And, no, Trekkies, the real one. The famous one. The legend. Not the goofy looking flying saucer.
But have any of you ever wondered which would win in a battle?
I have no doubt that fans of Star Trek have discussed (nay, argued) over which incarnation of their show's flagship is best. I know that there are debates on who the best captain is. And I know that fans of a galaxy far far away trade shots back and forth about which ship wins. I don't mean any of that.
I mean which would win: the USS Enterprise (CV-6) or the starship Enterprise?
Yeah, I'm positing a slugging match between a Yorktown-class aircraft carrier and a starship from the 23rd century. Maybe that's not possible. At least, not without some modifications.
Buckle up, kids.
First, some "housekeeping." Obviously, these two would not be able to meet in combat, nor are they designed for similar missions. One is an Earth-bound ship built for war. The other is a space ship constructed for long-term exploration. Not only are their eras different, but the reason they exist is like night and day. Then why am I pitting them toe-to-toe?
The reason is simple. Since 1945, the name "Enterprise" has been inseparably connected with combat as the keystone of a fleet. The fame she earned in the Second World War is why it was an appropriate name for a ship in a sci fi television series. Familiarity. Just like what Ford did with the name "Mustang."
Now, I rather like the reboot Star Trek films. And I can understand the appeal of the original series and the spin-offs. But I've never appreciated how they treated the name "Enterprise." It is not a name for a ship of peace, sent out to explore and be a mobile diplomatic post. A ship named Enterprise is a vessel meant to do one thing: win. Think of this as similar to the stuff that EckhartsLadder does when comparing two ships. So who wins?
To accomplish this, the two opponents must be able to meet. I'm going to ignore any potential ability of the starship to "fly" in an atmosphere and basically "bomb" the ship. Mostly because that changes the starship from a "ship" to more like a B-52 bomber or AC-130 gunship. The way you fight with those is different. And, incidentally, the right way when given a platform like the starship Enterprise. No, for this the two need to meet as near equals.
That means either "transforming" the starship into an ocean-going warship or "morphing" the carrier into a star-craft.
Because there does not seem to be a comparable collection of small ships in the Star Trek universe, I'll be bringing the starship into WW2 as a "classic" warship. If there are things similar to fighters, dive bombers, and such, then moving the Big E to space may be possible. (If this was Star Wars, then it is easier to do. Maybe next time.)
But what is the starship Enterprise similar to in the US Navy in the 1940s? Cruisers.
USS Louisville (CA-28), a Northampton-class cruiser. My grandfather served aboard her.
This makes sense, so follow along for a moment while I explain. The cruiser is, historically, designed to be a long-range ship capable of independent operations. Now, doesn't that sound like "5 year voyage" and "boldly going?" Cruisers are decently armed, able to take on anything at their weight class and lighter. Some were even up armed (or up armored, if your's is German) to be able to go against battleships (allegedly... maybe). Fast and agile, these were the ships that gain the fame. Ships like the Graf Spee, the SMS Emden, and the USS Constitution. And, yes, technically "Old Ironsides" is a frigate, but in mission, and concept, she is the very definition of a cruiser or battlecruiser.
By the 1930s, cruisers were fitted with 8 inch or 10 inch guns for main weapons. At least a half dozen lighter guns (5 inch, usually), and dozen or so light cannon and machine guns would round out the firearms. Torpedoes would also be a common arm. Cruisers often carried a few scouting floatplanes, both for finding targets far off, and for directing shots. Later in the war, the planes would aid in rescuing downed aircrew or sailors stranded after their ship sank.
Cruisers have been the mainstay of fleets since the 1860s. Battleships are the backbone, sure, and destroyers bring utility and numbers, but the cruiser is the jack-of-all-trades. Even today, with the Ticonderoga-class, cruisers are the primary independent ships for navies that can afford to use them. They are the jack-of-all-trades. The Tico cruisers carry a couple advanced 5 inch guns, a few machine guns and auto-cannon, a pair of torpedo launchers, and 130 missiles.
I think it's a fair parallel for the design and purpose of ships from Star Trek. Especially if you imagine a Northampton-class (or comparable from another navy) being used by NOAA or the USCG. A ship of exploration and outreach able to defend itself from just about any threat.
But what of the flattop.
Isn't she pretty?
Now, carriers were initially (at least in the US) based on cruiser or battlecruiser hulls. Lexington and Saratoga were laid down as battlecruisers, while the Yorktown-class had a similar sized and shaped hull. Even the HMS Furious transitioned from battlecruiser to flattop, in such an incremental way to show the process that lead to the Big E.
This meant that aircraft carriers were relatively fast. Still are, in fact. The Iowa-class had to be fast enough to keep up with the carrier task force. The first nuclear carrier, named Enterprise, outran her escorts during trials. The new Ford-class is able to hit at least 35 knots, which is darn fast for a quarter mile of steel.
But compared to the cruisers of World War 2, carriers were pretty lightly gunned. The biggest guns were 5 inchers, with 40 mm, 20 mm, and machine guns all around. Initially the Lex and Sara had a few of the original cruiser guns, but once aircraft proved viable, the guns were removed to make space for more planes. Later on there would be dozens of anti-aircraft guns all over. Today carriers have no offensive fixed armament, just some anti-air guns and missiles. Like in WW2, the defense of the carrier is dependent on her escorts.
The strong arm of the carrier is her air wing. Back in the day, that was a squadron of fighters, two squadrons of dive bombers, and a squadron of torpedo bombers. Initially the dive bombers were SBD Dauntless, but later replaced by the SB2C Helldiver. The TBD Devastator torpedo bomber was, thankfully, replaced by TBM Avengers. The fighters were F4F Wildcats at first, then later the F6F Hellcat or F4U Corsair. One of the two dive bomber squadrons was the "scouting" squadron, tasked with forward recon to find targets.
So, in a one-on-one fight, based on this scenario, who wins?
The aircraft carrier Enterprise, I'd say wins 9.95 times out of 10. Now, if the cruiser-version of starship Enterprise can get within gun range, and the aircraft can't stop it soon enough, it will win. But that will be a rare occurrence.
So lets make it interesting. Lets take the Enterprise from the original series, the Next Generation, the 2001 TV series, and the reboot film version. So that's four "cruisers" against a carrier. Now its 9.8 out of 10 in favor of the Big E.
What gives? Being outnumbered 4 to 1, and outgunned at least 20 to 1, yet the flattop beats the gunships?
Why does an aircraft carrier beat a cruiser?
Now, there is an answer from history, a current answer, and the sci fi answer that Atomic Rockets disagrees with. That being said, the Atomic Rockets website is full of great sci fi writing info. And it leans "hard" sci fi, so much of the stuff they posit is either doable, or potentially doable, in the next couple centuries.
The answer is twofold: "stand-off capability" and "growth potential."
After Pearl Harbor and Taranto, the navies of the world quickly realized that the day of the battleship was near the end. What good is a multi-million dollar warship able to shoot targets twenty miles away when it can be sunk by a single dive bomber launched from a thousand miles away? Now, there is plenty of use for the "gunship," and hopefully they come back, somehow. But that was the key: range.
In the Battle of the Coral Sea (4-8 May, 1942), Japanese and American fleets fought each other via airpower alone. It was the first time in history that two fleets engaged each other without being able to see each other directly. None of the ships met and traded shots. Only aircraft. And with the advent of jets post-war, and later inflight refueling, the range of strike aircraft increased. Aircraft carriers are major power projectors. Just one can tip a campaign, if used correctly.
For no other reason than it is a good show.
Now, the sci fi fan here would argue, correctly, that space faring warships can be maneuvered in such a way that fighters as we know it are unnecessary. But I'll get back to that. Right after I explain why the battleship died logistically.
Consider, you are the commander of a navy, and your president/king/dictator/whatever wants the fleet to be able to "hit harder, faster, and farther." And not in another five or six years, after the first of a new class of ship is launched, but pretty much now. You have battleships and aircraft carriers. Which do you upgrade?
The battleship has 16 inch guns in three triple turrets. The carrier has three hydraulic catapults and houses 47 aircraft with 1000 mile combat radiuses. (Numbers are rough conjecture, not official. Don't believe me, just rummage through Wiki pages on ships that underwent upgrades and watch the creep.)
To replace the guns on the battleship, one-to-one, requires a lot of work. The guns themselves are heavier, due to thicker breeches and longer barrels. The elevation mechanisms are larger too. Because of this, the turrets must be larger, so as to house the new guns and their loading equipment, which is larger as well. More crew is needed per gun, since they are larger. And ammo storage is less, since each round is larger. The choice is either carry less ammo per gun, or have less overall space to carry the same amount of shots as before. With larger turrets, though, comes greater weight, which the motors used to rotate the turret must cope with. Larger motors take up space and add weight. New barbettes, upon which the turret sits, are needed to support this weight. The hull, frame, and keel will need strengthening to handle the weight, too. And the engines will need to be improved to maintain speed, which requires both larger engines and more fuel carried. More engineering crew will be needed to maintain the devices. On top of all this, new fire control is needed to accurately lay shots, which adds weight, complexity, and crew.
At the end of the day, just to replace one turret, we're looking at an estimated 100 tons added of material, and around 80+ crew added. Just for three guns that will increase hit power no more than 50% and range no more than 20%. This refit will take at least a full year in the yard.
To get the carrier up to spec requires fitting new catapults. Steam catapults are more powerful than hydraulic, and don't require the large fluid reservoir, only steam from the boilers. More catapult crew is not needed, though training will be. This will allow for at least 20% increase in aircraft launch weight.
The aircraft will have an upper limit on footprint and weight, but so long as they can carry the right ordinance, this is not a limiting factor. Getting then next mark of strike craft with 25% more range will not require any modifications to the carrier. In fact, very little work on the carrier is needed to greatly increase aircraft capability. So long as there is space in the hangar, and space for the aircrew and support crew, the plane can deploy.
Net result: less than 20 tons added overall, not including weight of embarked aircraft, and likely no more than two dozen crew added. Hit power increased 50+% and strike range increased 20+%. And the best part, this upgrade can be done again every couple years in just a few months.
Now, reshaping the deck with an angle to accommodate jets will be more costly, but after that, the growth curve resets.
A variety pack of Essex-class, post war. Flavors include long, short, straight deck, angled deck, and bridle catches.
That's the beauty of the aircraft carrier. Think back to the HMS Dreadnought. When she was launched in 1906, all other battleships were obsolete. But by 1919, the trendsetter herself was obsolete. Less than fifteen years of cutting edge for 1.7 million pounds (1906 rate). That's not "bargain."
On the other hand, a large number (22 out of 24) of the Essex-class were able to be upgraded for handling jets post-war, as were their replacements, the Midway-class. In fact, Midway served from 1945 to 1992.
Midway at commissioning, 1945.
Midway en route to southeast Asia, 1972.
Deck evolution of Midway. 1945, 1957, 1970.
And here is the thing that Atomic Rockets, and many "hard sci fi" fans seem to ignore when discussing the validity of "fighters" in science fiction: versatility.
Now, I'm not saying I think the assessment that "a small one-man fighter" is a bit out of place in realistic sci fi is wrong. But that doesn't mean a "tactical craft" is stupid.
Ditch the idea of the X-Wing, Colonial Viper, and Starfury for a moment. Think like a space-going mix between the AC-130 Spooky gunship, the AH-64 Apache, and the torpedo boat. Small crew, lots of guns and missiles, small size, plenty of agility and speed. Now have a ship designed to carry, launch, support, and service about thirty to sixty of these "damned bats***." Now have three of these ships sneak up on a battleship centered fleet. The results should speak for themselves.
Now, maybe a bit of that is bias. And I'm okay with that, because I'm teasing those thoughts out on my own time, and I think it is possible. And clearly David Weber (author of the Honorverse) agrees. Granted, most of the combat in that series is "gunship," like a sci fi Napoleonic war, but there are "torpedo boat" stand-ins.
Don't forget, right as the HMS Dreadnought was being launched, many navies were also playing around with 100ft long (or less) torpedo boats. These little things carried two or more ship-killing torpedos, and maybe a light gun or two. Their armor was speed; about 30+ knots early on. By WW2, its was more like 50 knots. The idea of small, lightweight, heavy hitting ships is a viable one. Especially for a navy that does not have the resources to build even a small fleet of cruisers, let alone battleships.
Which brings me back to Star Trek. I could go and look at the best ships from the whole universe and transfer them to WW2, but I don't think that's possible. There really is no equivalent to the Borg cube that I know of, for example.
But I can create a hypothetical transfer for the USS Enterprise into space.
So, lets start with Ralph McQuarrie's concept art, and assume that it is a carrier. After all, that aft opening could be a landing bay.
Some really good artwork based on this found here.
Now, I know I'm biased, but I think that looks better than most incarnations of starship Enterprise. Regardless, there's our ship. And lets say she carries 25-30 of these gunship/torpedo boats. Now, is there any question who wins against the "standard" starship Enterprise?
If you are thinking "well, all it takes is the other ship to warp in close and start laying waste," you've forgotten about the Combat Air Patrol. Escort aircraft in flight above the carrier just to ward off attacking planes. Not to mention the alert craft on the catapults for the moment enemies show up. Maybe not enough to guarantee keeping an attacker from catching someone with their pants down, but its better than nothing but finicky shields and an exposed bridge.
At the end of the day, my beef with Star Trek is still the same: The name "Enterprise" belongs on a carrier. Please, please...
(For the record, I wrote this a few weeks ago, before the move. And, yes, I intend on paring the Big E against something from Star Wars. Because I can.)
No comments:
Post a Comment