Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space

[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"?

[Raptor1]

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.

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

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"?

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.

[joea]

I love this thread, Space Battleship Yamato forever!!



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

[August]

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

[tater]

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

[Buddahaid]

Interesting article and he knows his stuff. I just object to the use of science fiction to describe the media referenced. There is little science involved in any of these space battles so the shows are just fantasy. True science fiction does not even need to be futuristic, just deal with real, or projected scientific subjects or discovery.

[tater]

At the range of directed energy weapons, such weapons cannot miss, basically. A small craft can't get into range. Nothing can hide, either. All power is radiated to space.

I think space battles in general would be a lot different then what games and such imagine them to be, probably more about predicting a targets orbital trajectory and throwing ordinance out into an intersecting orbital path that coincides with that target. Probably be quite boring actually.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

Again a platform for launching fighter planes is just one single role for a carrier, but there are others. The primary one is as a mobile base from which to mount expeditions or provide support to new or existing colonies. A role that I think would serve well in space given the distances involved.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by August

Again a platform for launching fighter planes is just one single role for a carrier, but there are others. The primary one is as a mobile base from which to mount expeditions or provide support to new or existing colonies. A role that I think would serve well in space given the distances involved.

That makes sense. Also, in space, Aircraft carriers might be able to play an effective anti-ship role?

Also, we would need small, heavily armed stealth ships for attacking commerce!

[Oberon]

Personally I think the role of aircraft carrier would be rolled (pardon the pun) into the role of battleship, cruiser and destroyer. Since manoeuvrability is taken out of the equation then you'd want something that is capable of doing everything needed for a long cruise. Putting down 'Marines' on a hostile planet, check, protecting cargo vessels, check, providing a gunboat for diplomacy, check, humanitarian crisis, check.
Furthermore, since communications will be sporadic, these vessels will become their own nations in a sea of isolation, the captain/admiral/commodore/Legate will make decisions that will affect the homeworld without being able to check with them first. Perhaps that will require a group of diplomats or representatives of the homeworld to be on board? Likewise you'll need scientists and medical staff. So it's going to be a big ship, but if you're not needing to do the Kessel run then why worry about the size? Heck, you could go really crazy and just use a planet or a Dyson sphere.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Also, we would need small, heavily armed stealth ships for attacking commerce!

Far more problematic than you might imagine...

Originally Posted by Oberon

Personally I think the role of aircraft carrier would be rolled (pardon the pun) into the role of battleship, cruiser and destroyer. Since manoeuvrability is taken out of the equation then you'd want something that is capable of doing everything needed for a long cruise. Putting down 'Marines' on a hostile planet, check, protecting cargo vessels, check, providing a gunboat for diplomacy, check, humanitarian crisis, check.
Furthermore, since communications will be sporadic, these vessels will become their own nations in a sea of isolation, the captain/admiral/commodore/Legate will make decisions that will affect the homeworld without being able to check with them first. Perhaps that will require a group of diplomats or representatives of the homeworld to be on board? Likewise you'll need scientists and medical staff. So it's going to be a big ship, but if you're not needing to do the Kessel run then why worry about the size?

In other words:

[August]

I'll bet he's thinking more like:

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Far more problematic than you might imagine...

Thanks! Ruined my ideas, but it was really interesting!
Looks like space warfare is going to be a lot different to naval warfare!