Terran Shipkiller Concept

[GreyViper]

So in the end the big plasma gun they used for Midway, sounds allmost similar like the PTC that had tehnical problems(or they just went fo easy way and used old idea) . Hmm I do hope they solved the problems with the old ones and just for humanistic reasons didnt outfit later ships with them.

 

[AKAImBatman]

The problem with star travel in Wing Commander is not that it takes a long time to travel BETWEEN stars - not with jump points allowing almost-instantaneous access to different star systems; the part which takes the longest (hours if not days) is the crossing of space between jump points - which means fighter patrols can take hours, and cross-system travel can take days to move from jump point A to jump point B.

What's your point? The carrier is still able to be on the scene within a few days time. Which is what our current carriers are capable of. To quote what I said:

Under full military power, an American supercarrier can deliver the full force projection power of the US to any location on Earth within ten to fifteen days of receiving the call.

The main advantage of the Megacarrier is that it's a jack of all trades, at least compared to most other WC craft prior to its development and deployment; in peacetime, it's the equivalent of a small task force itself, comprising a marine expeditionary unit, a science vessel, and several carriers. In wartime, it's the core of a task force. It's not meant to be a cruiser, or a battleship or a destroyer, and isn't equippped this way - but it IS designed to allow a heavy fighter presence in one system or any adjacent systems which jump buoys service (thus allowing fighters to jump without having the mothership carry them to the site).

It sounds like you're agreeing with me. The megacarrier's purpose is to provide the full force projection power of a fleet in one unit. This gives it operational flexibility as well as allows faster mobilization.

And, unlike the proposed CVX carriers, the Midway and her sister ships is designed to do more than just carry fighters; most carrier-based machine shops, IIRC, cannot refit or upgrade munitions and fightercraft the way the Midway did during the original campaign. She's, as described in the manual, pretty much a mobile starbase, providing several functions in a platform designed to travel between systems.

The CVX class carrier is about mounting new sets of (and I quote) "directed energy weapons", as well as more modern operational features such as magnetic catapults. And I certainly wouldn't put it past the operational ability of a current carrier to do something similar to the Midway's ability to swap out weapons on the fly. The difference is that the Midway was under military operations and had to perform the field upgrades. Had there been more time, it's more likely that the Midway would have been taken to dock for the upgrades, where the more advanced equipment could do a better job. As for upgrading fighters in the field, that has never been much of a problem. The only difference is that the US deploys new fighters very slowly whereas the Midway was sent a special shipment by the Eisen (IIRC).

And, as Maj. Striker noted, the problem with trying to barricade multiple systems with one megacarrier is mostly logistical in nature - either you control a 'key' jump point in a system which links to several others to do this, or else you end up sending patrols back and forth into multiple systems, which puts a strain on the pilots as well as the craft... since you have to send the fighters back so the pilots can get sleep and food, plus repairs.

A megacarrier could control all points in and out of one system. I see no difference between those operations, and that of a modern supercarrier which operates in one theatre. The primary difference is that jump points offer *more* blockaide ability than is currently available. However, we don't know the current school of thought behind the Midway, so it's unclear if blockaiding has been deemphasized.

 

[AKAImBatman]

Are you referring to US navy carriers in your claim that "carriers are being outfitted with weapons only seen on full battleships."

You're confused. I'm referring to the next generation of carrier, the CVX class. One of the goals of the CVX program is to add "directed energy weapons" to our carriers. The exact meaning of that is, as I understand it, partially classified, but we do know that the DD(X) class destroyer will be mounting rail gun "energy weapons" that will give it abilities similar to that of a battleship.

More Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVX
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD(X)

And that it will wipe out the differences that existed between cruisers, destroyers, and battleships?

No, the DD(X) class is intended to do that. The CVX class will have more onboard weapons capabilities than their predecessors.

If so I believe you are incorrect. I don't see the US navy putting an aegis system on a carrier, nor do i see them putting larger calibre guns.

They are placing neither. They are placing a new class of weapons, mostly derived from the energy surplus provided by nuclear propulsion.

The primary offensive weapon of the carrier has been and will continue to be its air wing.

And it will continue to be. Aircraft carriers are such wonderful platforms for both war and peace because of their ability to project force and/or assistence off of ~5 mobile acres of US territory.

In addition "Star wars" type missile defenses would not be used to protect a aircraft carrier or other ships at sea. [...] and the current national missile defense program are designed to shoot down ICBMS and SLBMs.

The current missile defense system is a subset of the Star Wars program. The Star Wars program was later scaled back into just the missile defense component. From Wikipedia:

The research was controlled by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office, an agency of the Department of Defense until 1993, when it was renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

[ICBMs and SLBMs] are used against fixed targets, such as a city, military base or airbase, not a ship.

Yes, that is the greatest concern at the moment. However, there is a growing concern that nuclear weapons could be used against the carrier fleet. i.e. They are extremely succeptable to "soft kills". Under the Soviet Union, any launch of nuclear weapons would have prompted a similar response. Therefore all fighting between the two parties was kept at a non-nuclear level. But in modern warfare, an enemy must know that a simple atomic warhead would have little military impact against the US, and that it would be a very short time before the US responded with far bigger warheads. The carriers, however, are the brunt of our force projection. If they are taken out of commission with nuclear weapons, then the US will lose much of its military advantage without provoking sufficient public opinion for a retalitory nuclear strike.

In addition, even the airforce's airborne laser and navy's upper tier defense systems are designed to defend against theater ballistic missiles which target fixed sites.

Not anymore. If you read the links I posted above (particularly the second link), the CVX is intended to mount full missile defense systems.

Carriers would more likely be attacked by Torpedoes, shorter ranged surface or air launched missiles, and cruise missiles, any of these may or may not be nuclear tipped. These types of attacks are defended against by the carrier's air wing, its escorts, and its own close in defenses.

You've already answered your own point. Torpedo defenses are covered because no unauthorized vessel can hope to approach a carrier in open waters. At least not without some pretty amazing stealth or super-cavitating torpedos. Since both are outside the technological ability of most current threats, there is a focus on long range missiles and other, similar forms of weapon.

 

[Edfilho]

Again, the debate is pretty interesting, but these issue have nothing to do with WCP-era tactical and strategical doctrines.