Re: GZG FH: Blue water navy.

 ---- tom barclay wrote: 
> tom.anderson@altavista.net spake thusly upon matters weighty:
 
erm, no. that was john atkins. i would never use the term 'brown water
craft' :-) !

>  Brown water craft will likely abound, but 
> > the blue water stuff is primarily there for maintaining or cutting 
> > SLOCs (Sea Lines Of Communication) which won't be likely to have the

> > exaggerated prominence that they do,
> 
> Not entirely true. You'll still need ships for piracy suppression, 
> customs control, etc. (and to ram the occaisional eco-terrorist 
> vessel).

true, but as you say, no Enterprises or New Jerseys. probably also no
Slavas or Inflexibles. not really a navy, more an ocean police/customs
unit.

> The oceans will probably be inhabited.

aha! well this is a different question, and well brought up. policing
inhabited and exploited oceans is quite different. i would say, still
not a job for a navy as such.

> Therefore policing 
> them effectively (and they'll be harder to police than land) will 
> require effective military force

eh? in the same way that policing the land takes effective military
force? i don't think so. policing the oceans will take ocean police, not
a navy.

> - now, we aren't talking USS 
> Enterprise and New Jersey, but we are talking frigates and such armed 
> and armoured to withstand stand up fights with airborne, sea or land 
> threats

only for SWAT units.

> (and an extension of their missile and gunbattery capability 
> may give them limited low orbit engagement).

it's a straightforward step from SLBM to SLASM (anti-space missile).

> The Navy serves many 
> non-wartime functions which will be more necessary than ever, but the 
> use of smaller, faster, high-performance, high-capability vessels 
> will be the norm (with grav recce/ASW vehicles instead of choppers). 

i agree. i think this is not a navy, but once more we come back to
semantics. we'll use different terms, i suppose.

> > John M. Atkinson

sadly not; the following stuff i wrote.

> > anyway; i'm not sure that ocean-going ships will wane in
> >  importance - global trade depends utterly on ships to
> >  move billions of tonnes of freight each year. i don't
> >  see many technologies on the horizon which seriously
> >  threaten this. thus, ocean communications are still
> >  vital.
> 
> Unless grav and power get way cheap, then every tank would be a grav 
> tank and every infantry man would have a grav belt. 

true. i think that in the consensus background they are not so cheap,
but if they were (think star wars - repulsorlift etc), wet-hull ships
are out.

>  however, i do not think that wet navies will
> >  have much use; by then, shore-based aircraft and recon
> >  satellites will control the seas.
> 
> Do you plan on taking your shore based aircraft out in 10m waves to 
> try to land your inspection teams on a suspect ship? No. You still 
> need to have your frigate pull alongside and board. 

maybe. or maybe i'll use vtols. i was really talking about military
operations.

> > possible alternatives to ships:
> > 
> > - a huuuge rail network, massive-gauge and
> >  computer-controlled, shipping cargo at great speed.
> >  possibly subterranean, as in those dodgy 80s gene
> >  roddenbery post-apocalypse movies with 'subshuttles'.
> 
> Not necessarily alternative, could be an adjunct

true, but if fully developed it would beat ships on throughput, speed,
flexibility, reliability and price.

> > - airships. studies have been done of a cargo airship a
> >  mile long with 35 000 tonnes cargo capacity, comparable
> >  to modern freighters. some way to go before they can
> >  rival the 564 763 deadweight tonne jahre viking
> >  supertanker which plies our oceans.
> 
> Same comment

i suppose so. i would also add a mention of the Ekranoplan.
<lecture>this, also known as the wing-in-ground effect (WIG) aircraft,
is a type of aircraft which flies at a few metres altitude, exploiting
the ground effect to be much more efficient. the technology was
developed by the soviets in the cold war, and is now being
commercialised by us-russian and german-japanese joint ventures. the
speed of a plane with the convenience of a boat.</lecture>

> Beanstalks too. Cheapest ground to orbit cargo transport. 

yes, but not too good for moving stuff across the surface. not unless
it's a non-synchronous skyhook, but even then your options are limited.

> > and remember, the UN is there to stop all conflict in in core
systems, which includes earth.
> 
> United Nations Nautical Enforcement Arm (UN-NEA)? Enforces maritime 
> law, engages in anti piracy operations, executes drug interdiction 
> strikes, pursues smugglers, and performs high risk search and rescue. 
> And, of course, acts as (like the coast gaurd) a second or third line 
> combat formation in times of war with limited land, air, sea, 
> undersea, and low orbit capabilities.  

aka, the WEO out of seaquest:dsv. i always quite liked that show.

> YMMV. 

nautical mileage, of course :-)

> Tom. 
likewise

----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com