From:	"Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject:	Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...)
Date:	Mon, 27 May 1996 11:08:13 +0100

>
>><naval pedant mode on>
>>Right now... Carriers now are mostly named for Presidents (the latest
>>two Nimitzes are the Harry S. Truman and the Ronald Reagan - no, I am
>>not kidding).
>
>This is again, particular to the Nimitz class CVNs; the Nimitz itself is
>named for Admiral Nimitz of WWII. There is also the Forrestal class of CVs,
>the single Enterprise CVN, the Kitty Hawk CV, and the old Midway and Coral
>Sea CVs dating from just after WWII.

For all of these, I'm sticking to the last ten or fifteen years' worth
of building (hence the 'right now' disclaimer). The Essex and Midway
class were battles, and their class names have been subsumed by the CG-
47s and in some cases LPAs.

>By the way, since Ronald Reagan instituted the "600 ship fleet" naval
>rebuilding, there is a very good reason to name a CVN after him.

Except he's still alive, which breaks another convention :) And Truman
was never a Navy man.

>>Cruisers are battles now: Ticonderoga, Anzio, Mobile Bay, Antietam (all
>>CG-47s).
>
>Again, this applies to the Ticonderoga class CGs, optimized for air defense
>and Aegis. Previous cruiser classes were named after states (California
>class CGNs) or cities (the single Long Beach CGN) and the ordinance
>ship/strike cruiser may again revive state names.

The strike cruiser is dead concept from the 1970s and the "arsenal
ship" only floats because it's full of shit :) Check the debates on
sci.military.naval or the International Naval Studies Group list for
further details. Cruisers were historically cities, the nuclear cruisers
were states to give them battleship gravitas. Oh, and territories were
battlecruisers - Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, in WW2.

> Submarines used to be fish, were cities for a while, are now
>>confused (Seawolf and Conneticut, SSN-23 still unnamed).
>
>Not really. Los Angeles class attack submarines (SSNs) are named after
>cities while the new Seawolf class seems to be named after whatever
>congressman's state can generate the most pork for the submarine shipyards.
>;-) But SS(N)'s in general are named after fish: Barbel, Sturgeon, Narwhal,
>Skate, etc.

Apart from Seawolf, every US SSN/SSBN built in the last twenty years has
been a city, personality or state. "Fish don't vote", as Rickover put
it. The 637s and other older boats are being decommissioned at the
moment.

>Future naval technology re Shadowrun: more serious warships will be
>submarines, with ordinance ships (lots of launchers on a fairly
>low-performance hull) for firepower.

The arsenal ship revives Jackie Fisher's battleship concept: eggshells
armed with hammers. By the time you put in the defensive systems, you no
longer have a cheap, simple hull with a crew of twenty: leave them out,
and your ship is a floating target stuffed with explosives.

Agreed on submarines remaining a key naval force, though: corporate
navies would have very little ASW capability, and SSNs would be a key
equaliser for nations.

>Maritime nations such as UCAS and
>Imperial Japan may build submarine aircraft carriers, especially in the
>face of orbital weaponry.

1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
(Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)

Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
carriers.

>Surface ships with advanced hullforms (SWATH,
>Seaknife, or SES) may enjoy a burst speed advantage over submersibles
>(which cannot exceed a certain velocity due to cavitation stresses on the
>hull), which will help them in antisubmarine warfare,

Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
classify vague contacts.

Also, for burst speed for submarines, check the Russian "Shkval" weapon:
a 200-250 knot torpedo, unguided and rocket propelled, intended as a
reaction-fire weapon. Adapt the technology used there to submarines, to
give them a burst of "blind and noisy but fast" speed for evasion.

>but may not matter in
>an extremely air-heavy combat environment.

Good point. Primary threat for most warships will still be cruise
missiles, so an AAW emphasis will persist: nations operate submarines,
corps don't fight nations, so they will ignore ASW capability on the
warships they do have: mostly frigates for escorting merchantmen (I'd
guess piracy to be a major problem in the China Sea for instance: it is
today, and there's little to suggest it'll get better).

>I'd expect the big naval powers to be UCAS and Imperial
>Japan, with second-stringers being UK, France, Germany, China, perhaps
>Australia (to counter Japan).

>Russia may also be in there but lack of an
>year-round icefree seaport has hampered their naval ambitions since the
>1800's. Other nations and corporations would have smaller forces, and there
>could be some mercenary flotillas out there, but the nations above would
>probably be the only ones fielding any sort of blue water navy. Other
>countries would compensate with air force units.

Apart from the quibbles I've identified, spot on as far as I'm
concerned.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk