Carrier and Naval warfare - Page 2 - Writers Forum

lin · 05-09-2008, 09:29 AM

Actually, carriers are used extensively...in the Gulf, for instance. The whole AWACS system is quite a weapon against land targets. But they are essentially just anchored airstrips. This is the "brown water" type warfare the Navy sees as the future.

And it's hard to see it otherwise. Who would be the opponents in a "blue water" naval war? Why would it happen in a day of air power and long range missles?

LionofPerth · 05-09-2008, 11:06 AM

Well, for one thing my story is far future, so fuel is not an issue per say, and even if it was, at least to the scope of my character, not one of the issues he would face, as he's just a lowly pilot. Again, it's far future, it's between the various colonies and a peacekeeper force that has been attacked and is retreating to a particular point. That, and they access to hyperdrives/hyperspace, so it's relatively easy for them to travel large distances.

Basically, I need to understand the modern, so I can theorise, and make an educated guess about the future. If I know where it's coming from, I can better understand where it's going.

As for AWACS, it's not a weapons systems, it's a C3I asset, or Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence. From memory it stands for Advanced Warning And Combat Surveilance, not something like a TLAM, or a TASM (Tomahawk cruise missile variants if you're wondering) which is a weapon system, more particularly, Land Attack Missile or Anti-Shipping Missile.

I know how carriers are used, and the coastal combat faced todays forces won't be that much different in the future in some aspects. The thing is with naval battles, is in most cases they are exceedingly destructive to the both sides of the battle. Millions of man hours have gone up in smoke, effectively, as a ship is sunk and or captured, let alone the vast number of fighter losses and battle damage to surviving warships.

By the above point, what I am saying that instead of a carrier being in effect, a water born, mobile air base, it is an inter-planetary mobile hanger that a number of fighter craft operate from. If anything, I doubt we're going to see any major naval conflict for a good couple of centuries, in between now and then, we'll see the change in priority from armour to arms, guns to missiles and back, even fighters and other smaller 'strike' craft every so often. It is my hope in understanding what has happened in the past, the technology I give the world I am building I am able to theorise what this far future force could be like in composition(ratio of strike craft, ie designate fighters vs bombers in the simplest form), structure of battlegroups, and weapon systems.

That way, when people look at it, they can see where it's come from, and have a feeling of being able to read the commanders tactics and thoughts, not just through what I tell them, but what they see through the story as well.

As for the current state of naval planning, until there is a major break though in weapons development, missile and carrier battle groups will retain the most combat and effective power. Now the only way I can see that changing is something like a rail gun, for lack of a better concept, being developed. That, considering at first the requirements to house such a powerful weapon would be on the large side, that is no fighter could support it, it could change the focus back to guns. If such an item was developed, I dare say armour to counter it would then be developed, as you in effect, have a weapon that fires a round so fast it burns white, or slightly colder, blue. Now that is an over simlification, more than likely requiring some type of self forging round, which means probably, knowing how the military works, another two decades odd in development due to the different requirements of the metals involved in making such a round.

The major change of gun/armour to missile/strike craft was basically a product of weapon effectiveness. It was more efficient to drop a short range torpedo by fighter, than it was to get a boat close to the target. Missiles over the current generation of naval commanders a many for one, to quote Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, weapon system. Not only is it a highly accurate weapon, some can take nuclear munitions, and so allow, in the right situation, a naval ship, like an AWD(Ticonderoga class is a possible match as well) to cause a lot of damage to its target, whatever they may be.

As I am not an oracle, I researched the past developments in the hope of understanding them I could theorise a path that lead to the creation of weapons and systems that I have already devised for this world I building. Now, separate to that, I need the fleets to behave in a way that both seems logical, and real for the environment. The sheer change of tactics from muzzle loading cannon to turreted, breach loading guns is massive, as is the change from simple surface warfare, to one of three environments, namely space, or submarine/aerial warfare. Even looking at a combined surface/aerial battle, it is exceedingly complex.

Finally,to make this clear, the story I am writing is about a marine pilot in the far future. He, though it could be a she, is posted on a carrier type vessel in a time of spaceships that don't need to be refueled for long periods of time, and hyperspace is the most commonly used method for getting from Planet A to planet B in the shortest time possible.

My search was for sources in which I could either read, or simulate modern military naval encounters, in which I could test a few ideas out, get an idea of how many missiles and fighters it would take to disable a battle group, and so forth. Then, having an understanding of a workable set of tactics and operations I could then simulate my ideas for a more advanced navy, controlling each factor, then slowly build up an idea of the fleets for each side, building the story through that in some ways. Namely, timeframe, and a major plot point or two.

In a way, this story would follow an Anabasis form, that is there is a long journey, and by taking the opposite direction do they, that is the fleet my character belong to, survive to make it back to a particular point.

Non Serviam · 05-09-2008, 01:47 PM

Well, Lion, thinking aloud here:

We're talking about a "fighter", i.e. a ship with one or two crew. Presumably it'll be armed with a variety of weapons. There'll be a machinegun equivalent (matter cannon? laser zapper?) and missiles (a world where fuel is no issue, so very high energy yields are available--so the missiles are going to be noticeably more devastating than a 21st century ICBM. Antimatter warheads? Quantum TCE? Are they going to shoot mini-black holes out of magnetic bottles?)

So our fighter is going to be extremely devastating once it's found the enemy, so battles will take place at very long distances--a thousand kilometres away would be point blank range for weapon systems like that.

Can these ships of the future detect each other? They'll have very large energy signatures while engines are burning, but very tiny ones when stationary.

Might resemble sub-to-sub combat more than carrier battles, perhaps?

lin · 05-09-2008, 05:46 PM

To say that AWACS isn't a weapons system is like saying NORAD isn't a weapons system.

Tomahawk is a weapon. You take carriers, voodoo radar planes, attack jets and missiles and hook them up to something co-ordinating and directing them...the don't want to call that a weapon system, you need to overhaul your thinking.

The idea the fuel won't be a problem in the future, per se or otherwise is a pretty wild stretch. You're talking about a future with unlimited energy, but they're fighting from SHIPS in the OCEAN?????

LionofPerth · 05-10-2008, 12:04 AM

lin, It C3I, Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence.

NORAD itself is not an weapon system. It's a control system, which identifies and confirms targets. It's not a weapon system. To call that is a gross incorrectly statement. It's function co-ordinates other weapon systems to effictively strike at targets in a whole operational area. In this case, it can be thousands of miles, not only that, track munitions in progress to their targets. To look at it as purely a weapon system is in no way fair to the actual function in performs.

Non serviam, well, that is what I am thinking in terms of the submarine research I am doing. In most part, naval combat in a void would be as much about detection and counter detection as much as modern sub warfare. At least, that what I think.

In addtion to that, I think most sensors would actually be tuned to emit a certain level of radiation trying to blend into the background energy of space. At least, I think it would be like that.

lin · 05-10-2008, 12:24 AM

Tell me about NORAD, please, will you kid. Oh, I'm dying to know all about if from an expert. How long was your service there? Were you in Colorado Springs or where?

You nitpicking is due to having your nose to close to the page as you read. Which makes you look like a twerp. Which is OK with me, but you just should know. There's a difference between real life and reading about it at the library and the manual that comes with video games.

Maybe a simple question will help you get your head our of your ass and quit contradicting people for pinhead reasons. Here it is:

Is a soldier a weapon? Think about it. Read up on it. Then ask a soldier.

LionofPerth · 05-10-2008, 07:31 AM

A mmarine is a weapon, a pilot and his or her fighter plane is a weapon, a warship with i's crew is a weapon, not NORAD. It is not fair to the important, yes, important function it plays.

NORAD is a C3I asset. It is from memory, despite my massive headache at the moment, is about the defence of North American aerospace. Hardly a direct strike weapon is it?

NORAD is an asset that gathers, filters, and communicates information for the defence of North American aerospace. The whole point of NORAD, again, my memory is going to crap due to this headache of mine, was to co-ordinate US nuclear, aka strategic, weapons. Now, depending on the scenario, using a Cold War timeframe, either a first strike, or an evective counter strike. This purpose has somewhat been downgraded since te fall of the Soviet Union, but the main purpose of locating, and tracking all contacts in North American aerospace remains.

This purpose is very important as it is able to identify targets, and locate/co-ordinate a stike on a targets. The fact is, with the development of projects like the Predator UAV make a facility like NORAD a lot more important as it is quite easy to overload local field commanders/CO's with too much information. Now, while at least in a battle, being it land, air or sea, the information processing and information routing, for lack of a better word, is a vital function which allows naval commanders, and to a lesser degree air and land commanders, to function more effectively, concentrating on their ship, and the ships around them using a naval example, despite current US Navy doctrine, which seems to concentrate on a direct offensive using single ships.

Unless you've actively seen NORAD launch a strike on an enemy asset, facility or unit, then you've misplaced the function.

Ultimately, at least from an Information Warfare point of view, it is one of the vital links in US mainland defence, and it doesn't have that many offensive options continuing to talk about Information Warfare. Mind you, Information Warfare is beyond the scope of what I am looking at.

lin · 05-11-2008, 10:46 AM

NORAD has never launched an attack. That's not what they do.

I've been there. In NORAD. In the Army.

You might be getting the clue by now that I'm talking about reality, not geekery.

Or not.

LionofPerth · 05-11-2008, 10:58 AM

Look, I'm an Australian civilian. I don't have the access to the facility, and can only go on doctrine/information which I can access, which is limited. My knowledge on the exact purpose of NORAD is limited to the Cold War material I have looked at.

You may have served there, and right now that's not the question. The main question is function, and according to what I know, it's primary function is the ..... well, not the best source, but I dare say many an Air Force officer, NCO or whatever has had the chance to have a look at it.

North American Aerospace Defense Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the place is a complex military installation that has many functions, but most of it, to my knowledge, and the Wiki article, of which I place little value, seem to be that it is a C2, or C3I asset. In this case, the difference between an asset, and a weapon is purpose. A weapon does the breaking, an asset does the thinking, to quote a friend of mine, and while it is a simplification, it serves it's purpose.

And better yet.... North American Aerospace Defense Command Horses mouth, so to speak.

Yes, as it turns out, I did get the focus wrong, at least in a historical point view, as well as AWACS wrong, all through, I've heard both terms being valid, tom-a-to, tom-ar-to type of thing.

Finally, I kindly ask you to retract the 'geekery' and 'kid' comments, I've not been both in a very long time.

lin · 05-11-2008, 11:09 AM

When did stop being a geek, and what method did you use?

When I say "geek" I'm talking about using blather and number/letters and all this shit you're reading up on and obsessed with to argue against points that don't really have that much to do with it.

You're not understanding what I'm saying and have kicked off a few thousands words of bombast based on muddled recitations of things you've read, hoping that tossing in CS3 or some such gives them validity.

It doesn't. You're not even discussing anything. You're just trying to impress yourself by tossing out tech-sounding stuff you've crammed in. Like some conspiracy theorist on a bus pulling documents out of a bulging briefcase and thrusting them out in a blither of terminology. Not aware of the fact that the original question had been, "What's the next stop?"

Have fun. Good luck with the story you were asking for advice on (why, I have no idea) IF you can remember it was about naval battles (or possibly space wars) in the first place.

LionofPerth · 05-11-2008, 11:21 AM

I have my interests, they are a part of me. I don't pursue them to the extremes I used to. Hell, I used to be able to name most US carriers, now I can't even think of two. On that subject, the Kittyhawk was a beautiful old girl to see, and she's a wonder to walk on.

As for throwing out acronyms, I believe I've kept it small, and if you do any reading in the subject, you pick things up. Basically, from you, all I am getting is something of a 'you can't understand because you can't' attitude, or a 'you don't serve, ergo you're not good enough to learn.'

For one thing, if I was a geek of the type you seem to think I am, I wouldn't admit I was wrong, now would I? I'd dig up even more acronyms, and I'd be throwing around titles of books and net articles like mad. Even a basic understanding of modern warfare requires a person to understand that facilities, like NORAD and the many other, smaller, facilities that feed into are directly related to the control of a force, or if I was to use an acronym, C2.

Command and Control. In this case, my feelings are obvious, as it not only gathers it, but sends out the relavent information to field commanders, both air and sea, according to the NORAD article, and I refer to the military(.mil) one, not the Wiki article.

Not only that, I'd probably have mentioned far earlier than this to back up a point, the failures of NORAD's equipment, which from my skim read, actually had live nuclear munitions loaded on aircraft, ready to go.

As far as you go, you've insulted me, what, twice now, and I would like an apology because you are so forcefully disagreeing with a point of view of mine, with no real evidence to prove it. If you want a debate, fine, but such blatant disrespect is not the way to go about it.

Again, I will ask for an apology, and a retraction of the 'geekery' and 'kid' remarks.

Non Serviam · 05-11-2008, 11:37 AM

Lin's thoughts are sometimes helpful; but his phrasing is sometimes less than respectful.

He does raise some good points in that last reply, though.

LionofPerth · 05-11-2008, 11:40 AM

Probably does, I'm tired, and when someone is shouting at me, or doing the nearest thing to it, I tend to treat them with the same level of respect that they treat me with.

Honest, with reading Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, I could have said alot more confusing things, even talking about firepower kills and so forth, which I dare say, would have confused the people here even more.

I'm not the best at explaining things, but jumping up and down just saying I'm wrong is not the best way to get to me listen, or understand why I am wrong.

Edit, and if anyone is wondering what I use the acronyms, I'm a lazy schmuck. Instead of typing out stuff like air warfare destroyer, anti-air warfare, command, control, communication and intelligence, command and control, and so forth, I use the acronyms.