Just like cruisers and battleships made frigates, PT boats, and destroyers disappear? All navies in the future will necessarily consist of a wide variety of sizes of ships... Bigger is only better for certain roles. Not to mention exponentially more expensive... I don't think flying ships would reduce the number of fighter jets used much at all.
Does not quite fit Fyron a frigate is designed to do different tasks then a destroyer and a cruiser.
I was on a modern Frigate a while and that thing was cool as hell to me but when I stepped aboard an Arleigh Burke (sp?) Destroyer it was obviously a more impressive ship with more numerous weapons and more firepower.
I saw a cruiser and that thing was jaw dropping to me (I've never seen a carrier in person but I hear they'll knock your sox off) But it served a different role in a carrier group then both frigates AND destroyers.
Frigate:
The guided missile frigates (FFG) bring an anti-air warfare (AAW) capability to the frigate mission, but they have some limitations. Designed as cost efficient surface combatants, they lack the multi-mission capability necessary for modern surface combatants faced with multiple, high-technology threats. They also offer limited capacity for growth. Despite this, the FFG 7 class is a robust platform, capable of withstanding considerable damage. This "toughness" was aptly demonstrated when USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and USS Stark was hit by two Exocet cruise missiles. In both cases the ships survived, were repaired and returned to the fleet. USS Stark was decommissioned in May 1999.
The Surface Combatant Force Requirement Study does not define any need for a single mission ship such as the frigate and there are no frigates planned in the Navy's five-year shipbuilding plan.
Destroyers:
Destroyers and guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants. The addition of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System or Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABLs) to many Spruance-class destroyers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike warfare.[/b]
Cruisers
Modern U.S. Navy guided missile cruisers perform primarily in a Battle Force role. These ships are multi-mission [Air Warfare (AW), Undersea Warfare (USW), and Surface Warfare (SUW)] surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups. Cruisers are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles giving them additional long range strike mission capability.[/b]
That comes from
http://www.navy.mil/
Anyway my point is Bigger is better if they are on the same "dimensions" think about it say a capital ship has 12 main guns and lets add to this now the ability of 3 dimensions to PLACE weapons as well (top sides bottom) that gives the capital ship a choice of a LOT of weapons including secondary gun batteries counter missile missiles.
Anti-fighter missiles (Think about how many AMRAM missiles a destroyer sized vessel cold sling in it and still have room for primary weapons if they got rid of the helicopters) NOW since most modern warfare is missile based lets say you have fifteen fighters each carrying 2 shipkiller missiles (they'd have to be big remember as most ship killers are HUGE compared to fighter killers) so that's possibly 60 missiles.
Now let's say the capital ship has something like modern CIWIS and AEGIS, it's already begun firing on the missiles with counter missiles.
Probobly started rippling off anti-fighter missiles while the fighters launched their own missiles (say 2 anti-fighter missiles dedicated to each fighter to better ensure kill that's 30 missiles)
Counter missiles begin knocking out incoming enemy missiles, ciwis will probobly do a good deal of removing the rest, but let's say two missiles get through the capital ship takes outter hull damage and depending on where struck inner hull and system damage.
However the fighters are not as survivable, even a single missile will kill them instantly so lets say only HALF the destroyers missiles get through that's still 15 dead fighters for one damaged capital ship.
And that's assuming defenses as primitive as CIWIS and AEGIS (an advanced tracking system that could track and follow all 60 incoming missiles plus the fighters) they've already designed LASER weapons (yes you read right) that can intercept super sonic artillery shells, and ballistic missiles with ease.
The first of these laser prototypes was the size of a 747 jumbo jet, however just this year the US military designed a laser weapons system compact enough to be slung under a fighter's wing I think they call it HEL.
Now assuming multiple capital ships operating in a carrier group like operation you'd have overlapping layers of defense, CIWIS,Laser, anti-missile missiles, and counter fighter missiles.
It would be pretty suicidal if you think about it.
Now take away atmosphere and like I said have a rough mass-to-thrust ratio high enough on your capital ships and they can be just as fast and just as "maneuverable" as a fighter and yeah I'm pretty sure they would be able to hit a fighter with a naval gun as I have said all you'd really need to do is sweep the area with multiple beam weapons.
Assuming solid shot weapons all you'd need is very rapid fire rail cannons (such as the neoBSG or Pegasus) or worse for the fighters proximity explosion weapons such as nukes or even fragmentation weapons.
A fighter is a deathtrap because it can't have the RAD shielding of a big ship and can't take the Damage a big ship could, a nuke goes off against a futuristic starship it may survive, a nuke goes off in proximity to fighters and it aint gonna be pretty.
Even if the fighters aren't destroyed a Neutron warhead would deep fry your pilots in a horrible way.
(edit) Oh and modern Warships are Larger then their WWII counterparts (think a modern Cruiser is about 3/4 the size of a WWII battleship/battlecruiser?) so that alone lets you know sizes change
Battleships of the wet navy are not quite an adequate defense either as their big guns are SLOW and not even capable of arcing high enough to hit a fightercraft lol but we've all seen how deadly their AAA batteries were in WWII now imagine all of them replaced by CIWIS cannons (shudders)
Battleships of the wet navy were also rendered "obsolete" too early according to a great many naval types because they were quite capable of putting down cheaper shells instead of uber expensive missiles for the same job. That and a battleship could practically shrug off modern ship killers and sink the bastard that shot it
And there are actually plans for future "battleships" in the modern US navy, they won't have the big guns but they'll have a crapload of missiles and enough AA and 5in' guns to make anyone else regret getting close. I'll try and find a link
Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
Threaded Mode