enough displacement to handle HJFs and JAs. (30kt with catapults, don't know the minimum size without catapults.) I think it's 40,000 |
|
|
|
Post by spitfire97 on May 3, 2024 2:45:15 GMT -6
It's only worth making this conversion if the carrier has a large enough displacement to handle HJFs and JAs. (30kt with catapults, don't know the minimum size without catapults.) I think it's 40,000 It is 40,000t until you get the Steam Catapults technology in the Shipboard Aircraft Operation research field where that value gets reduced to 30,000 This is separate from the Flight Deck Catapults technology earlier in the same research field |
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on May 3, 2024 3:28:58 GMT -6
It is bizarre - for a carrier operating light jets, torpedo bombers and dive bombers it is better not to bother converting the carrier to be jet capable. The phrase "jet capable" doesn't really make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on May 3, 2024 7:34:38 GMT -6
It comes from the fact that the early jets that LJFs are modeled on weren't much different in size or weight than late piston engine fighters. But an F-4 weighs 50% more empty than an F9F does at max weight. The difference in size also changes the way aircraft must be handled.
While the term should be clarified as "heavy jet capable", the line that's been drawn definitely makes sense.
|
|
