What Are 24th Century Aircraft Carriers Like?

[Dayton3]

You know, it would make sense on Earth in the 24th century even in the Trek universe to have a mobile, at sea air base where you could base air & space fighters.

After all, a land base has a fixed location that could easily be targeted for orbital bombardment.

A carrier increases the amount of area on the surface of the Earth that you can base fighters and is mobile.

With advanced stealth systems, such a base moving at up to 50 mph or so would be much more survivable than a fixed land base.

So what would a 24th century carrier look like?

 

[AlboOfBorg]

I don't understand the logic behind your argument about why there should be carriers. All war on Earth has been abolished, thus any threat would then come from non-human sources. Since Starfleet ships can operate in both space and atmospheric conditions, it would make more sense to have a defense force or weapons platforms in orbit, some of which could descend into the atmosphere and face any enemy forces that may penetrate to ground level.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually there is no reference to war on Earth being abolished.

And most starships aren't capable of atmospheric operations.

 

[Mister_Atoz]

According to Troy, war was eliminated a long time ago, apparently along with hopelessness, despair, and cruelty.
I know Archer makes at least one reference to Earth being entirely peaceful in some episode, I don't remember which episode but he's having dinner with T'Pol and Trip, as if that narrows it down.

 

[Unicron]

While I personally see no problem with fighters in Trek, I'm less sure that dedicated carriers would exist in large numbers. It would seem that many capital ships designed to serve in a military capacity would have the ability to carry fighters, and therefore a true carrier would be less necessary. This also seems to be the case in B5 and Star Wars. The only real advantage to a true carrier in this case would be greater volume of small craft, rather than being a mobile base.

 

[Dayton3]

While I personally see no problem with fighters in Trek, I'm less sure that dedicated carriers would exist in large numbers. It would seem that many capital ships designed to serve in a military capacity would have the ability to carry fighters, and therefore a true carrier would be less necessary. This also seems to be the case in B5 and Star Wars. The only real advantage to a true carrier in this case would be greater volume of small craft, rather than being a mobile base.

I'm referring to carriers as in "large ships that float on the water".

 

[-Brett-]

I'd expect that the design would be fairly different, on account of how all "modern" aircraft we've seen in the Star Trek universe have been able to take off and land vertically. No need for that runway along the ships length. Maybe a mechanism like DS9's runabout pads.

 

[Timo]

And yes, I'd expect a waterborne carrier vessel of the 24th century to be capable of becoming airborne, too. The technology should be trivially easy, given the 24th century mastery of artificial gravity.

But I'd still argue that waterborne bases make no sense, as they are essentially cornering themselves. Much better to have the base out in space, free to move in every direction. There is no real advantage from "fighting with your back to the wall" when the wall is the very thing you want to protect!

If the base is supposed to launch small craft, then there is no real need for the base to have the ability to operate within an atmosphere. However, it would seem that most if not all starships can effortlessly operate in an atmosphere, and probably also land on Class M planets. This should automatically follow from their ability to travel at impulse speeds and withstand the accelerations involved. Certainly neither Archer's nor Kirk's ship had any problem with flying low in "Storm Front" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" (the latter with the ship damaged and the crew unconscious!). Picard's ship had to perform special maneuvers "at the edge of the envelope" in order to deliberately turn atmospheric maneuvering hazardous in "The Arsenal of Freedom"; Janeway's ship fell victim to something similar in "Equinox", but otherwise could dogfight with the best of them deep within a breathable atmosphere.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

With armed starships in orbit, there will simply be nowhere a seagoing carrier could be safe. It would be almost useless.

 

[Dayton3]

With armed starships in orbit, there will simply be nowhere a seagoing carrier could be safe. It would be almost useless.

How would a starship in orbit detect a carrier on an ocean surface?

Remember, even at the height of the Cold War, U.S. carriers could evade detection by Soviet satellites SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED and LAUNCHED to track them.

While a starships sensors would be hundreds of times more powerful than those of a Soviet spy satellite...........the technology and countermeasures available to a 24th century carrier would be hundreds of times more vast as well.

A carrier floating on the water, without having to levitate itself with antigravity or impulse engines could devote that power to defensive shields and other countermeasures.

And doesn't Voyager refer to Tom Paris being trained by a part of Starfleet that does use water based warships and vehicles?

Finally, I believe we seen planets in Star Trek that are almost entirely water on the surface.

If 98% of a planets surface was covered with water, your places to base defensive fighter and attack craft would be limited.

I do think that the carriers would be a different design. The flight decks would be more like a parking area that actual runway since all your fighters and attack aircraft could probably launch vertically. Given that, a carrier of the future might resemble a larger version of modern helicopter carriers than U.S. CVNs.

 

[Timo]

How would a starship in orbit detect a carrier on an ocean surface?

The same way it detects individual people, I guess. Only much, much better.

Remember, even at the height of the Cold War, U.S. carriers could evade detection by Soviet satellites SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED and LAUNCHED to track them.

So the USN claims, probably not completely truthfully. But the reason for that was that Soviet satellite coverage was not complete - only a small fraction of ocean surface could be monitored at any given time. Two or three starships in orbit should be able to cover an entire planet without any gaps.

While a starships sensors would be hundreds of times more powerful than those of a Soviet spy satellite...........the technology and countermeasures available to a 24th century carrier would be hundreds of times more vast as well.

But the smooth surface of the ocean would be the silliest possible place to attempt those countermeasures. Much better to hide the fighter base amidst confusing terrain.

And if one really applies 24th century countermeasures in earnest, one gets a cloaked base. It makes absolutely no difference as regards observability, then, where this base should be placed. At which point the arguments of putting it in space again overwhelm all others.

A carrier floating on the water, without having to levitate itself with antigravity or impulse engines could devote that power to defensive shields and other countermeasures.

So could a carrier floating in space. Up there, she wouldn't even have to fight the weather!

And doesn't Voyager refer to Tom Paris being trained by a part of Starfleet that does use water based warships and vehicles?

No. He says he once wanted to join "Federation Naval Patrol", which doesn't sound like it would be part of Starfleet. For all we know, it's the 24th century equivalent of Boy Scouts, an organization that allows children to play pseudomilitary games in an environment that coarsely resembles the real spatial battlegrounds.

If 98% of a planets surface was covered with water, your places to base defensive fighter and attack craft would be limited.

Not if you put them up in orbit where they belong.

I do think that the carriers would be a different design. The flight decks would be more like a parking area that actual runway since all your fighters and attack aircraft could probably launch vertically. Given that, a carrier of the future might resemble a larger version of modern helicopter carriers than U.S. CVNs.

Open decks would seem anathema to a good design, as there would be no actual need for them. The vessel should by all accounts be at least capable of submergence, for crude stealth and for the ability to evade weather. A wholly enclosed structure with launch tubes would be preferable, also for reasons of protection of the onboard assets. Recovery would be via similarly protected, fairly small chutes. And probably the fighters themselves would be capable of effortless underwater movement, so the carrier would spend very little time near the surface.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

So what would a 24th century carrier look like?

It might look like a scaled-down version of the battlestar Galactica, but the outrigged hangers would be the nacelles, and the fightercraft or drones would launch and be recovered on the ship's dorsal and ventral hulls. Such a ship would be much smaller than Galactica, and be able to cruise below the ocean surface, on the surface, or in aerospace.

I can also imagine a requirement for surface commands to have multiply scaled-up versions of the underwater shuttle seen in TAS. These would be multimission warcraft, capable of deploying underwater, on the surface, in the air or in orbit. They would exist for planetary defense, be able to use the ocean for screening, and be able to maneuver into space for tactical flexibility. I'd think they would be primarily drone launchers, but if there were technological limitations on drones that made fightercraft desirable, I can see such "SSA (submarine/surface/aerospace) carriers" as actually having a role in a Trek universe.

I also believe there was a precedent for something a bit more primitive than what I'm describing -- submarine aircraft carriers -- in the mid 21st century as described in the Trek novel "Strangers from the Sky".

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

An Aircraft carrier exists to be able to deploy wartime assets away from home, be it San Diego or Earth itself. We have waterborne aircraft carriers mostly because we haven't figured out how to make one fly in a practical sense. If we could, we'd be able to deploy aircraft far quicker than 35 knots on the surface. And since Federation technology can easily do that, there's basically no reason to have anyone on the water at all.

That said, a 24th Century aircraft carrier for EARTH DEFENCE would likely not have warp drive at all, trading off if needed for kickass sublight propulsion and maneuverability. It would be able to float AND submerge, but in terms of getting around it would certainly take off and fly wherever it was needed. It would be used as a mobile base only, since 24th century fighters would have sublight AND warp capability, to be able to get to a trouble spot in seconds no matter how you look at it. The advantage to a carrier would then be to have a quick and convenient place to re-arm and repair your craft if sublight were damaged to the point where you couldn't zip back to base instantly.

Mark

 

[Dayton3]

So what would a 24th century carrier look like?

It might look like a scaled-down version of the battlestar Galactica, but the outrigged hangers would be the nacelles, and the fightercraft or drones would launch and be recovered on the ship's dorsal and ventral hulls. Such a ship would be much smaller than Galactica, and be able to cruise below the ocean surface, on the surface, or in aerospace.

I can also imagine a requirement for surface commands to have multiply scaled-up versions of the underwater shuttle seen in TAS. These would be multimission warcraft, capable of deploying underwater, on the surface, in the air or in orbit. They would exist for planetary defense, be able to use the ocean for screening, and be able to maneuver into space for tactical flexibility. I'd think they would be primarily drone launchers, but if there were technological limitations on drones that made fightercraft desirable, I can see such "SSA (submarine/surface/aerospace) carriers" as actually having a role in a Trek universe.

I also believe there was a precedent for something a bit more primitive than what I'm describing -- submarine aircraft carriers -- in the mid 21st century as described in the Trek novel "Strangers from the Sky".

I like that "SSA-24 U.S.S. James Lyons" (a notable 1980s USN admiral)

And the ship in "Strangers from the Sky" was interesting. It was clearly written in capabilities and crew as being basically a 21st century submarine analog to the later starship Enterprise.

 

[BolianAuthor]

With armed starships in orbit, there will simply be nowhere a seagoing carrier could be safe. It would be almost useless.

How would a starship in orbit detect a carrier on an ocean surface?

Remember, even at the height of the Cold War, U.S. carriers could evade detection by Soviet satellites SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED and LAUNCHED to track them.

While a starships sensors would be hundreds of times more powerful than those of a Soviet spy satellite...........the technology and countermeasures available to a 24th century carrier would be hundreds of times more vast as well.

A carrier floating on the water, without having to levitate itself with antigravity or impulse engines could devote that power to defensive shields and other countermeasures.

And doesn't Voyager refer to Tom Paris being trained by a part of Starfleet that does use water based warships and vehicles?

Finally, I believe we seen planets in Star Trek that are almost entirely water on the surface.

If 98% of a planets surface was covered with water, your places to base defensive fighter and attack craft would be limited.

I do think that the carriers would be a different design. The flight decks would be more like a parking area that actual runway since all your fighters and attack aircraft could probably launch vertically. Given that, a carrier of the future might resemble a larger version of modern helicopter carriers than U.S. CVNs.

I have to reply to this point... there is NO way a seagoing vessel can utilize any form of stealth technology, by way of its very nature... think about it... EVEN if a ship cloaks... not only do you still have a visible wake of seafoam behind the ship, trailing it, but there would be a visually noticeable "indentation" in the water, the size and shape of the vessel's ventral side.

 

[Forbin]

And boy, would that look silly!

 

[Reverend]

The term "sitting duck" comes to mind.
I think it's safe to say that by the 24th century the only things on the water would be pleasure craft, marine science vessels and the "Federation Naval Patrol" that Paris wanted to join, which I imagine is basically a global coast guard for the aforementioned vessels. I suppose you could also have giant floating towns (say a few times larger than modern cruise liners) but still, nothing military.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually, with Star Trek level technology, mainly shields large ocean going warships actually become far more viable.

Far more viable than bases on the surface.

Also more viable than bases in space that are vulnerable to attack from 360 degrees.

 

[Timo]

Any combat unit on a planetary surface is "vulnerable to attack" from a hemisphere while any combat unit in space is "vulnerable to attack" from a full sphere, true. Then again, any surface unit is blind to a threat from a hemisphere, while a unit in space is not. And if shields are supposed to make a difference, they would make a difference across the whole sphere rather than just the hemisphere.

As said, fighting with one's back against the wall isn't all that smart if you intend to protect that wall - against attacks from both sides!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[bryce]

And yes, I'd expect a waterborne carrier vessel of the 24th century to be capable of becoming airborne, too. The technology should be trivially easy, given the 24th century mastery of artificial gravity.