Worlds of Design: The Problem with Space Navies, Part 2

In space, no one can hear your beam.

How realistic are your space navies?

  • Very Realistic

    Votes: 0 0.0%

interstellar-1951609_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
I confess that I am a big fan of naval history (the topic of my long ago doctoral dissertation is “Aircraft and the Royal Navy 1908 to 1919”), so I have some bias. Certainly if you work at it, you can deliberately make up science-fiction settings where ground forces and space fighters make sense. Glen Cook (known especially for the Black Company books) wrote a science fiction series (The Starfishers Trilogy) where he crafted the setting to enable spaceships to operate analogously to WW II submarines! You can do that kind of thing for fighters and aircraft carriers, if you really try.

Picking up where we left off, here’s three more issues to consider when launching your space armada.

Automation​

Automated aerial adjuncts to modern fighters are part of all plans for real-world sixth generation fighters. How well this will work out is unknown, but in the long run we may have fighters that have no crew, unlike the starfighters of science fiction. In effect, a starfighter is just a big, guided missile with good onboard intelligence.

Jack Campbell in his novels of the “Lost Fleet” presents a scenario of an automated fleet going rogue that represents the fear anyone ought to have of providing broad autonomy to artificial intelligence (think Terminator movies). Yet where automation can be used at less-than-human-intelligence, it will be. You won’t have giant warships with tens of thousands of crew because so much will be automated.

Boarding and Ramming​

Given that space is BIG, and that weapons tend to become more destructive over time, boarding is pretty unlikely. You can arrange a setting specifically to enable this (perhaps through Star-Trek like “transporters”). But in any likely situation, no boarding.

Historically, boarding action depended on the efficacy of whatever counted as “guns” on warships. When rowed ancient galleys had no “guns” but arrows or the occasional ballista/catapult, ramming was often preferred. But most of the time battles came down to boarding, a sort of land battle at sea. When artillery became more destructive in the Age of Sail, boarding was an activity after the enemy had surrendered, owing to artillery damage. Pirates relied on boarding because they didn’t have much artillery, but neither did their victims – and the pirates made sure to have a lot more men in their typically small, fast, shallow-draft ships.

Ramming was necessary when it was virtually the only way that a ship could damage another. But in outer space why would you ram the enemy when you can nail them with a big missile and avoid damage to your ship? Quite apart from the difficulty of hitting an enemy ship (again, space is BIG). Ramming scored hits at sea because water ships are hard to maneuver at the best of times, and all actions were at close quarters. Spaceships will be more maneuverable and combat ranges will likely be very far.

Bigger is Not Better​

Science fiction is littered with “10 mile long spaceships” and other monstrosities. Yes, bigger can be better up to a point - the point at which you’re putting too many of your eggs in one basket and too much of your effort into defending your very large ships. Moreover, very large ships would normally cost more to move around in terms of energy and other supplies. And if you have too few ships, you cannot cover all your responsibilities. If starfighters are a viable danger for large ships, then having a few large ships is less wise than having more but smaller ships. It’s another case where the “rule of cool” may take precedence, that is, super large ships are cool. (Let’s not even talk about the Death Stars.)

Any mobile platform like a tank or plane or (space)ship is a compromise amongst mobility, offensive capability, and defensibility/survivability. At some point ships that are too big (or too small) won’t compromise well. Ships should be large enough to serve their missions, and no larger.

Games these days are a compromise between realism and what looks cool (on screen and in other media). Game designers and world builders do well to consider both.

Your Turn: How realistic are your space navies?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
I can remember wondering how my deceased grandparent would have responded to 9/11. The truth is that she never could have imagined such a thing.

Lots of grandmothers were alive for Pearl Harbor and the ones who weren't grew up in the aftermath of WWII, under the shadow of global thermonuclear war. Duck & cover, kids, then get to your bomb shelter! I grew up on a diet of War Games, The Day After, Red Dawn and a bazillion ww2 movies in the 80s and 90s. "Kamikaze airliner" is just a variant of kamikaze.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Was also used in the Starfire series of books I believe.
The setting for those comes from the game. Note that since the 1975 introduction, the "Ion Engine" — not actually a thruster, but it leaves a trail of even more ionized gas in its 10% C wake...— is required to trigger a warp point's action... and said trigger blows up operating fusion plants. Fighters use a fusion powered variant that cannot trigger a warp point, and allows 15% C...

Webber and White, while Webber was at TFG and line Dev/Ed for Starfire, took SVC's loose history and wrote the first novel. I don't recall who wrote the Crusade novel. TFG ends, White gets the novel, SDS (a fan studio that had been working with Webber) gets the game, but not the setting, Webber goes on to write a bunch of novels not in Starfire's setting.

Note that the Honorverse through volume 5 can be readily seen as Starfire mechanics re-described/paraphrased, but still working the same. I don't care for Webber as an author, and didn't like Harrington, and so quit reading after volume 5, all of which I got from free Baen CDs. A number of the battles in the novels I could visualize the map and dice rolls...

The 4X side of Starfire was secondary in the first 3 editions, but is almost the sole focus of the SDS guys.

Like SFB, Starfire is a naval analogue... but different from Cole's other big setting: Star Fleet Battles. (SFB, per the designer, started during a simulations class - he couldn't get computer time, so did a P&P simulation of power allocation in a Star Trek context...)

Starfire (initial version), smallest to largest Escort ES, Corvette CT, Frigate FF, Destroyer DD,Light Cruiser CL , [Heavy] Cruiser CA, Battlecruiser BC, Battleship BB, Superdreadnought SD. The supplement adds Carrier CV just abve BC, and Light carrier CVL same size as a CA. Freighters range from CT sized to just above CV...
Later editions ad Explorer EX below ES, and Monitor MN at the other, and CVEs and CVAs...

It's worth noting that the ships in starfire have big, heavy, fission plants... but fighters use small, flaky, fusion plants, that don't operate during or upon exit from a warp point.

SFB uses nearly the same basic list of sizes Fast Patrol Ship PF, Patrol Corvette/Police Corvette PC/POL, Frigate, Destroyer, CL, Medium Cruiser CM, Heavy Cruiser/Battlecruiser CA/BC, Heavy Battlecruiser BCH, Dreadnought DN, Battleship BB. CVAs tend to be DN hulls; CVs on BC or CA hulls, CVLs on CL or CM hulls, CVEs on DD hulls. Patrol Tenders tend to be CL hulls, carrying 6 PFs... Space Control Ships are usually DN or BB hulls, with a full carrier complement plus a set of 6 or 12 PFs.

In the real world, Frigates and Destroyers are not clearly size delineated from each other; some navies do, but for some, FFs are smaller, others (including US WW II) DD and DE were smaller. The US Arleigh Burke class was a Light Cruiser masquerading as a frigate, the Zumwalt DD called a DD solely because congress set money for DD's the Admiralty didn't seem to want. And all sizes have grown over the decades.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top