Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space

[the_tyrant]

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"

[Sailor Steve]

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.

[Gilead Abyss]

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?

[CCIP]

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

[Gargamel]

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.

[Gargamel]

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.

[Cybermat47]

OK, now science is ruining all my fun.


DAMN!

[August]

Originally Posted by Gilead Abyss

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

[Falkirion]

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

[Respenus]

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).

[CaptainMattJ.]

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.

[Cybermat47]

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

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

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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

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.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

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.

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"?