At what point do you expect surface combatant ships to become obsolete? Is there any paticular key system thay might be the cause of this obsolescence?

Submitted by BluntBastard t3_10qd1id in Futurology

This question popped into my head while watching The Expanse series, a series that the majority of you have likely either seen or heard about. In case anyone here hasn't, it's a show set a couple hundred years in the future. Navies have moved from seafaring powers to spacefaring ones. Earth is controlled by the UN, Mars is it's own power, and the asteroid belt is inhabited by numerous factions that share a similar culture/identity.

I believe it to be obvious that we'll eventually exist within a similar reality, barring of course our self destruction, the second coming of Jesus for those who believe this, some sort of apocolypse, etc. No one can say for sure how long society will exist, but it only took us 70 years to advance from a horse and buggy to the rocket and Mars colonization may occur soon if Musk has his way of things.

This of course means that eventually seafaring vessels will become obsolete. Keeping in mind of course that all of this is speculative, what do you believe that naval powers will look like at the dawn of this reality? What systems specifically would result in this? Advanced jet engines that extend range and increase speed and effeciency? Lighter, cheaper rockets that have the range of ballistic missiles? Will military platforms have to be spacefaring? Will Earth have to be united before this reality occurs, or could nations simply duke it out on land and in space?

As a side note, the United States Air Force is currently working on their 6th generation fighter jet program, one of at least three programs that I'm aware of. The wish list the USAF has for this platfrom makes it sound less like a fighter though and more like a bloody spaceship. I can share more info if anyone is interested, but I believe that it points towards just how near to this reality we actually are.

101

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DaleFranks t1_j6pblfo wrote

> This of course means that eventually seafaring vessels will become obsolete.

And why would it mean that? Seaborne transport will likely still be the most economical means of large bulk transport. Thus, there will still be the need to provide security for transport routes, thus surface naval ships.

We've had aircraft for over a century now, and none of us are flying autogyros to work every day. The existence of a new technology that is fantastic at Task A doesn't imply that it will also be fantastic at Tasks B or C.

109

BluntBastard OP t1_j6phmaf wrote

Well, sure. But think about just how vulnerable naval assets are these days. Look at the limitations imposed on Russia's Black Sea fleet due to Ukraine possessing some missiles. Think about China's "carrier killer missiles" that, while admittedly are untested, still pose a threat to the US and forces them to change their strategies. Think also of just how expensive navies are and the logistics that involve their daily operations, how slow they are, etc.

What I'm trying to convey is that there may be technologies in the future that provide better opportunities for the protection of shipping then what navies can provide. We already have satellite strike weapons, it isn't to far fetched of an idea of those becoming more prevalent. Missile tech will continue to advance, as will drone technology.

This is all speculative of course. But navies will always be bound to certain speeds due to physics. Eventually I believe that they will become outdated. I could be wrong. We'll see.

3

Techutante t1_j6pikz5 wrote

I mean if they can launch missiles from hundreds of miles off shore, I don't see why they would ever become obsolete unless combat moves entirely off planet or somehow we all declare permanent peace. (space fighting is more likely sigh)

64

CitricThoughts t1_j6pgoms wrote

They won't become obsolete. Infantry did not become obsolete because of tanks. Tanks did not become obsolete because of Helicopters. Helicopters did not become obsolete because of fighter Jets. Fighter Jets will not become obsolete because of spaceships.

Each of these types of forces serves a different, vital role in war. You cannot capture and hold territory without infantry. You cannot bombard an area without artillery and air. Most relevant to your question, you cannot control the sea lanes and shipping without ships.

Even if we get a bunch of spaceships with orbital bombardment capabilities, they cannot defeat piracy. They alone cannot control territory. You still need a navy if you want to control the oceans. You can certainly bombard a navy from space and destroy it, but then you just have an ocean with no one controlling it.

That being said, control over space resources like asteroids and small moons will bring in trillions of dollars in revenue in today's dollars. It will certainly be the next big stage for conflict. It won't erase the importance of a blue water navy though. It'll simply be in addition to a blue water navy.

7

mcarterphoto t1_j6pg4of wrote

>popped into my head while watching The Expense series a series that the majority of you have likely either seen or heard about.

I watch "The Expense" all the time, it's about an accountant who does corporate taxes all day, right?

6

BluntBastard OP t1_j6pgpdh wrote

Yup, lol. Man, that's embaressing.

Thanks for pointing that out.

2

fidelesetaudax t1_j6pgxln wrote

Look to the war in Ukraine. Eyes in the sky make any armored vehicle an easy target for weapons with a longer reach than the vehicle can carry. Expand this and imagine how satellites will make any surface ship an easy target for weapons with a longer reach than the ship can carry. Add in stealthier better armed submarines and it won’t be long (less than a decade) until aircraft carriers are as useful as tall sailing ships.

1

Plurgasm0285 t1_j6phodr wrote

Obsolete and retirement are totally different topics here.

Obsolete? They kinda are now.

Full retirement? Possibly never. Even if the world went the way you say it could they would be repurposed for exploration or floating hospitals.

Worst case scenario (non sinking) they become floating cities like in waterworld and fallout. Cause in this same hypothetical future we have low energy efficient desalinization capabilities.

1

ghost-rider74 t1_j6pbo5p wrote

Btw the way Mars will be riddled with plenty of bodies before mass transportation makes it there.

0

Aeredor t1_j6pcra4 wrote

You asked about warships on the surface In among some other comments. Good question. Frankly, I’m surprised they’re still relevant, but I give them maybe 2-5 more years. The reason is because, according to the news, hypersonic weapons have passed early testing. The modern navies have enjoyed stand-off and over-the-horizon distances, which is why the carrier is the heart of the fleet. With a hypersonic missile, there’s no point defense gun that can protect these astronomically expensive boats. Navies won’t be able to deploy them into range of the aircraft on the carriers without putting them at risk.

The other reason is submarines continue to get stealthier. If there were any naval conflict going on right now, I think it would be the end of surface ships as we know them.

−1

Surur t1_j6pfynv wrote

I think it's notable that Russia is having difficulty with their naval fleet due to the very few long-range missiles Ukraine has.

4

BluntBastard OP t1_j6pegq5 wrote

I forgot about submarines, and yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to operate after surface combat ships are retired. If that ever occurs. In regards to hypersonic missiles though, I'd like to point out that a faster missile has a harder time correcting it's course if it's aiming at a moving target. This is a major consideration if a ship is fast enough. If hypersonic missiles become prevalent enough I can see navies turning to faster, smaller platforms. This is especially the case if navies fully utilize small unmanned ariel platforms and severely limit their manned counterparts. A Ford class carrier will be unnecessary at that point in terms of scale.

2

Plurgasm0285 t1_j6pgs53 wrote

Large enough payload and a surface burst and navigation is irrelevant

3

dumpitdog t1_j6ph4c4 wrote

As the Gerald Ford rolled off late last year I came to a conclusion that a single hypersonic missile that costs maybe $300MM could wipe it out in hours. Even with all the limitations and physical restrictions of hypersonic weapons there are workarounds. Navy is pretty 2 dimensional and slow: I imagine the navel defense idea might be gone by 2075 but hey we all might be gone by then.

1

ghost-rider74 t1_j6pbf6f wrote

NGAD is not space force by many any means.

Let's figure our our world first before going to others and screwing this up too.

At the moment mankind is a virus on this planet. Let figure out how to live HERE harmoniously before going somewhere else.

−5

BluntBastard OP t1_j6pf9ec wrote

I never claimed that NGAD was space force. I was expressing the idea that the results won't look like a typical fighter. Just because something sounds like a spacecraft doesn't mean that it actually is a spacecraft. In other words, I was exaggerating.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. If that's the case, then I apologize.

And no matter where we go, we'll screw up. It's just human nature, as far as conflict goes. If you're discussing environmental concerns, there won't really be much to screw up elsewhere. We can happily mine Luna and Mars without a second thought. Offworld and space mining will likely be a boon if the economics ever make sense to do so.

3