Shipbucket

Apropos the VERY ambitious carrier project: first of all the drawings are very nice, very nice indeed.

However, your time frame is very optimistic, to say it kindly. It's not very realistic in any way you regard it. So, let's take a look at it: two countries with CVN ambitions, none of whom previously have had any experience with such extremely complex vessels. Brasil has carrier operation experience, but only with conventional ones. Neither country has any experience building such huge vessels; in fact, Brasil has built nothing larger than the training frigate Brasil and the two last units of the Niteroi-class. Venezuela has no practice whatsoever of such shipbuilding. Those are the hard facts.

Now, how is then that these two 'rookie' nations can pull eight (8!) such vessels together in half the time that it usually takes the one proficient CVN user, the United States to built a Nimitz/Gerald Ford-class CVN? - and this with the help of a yard that only helpfully can be said to possess the technology needed (DCNS) and another one that does not possess it at all?
So, a realistic scenario would be to scrap, at least five if not six of these giant white elephants (for so they will be, especially for the not-too-populous Venezuela...) - I can agree that Brasil may be capable of operating two - but not more!
The planning, design stage would propably last, at least three to four years, if not more, after contracts having been signed and the respective governments (mind you, there are four [4] governments involved!) having reached agreements about the purchase, transfer of technology, counter purchases etc, so, laying down, if planning begins in 2016/17 would be around 2020.
Launching the hull can be a relatively quick business, especially if you build with modular technology, so, let's launch the first hull in, say 2023/24.
But now you're entering into the really, and I mean REALLY complex domain of completing the hull, i. e. turning it into a working ship. That will, conservatively calculated with all the above mentioned factors, propably last some six to 10(!) years! Now, if you add to this that you want your ships to be equipped with, say steam catapults, then you're going to run into a major snafu, since today only the United States is capable of building those, and what would make the U.S. want to sell such strategic know-how/commodity to a potential hostile country (Venezuela)? - So, your first unit won't be sailing till around 2033-35 (without catapults!), and then its work-up time will probably, again conservatively tallied, take another 18 to 36 months! (Again, without catapults!)
This is a far more realistic scenario - unless, of course, for political reasons your ships are being assembled in a dangerously fast, reckless and haphazard fashion! If so, then I reckon neither of the major navies you mentioned will have much to fear, and both Venezuela and Brasil will end up as laughing stocks internationally...

Thanks for making such an elaborate analysis about the carrier. I completely agree with timeline issue, it's just too short i was thinking of changing the first launch in 2025 and comissioning around 2033-2035, i was using the Indian navies INS Vishal as a reference for the dates, thats why i put the dates so close together.

On the subject of the steam catapults i dont think they would be that big of a problem since the French had steam catapults in their carriers since the 1960's which include the exFoch in service with Brazil so they have experience not only operating them but also building them, and as for the US wanting to sell that technology i read that they sold the EMALS technology to India to use it on their new carrier, thats why i think they wont cause any problems to sell the older steam catapult system. By the way in this AU Venezuela is not hostile towards the US thats why the AU is called Republic of Venezuela and not Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela im using the countries original name to reflect that.

Other options i was considering were either replacing this carrier with one or two smaller conventional power carriers, getting rid of the carriers completely or Buy a foreign carrier (CATOBAR Queen Elizabeth Class or similar). The reason i mentioned getting rid of them is because i have been thinking for some time now of replacing most of the larger ships in this thread with existing desings like the FREMM and things like that, and use the designs that i made for this thread on the United States of Venezuela AU because they seem to fit a little better there.

Yes, I think for a country like Venezuela carriers would be a tad too over-the-top asset. The country simply, as I can discern, would not have anyone or anything viable to project that power towards. As for the steam catapults, France does not actually possess the technology; only United States does. The Clemenceau and Foch's steam cats were built in the U.S. I'm mentioning this particular part of carrier technology, since it's the single most demanding one, and other countries have failed spectacularly to develop their own, functional ones.

I do apologize for painting the Venezuela as a still hostile country towards the USA. I still, maintain, however, that the U.S. would not pass down such crucial technology; especially if we take into count a possible, maybe even probable GOP-dominated Congress (as of today...)

Hi everyone, i have been doing some changes to this AU and this is the latest change.

Venezuelan Air Force - 2036

Hi everyone, i have added a bit of background information for the country on the first page, it is still very basic but i will continue adding information in the future as i keep updating the AU.

Nice effort, but I have one very serious remark about quantities of major combat systems of the land forces (page 1).
You wrote that Venezuelan army has 2124 MBT's, 3716 IFV's and a tiny number of just 240 towed artillery pieces, 150 SP artillery and 370 MRL's.
I'm sorry to say, but that numbers imply an organizational structure that is horribly underequipped with artillery, while on the other hand the ratio of MRL's to conventional artillery is unheard of in any other army (in all sizeable armies MRL's are much less numerous than "typical" barrel artillery).
To put this into perspective:
-late 1980s US heavy (armored or mech.infantry) division had 6 or 5 (respectively) tank battalions with total of 348/290 MBT's, and either 4 artillery batallions (3 x 24 M109 and 1 x 12 M110) or 3 batallions (3 x 24 M109) and 1 battery (1 x 9 MLRS);
-late 1980s Soviet heavy (tank or motor rifle) division had 10 or 6-7 (respectively) tank battalions with 322/214-254 MBT's and 7 artillery (4 x 18 D-30 or 2S1 and 3 x 18 D-20 or 2S3) plus 1 MRL batallion (18 x BM-21).
So for a mechanized division it gives ratio of 290 tanks to 72 guns and 9 MRL's (USA) or 214 tanks to 126 guns and 18 MRL's (USSR).
And on top of it there was also artillery belonging to higher levels (corps' and armies in USA, armies and fronts in USSR) - and there was a lots of it.
In US Army there was a varied number of artillery brigades of various strength.
In Soviet army each combined arms army (4-5 motor rifle divisions or 1 tank and 4 motor rifle divisions) had a brigade of artillery with 72 to 90 152mm howitzers and MRL regiment (54 launchers) and on the front level there were artillery divisions (with several brigades of guns, howitzers and MRL's) as well as separate brigades. (and anti-tank artillery, but let's leave that).

EDIT:
P.S. And generally having all that stuff (2000 tanks, 8 aircraft carriers, 3000 aircraft etc.) at just 320 thousand of personnel suggest rather VERY big reserve component - either professional or conscript-based.
(Or rather care-free approach to issue of manpower needs of such large number of equipment)

Thanks for the information Eswube its being very useful but im still having a hard time putting everthing together, if you have more information or army charts it would be very useful. Right now this is what i was thinking of: Armored Division 240 Tanks 72 Self propelled howitzers 12 Mobile Rocket Launchers. Id like to know what you think.

There's lots of information about it around, but (leaving aside the obvious issue of separating worthy stuff from crap) it's not easy to find "everything in one piece".

Here's the link to the order of battle of NATO (and certain neutral European) countries in the 1989:
http://www.microarmormayhem.com/NATO_OR ... _mod_8.doc
While showing things as they were a quarter of a century ago, it's still a good thing to look at for inspiration.
Note, that different countries are described with various degree of detailing.
And here's the article on the organization of actual army of Venezuela:
http://leadnobleed.blogspot.co.uk/2009/ ... nd-to.html

As for that Armored Division - yeah, that looks sensible - 3 brigades/regiments - 6 tank bn's (each with 40 tanks - 3 companies with 13 each - each with 3 platoons of 4 tanks), 3 or 4 artillery bn's, 1 MRL bn plus 3 or 4 mechanized bn's, recce bn, air defence bn, engineers bn etc. etc.
Mechanized Division could have proportion of tank and mech. bn's completely opposite (3-4 to 6 respectively).
Infantry Division, for example, could have 9 infantry and 1 tank bn (plus other stuff of course, and with towed artillery).

PM me if You have any questions.

Hi, thanks for posting those drawings but the ships your taking about had already been made.

Interceptor 1102: http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?di ... 201102.png

Damen Patrol 5009:


Damen Patrol 4207:

Hi everyone. After listening to bezobrazov's comments i have made some modifications to the aircraft carriers but im still not sure which one to choose so immgoing to post the different versions to see what others think.