The last of my twins posts in the naval series.
Often naval ages get named
after their primary method of propulsion. The naval age after the Transition
could well be called either the Hybrid age or the new age of sail. Warships
would most likely have two propulsion methods, similar to those of the SS Savannah. The primary
method would be sail used for strategic long distance movement, while the
secondary system would be some form of biofuel engine , most likely gas or
diesel, for inshore, tactical movement, fast movement and possibly to generate
electricity as well. Of these two Gas turbines are probably the more likely
choice, biogas has a far simpler production process than biodiesel and Gas turbines
are highly effective at fixed high speeds, as well as being already in use for
combined systems with diesel to take advantage of this. This efficiency at high
speed, the potential to generate electricity from the gas turbines and the
simplified fuel production are all advantages, however storage and energy
density could be the deciding factor in favor of biodiesel. Biodiesel has far
greater energy density than biogas meaning that more energy could be stored on
similar sized ships and storage systems.
Several factors in naval war
that are no longer present or severely diminished would most likely return. Two
of them are fueling
stations and armor. Fuelling stations are likely to return as a way to
reliably resupply warships with biofuel, allowing their rapid redeployment
without exhausting their fuel or against the dominant wind currents and as a
way to maintain large stocks of biofuel allowing greater amounts to be
accessible when needed than otherwise could be found and allowing ships to
fight outside of harvest seasons. The biofuel would likely be produced in small
amounts during peacetime and stockpiled for when it’s needed. Armor will likely
return as the destructive potential of the weapons decreases allowing it to
become effective again, though potentially only as partial armor. The amount of
armor used on a warship would have many potentials as there are several
variables now added due to the post peak world, in short while more armor gives
a ship more survivability it also increases the energy use of the vessel,
possibly lowering the acceptable amount of armor significantly below its
possible size and coverage.
The naval period that the
post peak navies will resemble most would most likely be either the age of
Steam and Ironclads, the Big Gun era or WWII Carriers. The reason for this is
that cannon technology and explosive shells would almost certainly be viable
precluding the use of wooden ships for warfare (commerce is another thing) as
explosive shells can easily and rapidly destroy wooden ships. This means that
the ships would either have wooden hulls but metal armor (ironclad) or be made
out of metal entirely (or other hard materials such as ferrocement). With the
addition of turrets if the requisite metal working is possible this would
translate into the big gun era and the return of WWI style battleships, or due
to the smaller production capabilities, cruisers. Aircraft may however remain
viable in a large way and something similar to WWII and modern style navies
centered around fleet carriers could remain or return (after the transition),
however in a highly altered form.
If the ironclad era returns then
the result would be difficult to predict and would depend on the exact technologies
that survive. If guns regress to a certain stage, losing much of their
penetration capability but heavy armor returns it could lead to extreme
difficulty in damaging ships with cannon fire, then the statement by Sir John
Colomb “The ram was now
the ultimate weapon” (1867) would be accurate but late by several hundred
years. Alternatively armor could be of minimal use leading to Monitors (small
and slow with large guns) becoming prevalent. Alternatively turrets and large
scale metal working could remain and this could lead to a new Big gun era, of
fully metal and armored warships with the size of the ship and guns being the
primary feature of warships. These and other alternatives exist, especially
when other technologies such as torpedoes are considered.
Aircraft, if they remain, are
likely to combine both heavier and lighter than air versions. Lighter than air
would likely look similar to the Aeromodeller
II and could be for cargo and long range scouting. If heavier than air
remains it will almost certainly be non jet engine and thus much slower than
modern planes and likely with shorter operational range. These aircraft will
have several advantages over warships, mainly their height. This height could
allow for the use of low powered and low tech missiles to hit surface targets
at great range, whereas surface targets couldn’t respond in kind due to the
energy requirements of a surface to air missile’s (High density) and the cost
required to make guidance systems. Due to fuel constraints however the missiles
may not be able to carry sufficient loads to damage warships unless their range
is reduced, potentially bring the aircraft in range of reprisal or
alternatively the missiles could be slow enough that it is possible to destroy
them with AA fire. They would also have smaller payloads and so traditional
bombers and dive bombers could return. This could lead to a slightly fluid
environment where aircraft could be significant threats to warships but not
consistently enough to rely on. Heavier than air aircraft also have the
downside of requiring significant amounts of fuel to fly and so would have
limited range outside of home territory and only limited capability of
projecting them through carriers and island bases. They would also have limited
operation times due to limited amounts of fuel, leading to similar problems as
seen by Germany during WWII in regards to operations, especially during the
later stages of the war, could become common.
Making solid predictions on
the potential fate of submarines is made difficult by their complexity. The
concept and use of submersibles is old and goes before the wide scale use of
fossil fuels, the first military submersible being the Turtle in the American
civil war. Their potential use in deep waters and even significantly far from
friendly ports however relies on their ability to access a significant amount
of technologies and fuel, these technologies include the ability to balance the
submarine, maintain pressure and air tightness etc. This could render the
submarine a minor part of post peak fleets mainly used to attack known shipping
lanes if it remains viable. However subs would have great potential in closed
waters (such as the Strait of
Malacca or the Mediterranean) especially if the technologies required to combat
subs (sonar) is lost or unavailable in the post peak world. Where subs could
especially shine could be in their potential as minelayers, especially to lay
mines in hostile waters.
Mines will likely become far
more common in the post-peak world than they are today. This stems from the
fact that they are the most cost effective naval weapons ever invented. With
mines costing hundreds of dollars sinking million dollar warships during both
world wars, including multiple battleships, and their effectiveness shown during
the Russo-Japanese war, the Dardanelles campaign, and Operation Starvation (mining Japanese
waters from air). One of the greatest uses of mines is as sea denial weapons;
this use has gone back as far as 1855 where a planned British attack on
Kronstadt (a very important Russian naval base) was cancelled upon the sighting
of mines. The use of mines to deny sea control is effective, even against
modern fleets, with a planned naval assault on Wonsan during the Korean War was postponed when two
minesweepers were sunk. This caused Rear Admiral Allen E to state, “We have
lost control of the seas to a nation without a navy, using pre-World War I
weapons, laid by vessels that were utilized at the time of the birth of
Christ.” Mines have also sunk the most US warships in the post war period, potentially making
them the most effective and cost effective naval weapon in current existence.
One aspect that will shape
the post peak naval world regardless of its form is the radical reduction in
manufacturing capability and general production ability in the post peak world
when compared to any of these ages. This would lead to vastly smaller navies
than have historically been fielded as well as different fleet compositions,
with higher small to big ship ratios. Construction times for ships would also
increase quite drastically, causing naval conflicts to be even more ‘come as
you are’ than normal, as even the smaller combatants would take years to build
and large ships decades. This would have several other affects, naval tactics
and strategies would likely become conservative, in the sense of being cautious,
to avoid losing ships irreplaceable over the course of most conflicts. Ship
design would also change with a focus on cheap maintenance, long lasting ship
hulls, and the use of crew over manufactured items where possible. The first
change could likely see indecisive battles similar to the Battle of Jutland
become the norm for large scale naval battles. The reduction in manufacturing
capability and hence ability to maintain long supply lines and fleets on far
distant shores, the ability to recuperate major losses and (potential) removal
of major technology gradients could limit the reach of naval empires or make
their conquests fleeting and tenuous. Support ships, carrying fuel, ammo and
spare parts will likely have minor roles in the post peak world. With limited
resources to build and maintain ships they could easily be an unaffordable
luxury for many fleets, especially given that ships would not use fuel for long
distance movement and would likely stay close to ports. This limited amount of
support ships would probably be reflected in warship design, with most warships
able to carry significant supplies of food, fuel, ammo and spare parts.
Support ships would still be
useful for certain operations, particularly piracy and blockades, potentially
they could even be critical for said operations as they would allow ships to
stay on station or patrol for longer times, potentially allowing these
operations to be carried out by the far smaller fleets.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteNice post. I hadn't heard of the SS Savannah before. It has both interesting technology and history too. The steam power could get a ship away from a nasty engagement with pirates in still waters too?
Never heard of fuelling stations either, but in a strange coincidence, think I may have seen one at the Sunbury railway station yesterday. Possible, but it may also have been a water tower for the original steam locomotives too? Dunno. The Victorian Goldfields Railway run a steam train from Castlemaine V/Line station to Maldon, but it would have originally run Bendigo to Melbourne through Sunbury. The current drivers still have to get accredited hours on the Melbourne to Bendigo run so sometimes you see crusty old diesel engines pulling freight from Bendigo or Castlemaine to pay for the fuel around here! I’m not a trainspotter, but you can’t ignore the beauty of the engineering in the old machines – which still work and are maintained by volunteers. Resilience without even probably realising what they have?
Wow, the aeromodeller II is a pretty impressive bit of kit and not outside of our current technology. I don't know much about aircraft, but I've read that there really isn't any replacement for jet fuel? At the same time, I remember reading something about the Germans using biofuels in aircraft during WWII. I can't see why an older style air-cooled engine couldn't run biofuels? They really weren't much more complex than a VW beetle air-cooled engine. Speaking of which it was always a long term ambition of mine to get a Purvis Eureka (made in Dandenong of all places). Check it out if you have the time.
Aussie diesel-electric submarines are pretty lethal bits of kit and have performed well in military games. Didn't know that about mines, but it does make sense. Hope you guys had a chance to check out the HMAS Sydney Wikipedia entry?
Good luck with your VCE exams too.
Regards
Chris
The Purvis Eureka looks sleek in regards to the jet engines it should be possible to refine it out of bio fuels, the problem is that jets need lots of fuel, especially the fast ones. Then there's also the plane itself, it takes a lot more high technology to make a jet aircraft that won't shake itself to pieces and this also takes more energy. its possible that jets will remain but in a very limited form as a very rare but very prestigious weapon only used by the richest states.
ReplyDeleteThe aeromodeller II is impressive and will hopefully take off
we have as half as many Collins submarines as frigates and this probably says a lot about their effectiveness.
the effectiveness of mines isn't mentioned much as they are still to an extent seen as "un chivalrous" and "weapons of the weak", aren't very good as an offensive weapon and don't require a lot of highly trained officers, despite this we have 6 minehunters
Aircraft have several routes roads they could take. From the experimental http://www.synergyaircraft.com/, lighter than air (aeromodeller II) and reverting to older forms. Chances are all will be used depending on each areas situation.
ReplyDeleteSubs are nasty because most navies are configured to fight the sea's eqivalent of guerrilla warfare and the difficulty of finding them.
Thanks, the longest exam is over (english) but sttill got a bit to go.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteMines are pretty nasty on both land and at sea. There is something pretty dodgy about a set and forget weapon. I travelled to Cambodia and Laos many years ago and they had no-go zones with warning signs. Still it is the same as the salt water crocodile infested rivers up north. You can't ignore the signs, but I still saw people wading into rivers with the signs - not often, but there were still thrill seekers (or ignorant people) up there.
I was specifically thinking about the older style aircraft engines that had all of the cylinders arranged in a circle about the crankshaft. They were generally air cooled too and were possibly quite efficient for prop planes. They sort of remind me of a VW beetle air cooled engine (a flat four cylinder, very easy to work on).
In the states you can buy conversion kits for VW beetles to connect up electric motors to the gear box. Interesting stuff.
Glad to hear the English exam is over and good luck for the rest of them!