Hms hermes 1968

[cbfasi 4]

I do intend upgrading the 1968 version in the near future, just a matter of adjusting the base model.

Oh yes that yellow thing at the front of the harrier, its a small truck!!!

[Uncle_Sam 0]

Couple of questions

1. is it still a static version or can it move

2. Can you enter with a Zodiac from behind or something

3. The Yellow (thingy) truck, can It tow planes or just push

4. How do you get HELO down below because the dont got wheels so.......

I cant wait for it to release

Finally a excelent Carrier

[DaSquade 0]

@Uncle_Sam:

I'm not a expert, but can give you some answers

- Everything bigger then 65m (althought my Nimitz got some parts that are +-75m by 67m) are still static (see RoalLOD and GeoLOD limitations). Mybee through advendce scripting this could by possible (?)

- I don't think the Hermes (or any other carrier) is enterable by water (Zodiac). Could be done by adding ladder or crane (scripting?)

- About the yellow truck (cold a "mule") COULD tow (pull and push) the planes (i guess helis to), but the only thing that holds CBSFASI to use it (or others) is that it still has one big problem: the towed vehicle uses "ground" level, and don't follow RoadLOD. So plane will bee under water.

I didn't do much testing myself, but i hope most problems will bee solved soon (+ lifts).

Question to CBFASI: about those lifts (me still a noob on this), but you said the lift didn't work perfect jet because the axis is situated far away from model (to simulate a "almoust" vetical rotation. I was wondering what's the height of the lift. (height between flydeck level and hangar level?) Just asking because i recently started back modelling the Nimitz and my lifts (4) have to raise about 10 m high. Anyway, if someone can helpout CBFASI with the TOW script (bug) and lifts...Plz do!!!

PS: great work so far CBFASI. Must say you are my ownly hope there will bee a good carrier. (NO SPAM!!!! As long i don't learn texuring with O2 (and not 3Dmax) i guess my Nimitz (model almoust done...flydeck splitted up in multiple parts for better texturing: lines..ext) wil remain a dream. Luckly we have you Hermes to keep this dream alive!!!

[Uncle_Sam 0]

Cool show us a screen mayby guys will wanna help by seeing how big and   nice it looks Dasquade

and i have to proof you wrong there are Carriers where LCAC and zodiacs can enter from the back

Its the USS WASP

[ozanzac 0]

Its the USS WASP

[hellfish6 7]

The USS Wasp isn't really an aircraft carrier - it's an amphibious assault ship. It's designed to carry Marines and their aircraft, not long range bombers and interceptors. There are no catapults or arresting wires on the Wasp. No real full deck carriers have docking wells, either.

[havocsquad 0]

Do think about this though, with about 8 to 15 VTOL F/A-35 JSF's on the WASP's, that thing with proper naval esocrt cover is just as powerful and safe than a Nimitz or the newer Reagan class CVNs.  It will just be in a smaller amount, perfect for dealing with conflicts involving islands or a low tech enemy threat. (Terrorists, guerrilla uprisings, peacekeeping, etc.)  Throw some of the new Seahawk ASW helos in and some RAH-66 Commanches, then you got a boatload of really powerful landing/support force that could easily capture an island or region the size of Maui in Hawaii.

[coporal_punishment 0]

Do think about this though, with about 8 to 15 VTOL F/A-35 JSF's on the WASP's, that thing with proper naval esocrt cover is just as powerful and safe than a Nimitz or the newer Reagan class CVNs.  It will just be in a smaller amount, perfect for dealing with conflicts involving islands or a low tech enemy threat. (Terrorists, guerrilla uprisings, peacekeeping, etc.)  Throw some of the new Seahawk ASW helos in and some RAH-66 Commanches, then you got a boatload of really powerful landing/support force that could easily capture an island or region the size of Maui in Hawaii.

But all the aircraft you have metioned will have MARINES written on the side of them they're primary mission is to support the MEUs not to protect the ship.

and i think the CVNs would have more protection then LHDs because CVNs move in battlegroups (around 12 warships).

[hellfish6 7]

That's what they do already. Having a Nimitz-class is just insurance and for dealing with bigger threats. 8-15 JFS's don't equal the firepower of 20 F-14s, 60+ F/A-18s, 4 E-2Cs and all the rest of the firepower that a serious CVBG carries.

The Navy is starting to organize some of their forces differently, though, so instead of Amphibious Ready Groups with 3 amphibs and a destroyer, they are now organizing Expeditionary Groups with three amphibious ships, an Aegis cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate plus a nuclear sub or two. This provides more naval gun support to the Marines as well as ASW and AA protection for the whole operation. You could park one of these groups off of any shore and nothing will be able to come within twenty miles of it.

[Dauragon 0]

That's what they do already. Having a Nimitz-class is just insurance and for dealing with bigger threats. 8-15 JFS's don't equal the firepower of 20 F-14s, 60+ F/A-18s, 4 E-2Cs and all the rest of the firepower that a serious CVBG carries.

The Navy is starting to organize some of their forces differently, though, so instead of Amphibious Ready Groups with 3 amphibs and a destroyer, they are now organizing Expeditionary Groups with three amphibious ships, an Aegis cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate plus a nuclear sub or two. This provides more naval gun support to the Marines as well as ASW and AA protection for the whole operation. You could park one of these groups off of any shore and nothing will be able to come within twenty miles of it.

*thinks Indepedence Lost, 2005 *

[thirtyg 0]

Do think about this though, with about 8 to 15 VTOL F/A-35 JSF's on the WASP's, that thing with proper naval esocrt cover is just as powerful and safe than a Nimitz or the newer Reagan class CVNs.  It will just be in a smaller amount, perfect for dealing with conflicts involving islands or a low tech enemy threat. (Terrorists, guerrilla uprisings, peacekeeping, etc.)  Throw some of the new Seahawk ASW helos in and some RAH-66 Commanches, then you got a boatload of really powerful landing/support force that could easily capture an island or region the size of Maui in Hawaii.

And whats more as America's 'Deputy Sheriff'   we (Australia) are looking to purchase/make a number of amphibious assualt ships, couple potentially with the JSFs for the exact purpose.

[mads bahrt 0]

You could park one of these groups off of any shore and nothing will be able to come within twenty miles of it.

Thats what small countries has a submarine force for. In the case of the Falkland war the british never got rid of the Argentine submarine threat and that seriously influenced their options.

[hellfish6 7]

You could park one of these groups off of any shore and nothing will be able to come within twenty miles of it.

Thats what small countries has a submarine force for. In the case of the Falkland war the british never got rid of the Argentine submarine threat and that seriously influenced their options.

And that's why the expeditionary groups include a Perry-class frigate, with two SH-60R anti-sub helicopters, a Burke or Spruance-class destroyer, with another SH-60R, and a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with two more SH-60Rs. And assault ships often carry 2-4 more SH-60R anti sub helos. And don't forget that Los Angeles and Sea Wolf-class submarines are very good at hunting and killing enemy subs.

It isn't easy sneaking through all of them. I think the greatest threat would be from a German or Swedish sub with air-independent propulsion. But I doubt we'd be going to war with their of those two anytime soon (unless Bush remains president, of course).

[mads bahrt 0]

As a matter of fact the submarines from the danish navy do accomplish the feat of "sinking" BLUFOR ships on NATO exercises.

And they are sixties-era diesel subs. (And about to be replaced or just phased out within 5-10 years.) According to what i've read it's terribly difficult to hunt submarines in coastal waters.

[Major Gripe 0]

As a matter of fact the submarines from the danish navy do accomplish the feat of "sinking" BLUFOR ships on NATO exercises.

And they are sixties-era diesel subs. (And about to be replaced or just phased out within 5-10 years.) According to what i've read it's terribly difficult to hunt submarines in coastal waters.

Thats because even the most hi tech sonar finds it very difficult to accurately discern a sub in the clutter of shallow coastal waters, not to mention the acoustic interference from waves breaking on the shore for example.

[cbfasi 4]

Well a few things...

Hermes 1968 is a static ship, thus can be easily walked around and is useable by aircraft.

Being designed from the keel up as an aircraft carrier and not an amphibious assault ship (although its how she last served The Royal Navy, now back to a aircraft carrier in India) there is no location to enter the ship from waterline.  I do hope to to put in companion ways that will reach down to sea level to allow transfer from other means of transport.

As for the Yellow truck, we have intentions but are unsure whether we can solve the few problems in the way.

The lifts.... well this one turned out to be a lot lot lot easier than originally thought..

I used 2 simultaneous rotations, each controling the vertices on one side of the lift, as both rotate same time, same distance the face between stays level!!.  The Hermes lift rises about 7.5m, 10m shoudn't be much different.

Uncle Sam...

What you are showing is a LHD or Amphibious Assault ship.  Its primary use is for amphibious operations, although it can also be used as a light carrier.  The Uk have gone the opposite way, with our little carriers being capable of operating as base ships for Royal Marines, admitedly without a docking well (using helo transport instead).

As for submarine threat in the Falklands.  The Royal Navy was intially worried, but once the landings started and there was still no sign of any Argentine submarine activity other than at South Georgia they reduced the threat (turns out Argentine subs were much much closer than we knew, just didnt shoot!), and our Nuc boats did the same to the Argentinians.

A known sub presence is enough to deter some Navies.

For those who may not of realised I am also working on the Amphibious forces for the Falklands Mod and already have an operational LSD (HMS Fearless)

[TopCover 0]

on the risk of steering off topic; Dutch subs (Bruinvis class?) have crept up on Los Angeles class undetected in exercises as well.