HoratioNelson

Today I was idly browsing a book on the history of the warship and the effect of naval warfare on land. It tracked the lineage of fighting ships from the ancient Greek and Roman triremes to the modern nuclear aircraft carrier. Very interesting book.

Anyways, I have noticed a strange parallel between the current situation on the seas and a historical situation.

From roughly 1805 (the year of Trafalgar) to 1914, Great Britain possessed such an absolute command of the oceans of the world that nobody could challenge the Royal Navy. After the Napoleonic Wars which sealed the Pax Britannica, the USN was still in it's fledgling stages, France was not about to start anything due to the defeats, Spain was a shadow of its 17th century glory and the powers of Prussia, Austria and Russia were overwhelmingly land-based. Technology continued to progress and, by the 1870s, the world's first ironclads were steaming across the seas. At first these were of the 'belt-and-battery' type; essentially ships of the line with iron armour, but turreted ships followed soon after in the 1880s and 90s. By the 1880s, naval technology had changed absolutely from what Nelson experienced at Trafalgar, and no major fleet actions were fought in all those years of British dominance. The two major wars of Europe between the Napoleonic and First World War was the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussia completely lacked in a navy, so the French ships had no challenge. The other was the Crimean War, but Russia didn't even deploy it's fleet during said conflict and ironclads were still in their infancy. Nobody was really sure what the new naval warfare would be like. Some thought that steam power gave ships a freedom of movement and that ramming would be the decisive tactic of the new era. This passed very soon Some thought that floating batteries and fortresses would make naval bombardment almost unthinkable. Others thought that the old line of battle was obsolete and that the new ships would deploy in wedge-shaped 'groups', fighting a ferocious melee of ramming and broadsides. A few officers believed that small gunboats bearing a single one of the new naval rifles would make the expense of the ironclads a waste. Nobody, not the new officers nor the old admirals, was sure what naval combat was going to be like, and no lessons could be taken from Nelsonic warfare. Until WWI and the Battle of Jutland, the navies of all the great powers could not tell what fleet actions of their new era would be like.

This is very similar to our current situation. The USN rules the waves with carriers, destroyers and guided missile cruisers. There hasn't been a major challenge to the US Navy since WWII sealed it's position as the leading power on the seas. Vietnam had no navy, Korea didn't, Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to stand before the USN. I don't think any major navy has faced any major challenge since the Second World War. The most recent naval battles I can think of were small incidents pitting USN destroyers and cruisers vs pirate skiffs, which is not, by any possible standard, a example of 21st century fleet action. Many people insist that the missile and jet fighter will be the decisive threats of modern naval combat, but these attacking forces will be pitted against advanced CIWS like the Oerlikon Millennium 35mm CIWS, which can fire Air Burst Munitions to put up a veritable wall of flak with its considerable firing rate of 1000 rounds/minute (16 rounds/second). When two fleets of major naval powers meet in the 21st century, what will happen? I'm not talking about a situation like in the Middle East, when the USN pretty much had free reign but for a few patrol boats, i'm talking a full on clash of CVBGs. Advanced modern missiles and fighters will be pitted against equal missiles, fighters and CIWS systems.

What will fleet actions be like in this new century?

Sea Toby

We wouldn't be able to talk about it. Nuclear winter would eventually kill us all as the nuclear clouds spread around the world. Otherwise, if the nuclear genie is kept in the bottle, we'll see more Desert Storms and Falkland Islands.

__________________
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/waglogo.gif

JA Boomer

Falklands war?

Current CIWS do not fire air-burst munitions...although yes, this capability is being introduced with the Oerlikon Millennium.

The fleet with the best ships, support, weapons, sensors, and sailors will win.

IDonT

Fleet actions post WWII:

1.) Battle of Lataika (Israel vs Syria
2.) Operation Trident (India vs Pakistan)
3.) Operation Python (India vs Pakistan)
4.) Falklands War (UK vs Argentina)
4.) Operation Praying Mantis (US vs Iran)

ArmchairGeneral

OTO Melara's twin 40 mm mounts use air burst rounds at longer ranges.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

JA Boomer

Ah true, but I would not think of a 40mm bofors as your modern day CIWS.

Feanor

Sorry couldn't resist.



On a more serious note, factor in tactical nukes (in my mind still the only practical way of attacking a CVBG), stealth aircraft and stratosphere-bombers as delivery systems, and we have a recipe for killing CVBGs.

IDonT

The most probable naval fleet action in the future would probably involved regional powers not the USN. The USN is too strong to fight.

There are many emerging naval powers like South Korea, China, and India. Fleet actions would likely be between them.

At that time, direct energy weapons would mature and air interception would happen at the speed of light. Weapon evolution continues between attacker and defender.

One more thing, I think the Union Navy of 1865 was a lot bigger than the Royal Navy.

sheep21

wellll, I cant really think of any reason for a major 21st Century naval battle. The only one I can think of is a possible flare up at Taiwan and I doubt that the US & Taiwanese navies would lose, causing China to escalate the conflict in an attempt not to lose face, leading to a Nuclear Winter and the end of mankind.

Dreadnought

Personally, I dont see this scenario playing out. China wont use nuclear weapons as well as the U.S. wont use them. Neither want to have the finger pointed at them for the first nuclear shots in a war. However China prides herself like Russia and their ballistic missile capabilities and proliferation. On the other hand the USN uses AGEIS and that has been a proven system. Which lends credence as to why China wont use a nuclear weapon. Because they dont want it shot down over their own counrty nor do their neighbors so they might as well shoot it at their own people because that is exactly who will light up immediately thereafter.
Just an opinion.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Feanor

I was thinking of a mutli-megaton detonation done near, rather then on, the CVBG, and hope that the damage is enough to incapacitate them for the rest of the war. If it's not, we can just repeat with a bigger detonation. Also a nuclear torpedos and the like could be used.

sheep21

I didnae say it was a likely scenario, tis just the only possible fleet action that came to mind. Everything is possible, however improbable

Dreadnought

And immediately afterwards? Maybe you sank and or damaged a CV battlegroup but do you think for a moment two more nuclear armed CVB's wont be enroute to such an exchange with their accompanying subs? Do you also think that the U.S. wont respond ten fold with the subs that accompany that targeted CVB group? You would be watching China's mainland get showered by boomers on CNN that night and they would have no need for electric generation as they would be glowing permamnent after such a foolish exchange. If you are dumb enough to attack a CVB group then your also dumb enough to endanger your entire population and there would be no question as to whats targeted or whom is targeted after such a foolish act.

"Also a nuclear torpedos and the like could be used"

Correct, "Could" is the optional word but given the fact the CVB groups go nowhere without their sub escorts you "could" expect a reply instataniously with a nuclear weapon or multiple nuclear weapons on mainland China and the subs go into seek and destroy mode. Which do you think will survive?

Do you think China "could" survive that scenario (a multiple mainland strike) and maintain a hold on its people that would be pretty angry at their leaders decisions to provoke such actions? Not to mention China's neighbors that would be breathing fall out for quite some time because they provoked such an exchange. You could bet the U.N. would turn their backs on any country that chose a nuclear attack right from the start and then where will China be.....SOL. And I'm almost certain that China's neighbors would also turn their backs on them for having their backyards permanently desolated and iradiated. Think they want to risk their own peoples future for China? Doubtfull to say the least.

Feanor

Find China in my posts


I mean come on China doesn't even have the technology to conduct that kind of an attack, especially since it would need to be done to several CVBGs at the same time for maximum effect. Because after you've done it once, the enemy will know about it, and most likely find a way to counter act it.

Sea Toby

Maybe, but after the Civil War America let its navy rot. No new ships were built for over twenty years. By that time many of the wooden hulled square rigged steamers were outclassed by many European ironclads. That large number during 1865 dropped to just 18 dhips in 1885. The reason why we let our navy rot had to do with the number of ships leftover from the Civil War and that most of the funds went into the army to support the internal policy of Manifest Destiny, an America from sea to shining sea, i.e. opening up the West and forcing the American Indians onto reservations. . It wasn't until after the debacle at Samoa before America seriously started building a Steel Navy that was useful in winning the Spanish-American war ten years later.