Re: GZG FH: Blue water navy.

>At 08:02 AM 9/25/98 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:
>
>IMHO, a lot of the roles of these clowns can be taken up by Grav MBTs.  

For coastal defense and near-shore commerce blockading, I'd have to
agree
with you, but I'd hate to be in a top-of-the-waves skimming grav tank in
heavy seas or more than 8 hours from shore.  It's not like you can get
out
and stretch your legs...

*Ponders the effects of salt spray on grav plates*
*Shies away from mental image of grav tank sinking like a rock*

One reason big ships exist is their ability to stay on station
indefinitely.  I'd visualize small, fast, hydrofoil-equipped attack
craft
with a GMS, a big gun (your MDC/5 or DFFG/5) and lots of ECM.  Probably
a
blurring of the distinction between brown-water and blue-water craft, as
well.

At 10:02 AM 9/25/98 -0400, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
>Given the threat of an orbital strike, you might even finally see some
>of the more fantastic designs for submersible aircraft carriers or
>amphibious assault vessels being built.

These ideas are fun, too.  But seriously, the usefulness of any big ship
would depend on the technology available.  

We have carriers because of the limits on the range and speed of
aircraft.
We have subs because of the difficulty of detecting them.  If these
factors
remain in spite of technological advances, then ships which fulfill this
role will still have a place.

But if aerospace fighters have the range and speed to reach any point on
a
globe in a sortie and reconnaissance satellites can pinpoint the
location
of a sub within meters, then blue-water navy will probably fade away.

Just depends on the technology you postulate.

Jeff