I wonder how nightmare frames have effected aircraft doctrine? It's kind if handwaved in the show that Knightmsre frames are just like, the best thing ever and completely dominate warfare, butnits never really explained how. Like what does a KF do against a fighter jet
As good a place to start as anywhere, I suppose. KMF affects on air power...
In a lot of ways aircraft in the world of Code Geass are support vehicles. They, in and of themselves, are not vehicles for decisively winning battles. Aircraft have been developing for the last fifty-sixty years or so, slowed slightly by the move, early in their development, from petrol engines to electric motors. However, unlike the OTL, Britannian combat doctrine places a disproportionate amount of emphasis on what are effectively armored cavalry units (KMFs). The job of the plane, the attack helicopter, and other airborne vehicles, is to support KMF squads and infantry in taking territory and knocking out hardened positions with as little fuss as possible. They're also the primary method of recon for armies of this age.
The
secondary role of aircraft in CG is to keep the enemy's air off of the KMF forces. The age of the dogfight is still alive and well during this time period. Because, to refer to your question... what does a KMF do against a fighter jet? Usually they die, either to a well-aimed missle or a strafing run with whatever lesser ordinance they're equipped with.
Knightmares just don't have the capability (yet) to meet a fighter on their own terms. Britannia considers it ungentlemanly warfare on the rare occasion enemy air gets clear shots at their KMF groups, but they're entitled nobility anyway.
Is the quest changing how effective aircraft are IRL? Because aircraft carriers and naval aircraft very quickly proved themselves vital in the Pacific theatre during WW2, and were also critical in the handful of encounters between British and German ships in the Atlantic.
Saying that the "Harassment fleet" would be bad at engaging enemy fleets ignores that a carrier fleet could wipe out a fleet of regular battleships, destroyers, and frigates that was several times its size from a hundred miles away, without ever being directly exposed to any danger.
Likewise, arguing that it wouldn't be suited for coastal assaults is a bit ridiculous. Just look at the Gulf War of 1991, or the Iraq war of 2003 if you want to see how devastating sea-borne airpower can be when it comes to obliterating enemy defences and supporting a land invasion. Even earlier than that, US carriers demonstrated their worth not just for sea battles, but for supporting amphibious assaults, as the US "island hopped" across the Pacific towards Japan.
Now, the doctrine may not fully exist yet, but frankly that's not really a big issue. Prior to the 1940s, the doctrine didn't exist because of the technical limitations of existing aircraft, and the infancy of aviation technology in general. With long range radar and advanced aircraft already developed, there are no major technical barriers to overcome, and the advantages and possibilities of carrier-warfare will be immediately apparent as soon as we attempt to target enemy ships at all.
The Pacific is a carrier playground. The Atlantic and Med are different stories, but the Pacific favors carriers.
Yes, yes the Pacific Ocean is.
Notably, this is important because outside of the 'First Pacific War' from canon, in which Japan and China fought over mainland territory (Japan lost, but the military and political damage inflicted on China precipitated the creation of the modern Chinese Federation) has been the only significant, modern, naval engagement in the Pacific between what could be termed as superpower nations.
Even then, though, the vast majority of battles happened in the Sea of Japan or the East China Sea, rather than the Pacific Ocean proper. Add onto that fact, the level of technology at the time wasn't one which could allow the full creation of the carrier (beyond a proof of concept) and you have an environment where Carriers just haven't proven their worth.
In the years since this conflict, both Japan and China signed treaties and haven't expanded their naval powers significantly enough beyond new technology to attempt to incorporate new doctrines. Japan and China both
have a few carriers apiece, but they aren't the focus of their doctrines.
Britannia and the Europa United, on the other hand, last fought during the Great War, primarily in the Atlantic, but with a few significant engagements in the Mediterranean as well. This was during the time period of biplanes. Notably, the historical record states that the first carriers developed during WWI were used as vehicles for deploying spotter planes across large bodies of water and weren't effective. Specifically because the range of the big guns on battleships and 'dreadnoughts' outsized the operable spotting range from which the planes could see an enemy fleet and return. IE: They'd usually start taking fire before they could turn and report. This didn't leave all that great a first impression for carriers at the time.
Now, putting all of that aside, there's also the fact that there's some significant inter-service politics going on between the Britannian Navy, Airforce, and Army. In this world, the focus on KMFs means that the Army (knights specifically) get the lions' share of the glory. Both the navy and the air force resent this arrangement more than a little. The highest ranking officers in the navy, specifically, don't want to share what achievements they do get on occasion with the fly boys (and girls) who are, to their eyes, functionally similar to KMF jockeys. Navies actually have something of a history for being politically...
insular, partially due to taking a bunch of people and isolating them in metal boxes for months at a time. This is the political aspect I was talking about and, as forward thinking as Britannian military commanders usually need to be, they
can be hidebound about certain aspects of warfare doctrine.
If you want a good reason why this political friction exists, one of the main uses for Aircraft Carriers at this moment for the Britannian War Fleets is the facilitation of this:
If you remember this from Season 1? They're beginning to see deployment this year and are making a lot of people in the navy very irritated with having to put up with KMF units launching from ships and the role of the navy being sidelined again to cater to the army instead of being allowed to take some of the glory for themselves.
I'm couching this
mostly from Britannia's POV, because that's what's most relevant, but it's not entirely out of line with what the other countries of the world are thinking about their militaries. The navy of the Chinese Federation has their experimental 'iceberg ships,' but they've never seen real battle and are something of a joke even within the Federation at this point. While effective, much of the rest of the Federation's ships and doctrine are considered last-generation by other super-powers. They tend to use the 'lots of people on lots of boats' strategy (officially called 'Fleet in Being' Doctrine by naval historians). The EU, on the other hand, maintains a smaller navy, but one which is considered cutting edge even by a Britannian standpoint. Neither of them acknowledge the aircraft carrier as a capital ship by anything other than displacement or hull size, and even then only technically.
As I said earlier, there just isn't a body of documented military successes to demonstrate the superiority of aircraft carriers, even in the carrier's playground that is the Pacific Ocean.
@Slayer Anderson Can you give more information about the capabilities of carriers and carrier-based aircraft in universe? What exactly do Lelouch and our advisors know about them?
- How many aircraft and munitions would one of our carriers be able to carry?
- What armaments do carrier-based aircraft have/what could be created without requiring major technological breakthroughs? E.g. Anti-ship missiles and torpedoes
- What is the range of the carrier-based aircraft we have access to?
- How fast are current carrier-based aircraft which we'd have access to, and how do they compare to land-based aircraft? Can they break the sound barrier?
- How quickly can current aircraft launch from current carriers?
- What range does our current radar and sonar have, and how does it compare to the range of typical battleship guns?
- What is the effective range of communications with our aircraft?
- How effective and widespread is current anti-air technology?
- In the event that we pioneer an aircraft/carrier-based naval doctrine, how quickly and effectively will our enemies be able to respond?
1) Aicraft Carriers would have munitions and fuel for between 70 aircraft apiece. The heaviest class of carrier carries about 100 at this time, yous will be slightly more economy-size than that, but not by much.
2) They are traditionally armed with either secondary or tertiary armaments for their size of ship class along with a compliment of torpedoes.
3) 2000-2500 km
4) They can't break the sound barrier and are probably 1-2 hundred mph slower than some of the larger ground-launched fighters.
5) You can launch a plane every few minutes. Ideally, you'd manage one every minute, but under battle conditions...
6) Naval guns have longer range than your current radar/sonar systems.
7) Depends a lot on weather and whether or not you have relays in range. Under ideal conditions, probably about 1000 km. Realistically, about 500-700 km.
8) Effectiveness and range varies wildly between factions. If you're talking about a faction with a professional or semi-professional military unit (the Big 3 pirate groups), then they'll have some manner of anti-air weaponry ready to discourage you, at the very least.
9) This question is far too broad to answer concisely. If you're referring only to the pirates as 'enemies' then its still too broad. If you start sinking fleets left and right with an effective new naval doctrine, the general response will be not to engage your forces. If you're talking about a counter-doctrine change to your own, it will likely be several years, at the least, before anyone else can do something besides ape your own fleet composition and try to replicate your results.
Code Geass tech is all over the place.
And I love you, Random Citizen!
...but, no, seriously, I'm glad someone said something along these lines. It saved me from having to do it.
Don't forget, Munitions are also another factor to upkeep costs. Missiles and Bombs are much more expensive than High Explosive shells of 16-inch guns cause of the guidance electronics on them.
@Slayer Anderson, if we get subs will we have something that can also launch cruise missiles from underwater? Having those missiles be Laser guided by our fighter jet would be a great insta-kill solution to a problem.
Torpedoes, yes. Cruise Missiles, no. After you invent them, then we'll talk.
I'll still be available to answer questions for a few hours, but I think there's been significant enough discussion that I'm going to open the vote now. Usual 24 hour period and feel free to continue asking questions and discussing ideas well into the regular period.
IN OTHER WORDS: VOTING IS OPEN!
[ ][DOC] Main Battle Fleet
[ ][DOC] Land Invasion
[ ][DOC] Harassment 
