Star Trek inspired high tech warship for Royal Navy

[mic of orion]

Came cross interesting project, Royal Navy, yes British Royal navy, not sci fi or magic land one, has commissioned a project looking in to next generation of Royal Navy warships, circa 2050, and some quite fascinating designs were put forth, design which impressed Royal Navy most was one in video i created for my youtube channel, it is right out of sci fi film, ship is armed with main electromagnetic plasma rail 155mm gun that has range of around 500km with 0.5m +/- accuracy, laser cannons with 30km range that have feel of star trek enterprise, electromagnetic shielding or force field that deflects incoming rounds, loads of other interesting star trek like tech such as invisible and acrylic hull, fusion reactor to power this warship and many more. I was simply gobsmacked btw name of the ship, Dreadnought, in case you are lost on symbolism, it was HMS Dreadnought that revolutionized naval warfare and changed naval warfare forever, all subsequent warships had to be better or improved on previous class which sparked battleship race, race which eventually lead to a world war 2.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qckmVlwBU8Y

 

[Dryson]

Awesome article.

IS the Royal Navy looking at any types of submersible designs that would incorporate using combat drones similar to the Japanese submarines from WWII that carried a single plane that it could then launch and receive?

 

[Albertese]

The IJN's I-400 could carry no less than three planes. It's my favorite WWII sub.

--Alex

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ I've been saying for a long time now that if we ever have another major war -- or even a world war -- the Attack Submarine will end the reign of the aircraft carrier just as the carriers once ended the reign of the battleship. This process will only be accelerated by the first clever bastard who figures out how to launch a squadron of high-performance UCAVs from a submarine.

 

[Scout101]

Bridge and chair look somewhat familiar...

And yes, if there's ever real shit to hit the fan, those 13 billion dollar carriers won't be afloat very long. they just haven't really been challenged. Faster, nimble ships with smaller crews and lots of missiles/drones is the next big thing...

 

[publiusr]

^ I've been saying for a long time now that if we ever have another major war -- or even a world war -- the Attack Submarine will end the reign of the aircraft carrier just as the carriers once ended the reign of the battleship. This process will only be accelerated by the first clever bastard who figures out how to launch a squadron of high-performance UCAVs from a submarine.

Already being done--Meet the UUV http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/russia-developing-underwater-drone.html

Even before--there were long range megaton yield torps considered that might as well be UUVs

The T-15 torpedo was about 75 feet long and was capable of carrying a high-yield thermonuclear warhead some 15 miles underwater, something Polmar called “a truly innovative concept.”

 

[RAMA]

The "TSar bomb" was 50 megatons, not 150.

Carriers are useful in "peacetime", and I doubt there will be another world war.

Who needs UAV launchings subs...

http://aviationweek.com/blog/kraken-wakes-darpas-deep-sea-sleepers

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Carriers are useful in "peacetime"

No they're not.

Guided missile destroyers and corvettes are useful in peacetime, as are diesel-electric submarines that can actually outperform their larger nuclear-powered cousins in littoral waters. Patrol boats and cutters are useful in peacetime as well.

Aircraft carriers are useful only in wartime, as they give the country that operates them the ability to project air power far beyond their borders. Supercarriers are useful only during a low-intensity conflict -- e.g. a cold war or an extremely one-sided war against someone who doesn't have an effective navy -- on account of their large expense and inherent vulnerability.

And DARPA, evidently, is useful only for making headlines on internet science blogs.

 

[RAMA]

Carriers are useful in "peacetime"

No they're not.

Guided missile destroyers and corvettes are useful in peacetime, as are diesel-electric submarines that can actually outperform their larger nuclear-powered cousins in littoral waters. Patrol boats and cutters are useful in peacetime as well.

Aircraft carriers are useful only in wartime, as they give the country that operates them the ability to project air power far beyond their borders. Supercarriers are useful only during a low-intensity conflict -- e.g. a cold war or an extremely one-sided war against someone who doesn't have an effective navy -- on account of their large expense and inherent vulnerability.

And DARPA, evidently, is useful only for making headlines on internet science blogs.

Actually, they are used as power projection in "peacetime", almost free from the threat of most SSMs as they wouldn't be in a major war. A single one can carry around a larger air force than many nations and can use them surgically. One could say an aircraft carrier and it's escorting group are the most powerful unit of conventional warfare there is. "Peacetime" is of course a misnomer as the US has had relatively few years without any warfare at all post-WWII, hence the quotation marks.

RAMA

 

[MANT!]

Carriers are useful in "peacetime"

No they're not.

Guided missile destroyers and corvettes are useful in peacetime, as are diesel-electric submarines that can actually outperform their larger nuclear-powered cousins in littoral waters. Patrol boats and cutters are useful in peacetime as well.

Aircraft carriers are useful only in wartime, as they give the country that operates them the ability to project air power far beyond their borders. Supercarriers are useful only during a low-intensity conflict -- e.g. a cold war or an extremely one-sided war against someone who doesn't have an effective navy -- on account of their large expense and inherent vulnerability.

And DARPA, evidently, is useful only for making headlines on internet science blogs.

Actually, they are used as power projection in "peacetime", almost free from the threat of most SSMs as they wouldn't be in a major war. A single one can carry around a larger air force than many nations and can use them surgically. One could say an aircraft carrier and it's escorting group are the most powerful unit of conventional warfare there is. "Peacetime" is of course a misnomer as the US has had relatively few years without any warfare at all post-WWII, hence the quotation marks.

RAMA

A Carrier is useful in more than just a military sense, several times, the USN has deployed aircraft carriers to disaster areas, not only to provide search and rescue, but to provide command and control for the rescuers..as well as a stable mobile base of operations..and lets not forget how much supplies a carrier can bring into a disaster zone..now a helicopter carrier is more useful than a fleet carrier in these scenarios, but the sheer size and versatility a fleet carrier brings into the equation just can't be beat..

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, they are used as power projection in "peacetime"

No they're not, since by definition there is no need for power projection during peacetime. A nation projects power beyond its borders in anticipation of war, either because they intend to start one, or because they intend to be ready when somebody else starts one.

The United States maintains an aircraft carrier fleet because it has been at war, in various degrees of intensity, pretty much continuously since the 1950s. "Peacetime" is really just the four or five year interval between wars, during which time the carriers basically have nothing useful to do except cruise around sightsee.

IOW: Aircraft carriers are only useful in wartime, and they're useful to the United States because we are CONSTANTLY at war. On the other hand, there ARE nations in the world that actually experience genuine times of peace; such nations have little use for aircraft carriers since their militaries are designed for self-defense, not for international military adventures.

now a helicopter carrier is more useful than a fleet carrier in these scenarios, but the sheer size and versatility a fleet carrier brings into the equation just can't be beat..

Actually it's closer to the opposite of that: LHDs and LHAs are ALOT more versatile in those missions than the big supercarriers. Not because they have greater carrying capacity, but because they are better equipped to distribute what they carry in an efficient way. Supercarriers' command and control facilities are also optimized for fleet control while their smaller counterparts are setup to coordinate ground operations which relief efforts necessarily are.

Put that another way: You can drive in a nail with the world's biggest screwdriver, but it's probably better to just use a hammer.

 

[RAMA]

Actually, they are used as power projection in "peacetime"

No they're not, since by definition there is no need for power projection during peacetime. A nation projects power beyond its borders in anticipation of war, either because they intend to start one, or because they intend to be ready when somebody else starts one.

The United States maintains an aircraft carrier fleet because it has been at war, in various degrees of intensity, pretty much continuously since the 1950s. "Peacetime" is really just the four or five year interval between wars, during which time the carriers basically have nothing useful to do except cruise around sightsee.

IOW: Aircraft carriers are only useful in wartime, and they're useful to the United States because we are CONSTANTLY at war. On the other hand, there ARE nations in the world that actually experience genuine times of peace; such nations have little use for aircraft carriers since their militaries are designed for self-defense, not for international military adventures.

now a helicopter carrier is more useful than a fleet carrier in these scenarios, but the sheer size and versatility a fleet carrier brings into the equation just can't be beat..

Actually it's closer to the opposite of that: LHDs and LHAs are ALOT more versatile in those missions than the big supercarriers. Not because they have greater carrying capacity, but because they are better equipped to distribute what they carry in an efficient way. Supercarriers' command and control facilities are also optimized for fleet control while their smaller counterparts are setup to coordinate ground operations which relief efforts necessarily are.

Put that another way: You can drive in a nail with the world's biggest screwdriver, but it's probably better to just use a hammer.

Anticipation of war or in this case a direct conflict isn't war however, and the US has in fact used carriers to project power where a full scale war has not resulted...many many times. This is because the US is fairly unique in a position where it basically was either forced to, or took it upon itself to be a "world cop", therefore it's military action, unlike so many other super powers in the past does not need to lead directly into war.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, they are used as power projection in "peacetime"

No they're not, since by definition there is no need for power projection during peacetime. A nation projects power beyond its borders in anticipation of war, either because they intend to start one, or because they intend to be ready when somebody else starts one.

The United States maintains an aircraft carrier fleet because it has been at war, in various degrees of intensity, pretty much continuously since the 1950s. "Peacetime" is really just the four or five year interval between wars, during which time the carriers basically have nothing useful to do except cruise around sightsee.

IOW: Aircraft carriers are only useful in wartime, and they're useful to the United States because we are CONSTANTLY at war. On the other hand, there ARE nations in the world that actually experience genuine times of peace; such nations have little use for aircraft carriers since their militaries are designed for self-defense, not for international military adventures.

now a helicopter carrier is more useful than a fleet carrier in these scenarios, but the sheer size and versatility a fleet carrier brings into the equation just can't be beat..

Actually it's closer to the opposite of that: LHDs and LHAs are ALOT more versatile in those missions than the big supercarriers. Not because they have greater carrying capacity, but because they are better equipped to distribute what they carry in an efficient way. Supercarriers' command and control facilities are also optimized for fleet control while their smaller counterparts are setup to coordinate ground operations which relief efforts necessarily are.

Put that another way: You can drive in a nail with the world's biggest screwdriver, but it's probably better to just use a hammer.

Anticipation of war or in this case a direct conflict isn't war however, and the US has in fact used carriers to project power where a full scale war has not resulted...many many times. This is because the US is fairly unique in a position where it basically was either forced to, or took it upon itself to be a "world cop", therefore it's military action, unlike so many other super powers in the past does not need to lead directly into war.

And in cases where carriers were deployed but not used, they turned out to be largely unnecessary. The theory of "power projection in peacetime" is really just an attempt to recast "saber rattling" as a viable military strategy; by definition, however, the projection of military power means the use of that power against a target that would normally be out of reach for your own armed forces.

Power that isn't USED is not power, it's just a threat. You can threaten people just as easily WITHOUT an aircraft carrier, especially if your threats are empty. You can, in fact, do this with just about ANY type of warship, including nuclear submarines and guided missile destroyers.

But missile destroyers, unlike aircraft carriers, actually have useful things they can do during peacetime that carriers are too large and clumsy to accomplish. Maritime coastal patrol, anti-piracy operations, airspace control and surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, just to name a few. The need to be able to perform these tasks is the reason why aircraft carriers in the REST OF THE WORLD are actually built more like cruisers, with more advanced and more numerous sensors and a wider variety of weapons. The Russian Kuznetsov and Kiev-class ships, for example, are essentially heavy cruisers with a flight deck, a fighter squadron and a helicopter squadron. Where U.S. carriers have no offensive capabilities other than their aircraft, Russian, French and Chinese carriers are all equipped with anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons.

Put simply: "Prevent enemies and/or assholes from messing around in our territorial waters" is something that most warships are good at. Aviation cruisers, also, are designed to be able to do this and are equipped with weapons and equipment that make this possible. Supercarriers, on the other hand, are designed only to project power against distant targets in offensive combat operations. They delegate all of their other functions -- anti-aircraft defense, anti-submarine warfare, sea control and shallow water combat, anti-piracy, law enforcement, etc -- to smaller guided missile cruisers attached to their battlegroup.

Really, I think most of the world has already gotten the message. If you're not actually bombing somebody else's homeland on the other side of the ocean, there's little practical use for a vessel that only carries aircraft.

 

[J.T.B.]

Anticipation of war or in this case a direct conflict isn't war however, and the US has in fact used carriers to project power where a full scale war has not resulted...many many times.

It might be a bluff that's getting easier to call, though. Carriers are not good at sustained operations against shore targets, and without a long range bomber (the Super Hornet has about one third the combat radius of the A-6) the carrier has to get in closer than ever to do its work. It's not a comfortable way to use the most expensive weapons systems in history.

We should also remember that the CVN's amazing and very expensive speed is because of her heritage as a "fleet carrier." The days of fleet battles are over, and the new British carriers target a more reasonable 25 knots.

Meanwhile, the next-generation CVN is turning out to be -- what a surprise -- even more staggeringly expensive than we thought.

The LHA and LHD are not as glamorous to the public but they are very capable and versatile ships that can handle more roles ashore than the CVN. In conjunction with a Tomahawk-equipped surface action group there is plenty of power-projection capability in the nine Expeditionary Strike Groups, plus they are better at humanitarian missions. And, comparatively, at a bargain price.

 

[RAMA]

Not sure, with China beefing up its fleet and Russia beefing up its Navy once again. North Korea also has some bluster and a few ships to back it up. North Korea in particular would probably the most likely large scale use of carriers in the future.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not sure, with China beefing up its fleet and Russia beefing up its Navy once again. North Korea also has some bluster and a few ships to back it up. North Korea in particular would probably the most likely large scale use of carriers in the future.

The Russian Navy is almost uniquely specialized in fighting wars against people who use aircraft carriers as their main offensive armament. It's what their ships are DESIGNED to do. Sending a carrier to attack Russia is like sending a tank to shoot down a gunship.

North Korea has lots of soft ground targets and a very nearby coastline, so it would be ideal for aircraft carrier operations. OTOH, China's Navy is similar to Russia's in its anti-carrier specialization, and a war with North Korea is alarmingly likely to involve them...