SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199148)

Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...riers_in_space

Pretty much the idea is, air craft carriers make sense, becuase it "bridges" the divide between sea and air. It doesn't make sense in space, since its all "space"

Excellent article. Thanks for the heads-up.

One of my favorite science-fiction short stories was by Larry Niven, and was written back in the '70s. Sorry I don't remember the name.

In the story one guy is being chased by an enemy, both in ships that use a collection field of some sort to gather loose hydrogen from space, which is then fed into a sort of ramjet. The guy being chased realizes that if he can drop a large enough mass he might collapse the other guy's field, possibly even wrecking his ship. So he figures out a way to do this, and drops a part of his ship behind him. He starts watching his rear with a digital telescope. Six months later he sees a flash of light billions of miles behind that tells him it worked.

Now that was original, and probably realistic.

I liked the article/interview, and I agree with you that the key factor of two media (sea/air) is missing in space.

It would then seem to depend on the tactics of short- vs. long-range engagements. e.g. are small "fighters" more effective weapons platforms than "capital" ships. At this point, the whole discussion falls into the rabbit hole of fictional technology (offensive, defensive, and propulsion).

CW does a good job of sidestepping this to avoid meaningless comparisons by focusing on the wet-navy analogies used as storytelling platforms more than on coherent self-consistent logistical structure. When readers have at least some familiarity with a military structure, referencing that background saves all the writing effort of describing a different one.

Bottom line: if a carrier (or carrier group) is about mobile force-projection from sea through air, how well does that analogy hold up from space through space?
About the only example I can think of here would be deploying atmospheric attack units from orbit, which could be considered a two-medium scenario.

Thoughts?

Awesome analysis! I always love it when the sci-fi world is brought back to its' "sci-" roots. Some people whine and moan that it's ruining escapist fantasy, but I think the greatest value of science fiction as entertainment is that we learn something about the real world and "real future" from it too.

Very smart thoughts :yep:

Well, unless micheal bay has a say, aircraft carriers won't work because they're, ummm, boats, and tend not to fly in space well.

And aircraft usually require 'air', hence the name.

Having read the article, I don't feel most of us, who are sci-fi fans and appreciate science, would not have figured this out on our own during our daily commutes to work.

He basically says, well we don't know what's going to happen, so any future planning may be moot, as those technologies that deliminate strategy have yet to be developed.

That said, it was a good article, and he does bring up a few points that take more time than a drive to work. In particular, the logistical end.

OK, now science is ruining all my fun.

DAMN!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilead Abyss (Post 1948157)

About the only example I can think of here would be deploying atmospheric attack units from orbit, which could be considered a two-medium scenario.

Kind of like an Amphibious assault ship which is a form of carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

Good article. Still prefer unrealistic sci fi to realism though. We can't know what realism is until the tech is in place to dictate the needs of space warfare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1948154)

I believe that was one of the Man Kzin War series - I don't remember which one though.

Let us also not forget Haldeman's excellent "The Forever War", which does follow the laws of physics as far as space travel and space battle are concerned (in addition to being an analysis of the Vietnam war).

assuming that ships are even necessary, carriers are very likely to be present.

Carriers will still be using the principle of carrying smaller attack craft. The tactical value of multiple, small, fast, heavy hitting spacecraft seems valid even in the possible future. Strike craft to pinpoint target and transport land troops is still obviously viable.

I like Halo. The Human technology is, in my opinion, the most realistic view of the future ive yet seen. Humans still use ballistics. We still have reliable guns and ammo. it is of course much more advanced guns and targeting systems than we have now, but still basic and believable. The warships carry essentially a very massive, very powerful rail gun, and while the speeds of the 2000-ton tungsten core shell are a bit unrealistic (half the speed of light), it is science that we have even today, though in its VERY early stages. The most advanced technology in the Halo series (for humans) is the warp drive, saying that it rips a wormhole into a made-up realm of space called slipstream that carries them faster than light, and thats how they travel. We have scientists working on warp drives right now. Warp drives have the potential to travel faster than light without breaking the rule of E=MC^2 because you simply push space out of your way much like a propeller pushes water out of the way of a speedboat and thats how it accelerates. Warp drives are the most sensible way to travel to distant systems. All we need is an immense power source or some way to do so. (yes, ive read the halo books. Assuming you dont associate Halo with the games the books are simply great science fiction books. disassociate the negative connotation of Halo games and the stereotype of people who play them and you get a very interesting series of books)

Anyway, in military universe of Halo, you have prowler spacecrafts, very small ships using stealth to recon and place nuclear mines. You have frigates, destroyers, Carriers, and battleships, shaped not like any kind of ship wed find on earth, kind of like a layered flat rectangle when viewing it from the side. Their armament include the MAC (magnetic accelerator cannon, the rail gun), high-payload Nuclear missiles, Shiva anti-ship missiles, multiple automated point defense cannons to eliminate attack craft, and nuclear mines. Its armor is high-tech, super-strong honeycombed titanium. Its propulsion is highly refined nuclear reactors.

All of this is obtainable technology even today, although much of the science is in its very early infancy. Thats why i like it. it is very easily plausible and the science isnt unheard of or completely theoretical. Unless of course the battles of the future dont even need ships (at least very large spaceships) at all.

OMG HOW LONG TILL HALO 4 COMES OUT?!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

NOVEMBER 6TH!
I CAN'T BLOODY WAIT!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybermat47 (Post 1949057)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

NOVEMBER 6TH!
I CAN'T BLOODY WAIT!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Thank you for your profound contribution. Have you told your hairdresser about it?
I would like to refer to a post by JU88, a guy who is much more polite than me: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=16 Sorry that your attention span prevented you from looking back into a topic where you posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. (Post 1949043)

You know, this does raise a really good question. Usually when we think of assaulting planets, we think of either sending down the troops (Star wars attack of the clones, Avatar, Halo, etc). I mean, it is simply more dramatic to see massed infantry marching in a 19th century style.

It is also much more dramatic to see the use of a death star like superweapons. you get lasers shot from space, nuclear weapons from space, etc.

However, wouldn't the most efficient method for bombarding a planet be simply dragging an asteroid over, and "throw rocks down"?

Carriers in space can make sense, it's just that realistic 'space fighters' would be much better analogues to Age of Sail gunboats or modern missile boats than actual aircraft. While they wouldn't have significantly better maneuverability because they operate in the same medium, a space fighter/gunboat could dispense with things like extended life support, heavy protection or high delta-V in favour of better acceleration and more firepower compared to ships which have to have more endurance. There's a few hard (or relatively hard) science fiction universes that make use of ships like that, such as C. J. Cherryh's Alliance-Union universe and David Weber's Honorverse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant (Post 1949107)

The problem with threatening a planet with orbital bombardment or asteroid strikes is that if you're actually forced to follow up on those threats in the end you will do some very serious damage to the planet that you are (presumably) trying to take. If the planet refuses to surrender when you control the orbitals and you want both it and its infrastructure intact, you'll have to land troops in order to take control of it.

I love this thread, Space Battleship Yamato forever!! :rock:

http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/title.jpg

I think Raptor's comment is spot on-the most realistic space combat story I read is one by Arthur C . Clarke called "Earthlight."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthlight

This is the type of carrier role better analogous to what would be required in a space carrier.

http://www.public.navy.mil/usff/ba12.../waspclass.jpg

Carriers in space won't work because of physics. It's not any more complicated than that. If you can get a high-thrust engine in a fighter, you can put XXXXX of them on a larger craft, and it will go just as fast (or change velocity just as much (delta-v)).

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration. Large ships cannot rotate quickly or the forces on the outside parts become severe, not to mention the loads on the crew. A ting fighter with the pilot at the CM has less of a problem. Course a tiny fighter carries no propellant, so it is useless.

Frankly, manned fighters are becoming anachronistic on earth, and they will never exist in space. Make a "fighter" that intercepts the target. A drone/missile. Done. Now it only needs the delta-v to get to the target, not get there, then return.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater (Post 1949264)

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration.

I think weapons management might be a factor. A lot of small craft with potent weapons could be sent against a distant enemy while the much-more-expensive and valuable mother ship could stay safely out of range.

Of course it didn't work for Jefferson's 'Gunboat Navy', but this might be different.

Or not.