Concepts: Today's similarities and differences to the HV

Jonathan_S wrote:While I agree that it's likely a very long and expensive refit to add internal gtorp carriage it's possible there's some quicker way of doing it by just remuddling the pod bay. But the MAlign wouldn't have wanted to do that for Oyster Bay because the gtorp was untried in actual combat and they viewed the cataphract pods as a necessary redundancy and would have rejected any thought of reducing Cataphract pods to carry more of the less trusted gtorps.

Your argument appears to be that even if it could be done, it wouldn't have been because they needed the internal volume for the pods that they did have to carry. Is that it?

I disagree. My first argument was that if it could have been done in a reasonable time frame, some of the Sharks to be used in Oyster Bay would have had this refit to carry the torpedoes internally and thus not subject them to weeks-long run at high fractions of c, thus abrading their exteriors and potentially compromising their stealth. The counter-argument to yours is that the pods limpeted to the hull might abrade, but not the missiles themselves, so no capability would be lost. And since the pods would travel ballistically anyway, they were as stealthy as they could be, abraded or not.

If that happens to have been the case then post-OB, after they was that the gtorps did in fact work as advertised they'd might be more willing to give up pod stowage and roll rate to carry more gtorps. But that's speculation on speculation. Enough of an option that most folks wouldn't scream "retcon" if such a retrofit happened but no evidence at all that RFC would view it as desirable or even possible.

Unknown how many rails such a ship could have for pods. But my guess is that it couldn't both carry torpedoes and pods: you have to choose one or the other. Or at least, you can only roll them in the (reverse) order that they were loaded, not pick and choose.

Not necessarily. If the gtorp was mid development when the Shark design was finalized their might still have been multiple camps around what acceleration an effective torpedo would require.

I understand. I'm saying that was not the impression I got when first reading through the books, though I'll admit there is no proof one way or the other.

The text is quite clear that the gtorp's acceleration is limited by its size -- you can only squeeze so many spider emitters onto something that small. So, if the folks involved in its development hadn't yet settled on the "few hundred gravities" accel of the final weapon there could have still be wild variations in proposed weapon size (even ignoring potential arguments over endurance and payload).

Again, not the impression I got. Here, I think you're putting the cart ahead of the oxen: the size of the torpedo is determined by its internal working systems, and then they bolt however many spider tractors on the hull as will fit and will be supported by the power generation. You're implying that they would choose to make them bigger just so there could be more tractors and thus gain more acceleration.

I don't think that's likely, at least not beyond small variations: a much larger torpedo would be unwieldy to carry, too expensive to produce and deploy in sufficient quantities. It's also possible a much larger torpedo would compromise on the stealth due to the larger area for detection and especially the square-cube law for the heat dissipation from the internal power plant. I also think that the acceleration was going to be paltry anyway - the build that we got, which is too big for the Sharks, is "a few hundred gravities" - so making it much bigger wouldn't gain the MAN sufficient advantage to justify the drawbacks.

Therefore, I think the overall size would have been known for the design of the Sharks, or at least for the build of at least half of them. If it could have been done, it would have been done for some of them.

If some are convinced you need a quicker weapons; one that at least has a noticeable acceleration advantage over freighters and (old style) LACs that'd seemingly necessitate a design about twice as long as the gtorp they finally settled on. And there might be others who view even the gtorp we got as too large; saying with its stealth it didn't need accel and if you dropped it to, say, 50 gees it'd a lot smaller; making it easier to launch and letting you carry more in a given magazine volume.

I wouldn't design my weapons so they can hit freighters and old-style LACs. Those are not worthwhile targets. Either I can catch superdreadnoughts or it just doesn't matter how slow it is, because the tactics of using them will dictate generating intercepts in spite of the target's acceleration. Do note we don't know how much "a few hundred gravities" is - if it is about 400 gravities, they would catch pre-improved-compensator SDs when not running at full military acceleration. And this version is already described as "small."

But see above: I don't think that you can drop it to a size that would only achieve 50 G and still have a capable torpedo: the graser mount, power plant and the capacitors to feed the graser for 3 seconds probably dictate the minimum size and that's close to what the torpedo is today.

Another indication is that if this were possible, they would have made multiple different versions of the torpedoes, with different capabilities. They still might, but if they had made smaller, slower torpedoes, those are the ones they would have used against fixed targets like in Oyster Bay.

That kind of uncertainty would make it very hard to even leave reasonable reserved volume in the Shark design for later installation of gtorp magazines and launchers; and it might have been surprisingly late in the gtorp's development before acceleration (and thus size) specs were finally frozen.

I still disagree. Even if you're right about the size of a torpedo varying wildly by 300% or more, the MAN would have designed the Shark to be able to accommodate the smaller variants of the torpedo, if it turned out that this was the chosen design. But then if they had made the ships like that, I would expect that to become a self-fulfilling prophecy so the torpedoes chosen for OB would be the ones it could carry internally (see above).

Instead, we hear that they weren't designed to carry torpedoes internally at all, and we hear only of a single torpedo size. This is what leads me to conclude that the minimum viable torpedo was already too big to ever be carried internally short of a full-size LD, which the Sharks were never designed to be.

penny wrote:The pod bay door is simply to feed the few internal g-torps to the external racks. Current US warplanes can configure themselves with a varying mixture of ordnance depending on the mission. Certainly the LD, at least, can do the same. And as I suspect, the Shark as well. There may be many different types of Shark, you see. As I also suggested in the Attacking Darius thread.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:We don't know for certain this can be done or cannot be. But the fact that the MAN did not attempt to modify the ships to carry torpedoes internally for Oyster Bay would indicate that it can't be done without a very expensive redesign, a long down time, or both.

You could be right, but not necessarily. I got the impression that it was simply a matter of not having enough time. The MAN didn’t just have the same hindrances that the GA has when needing to refit. The MAN also has to do it all clandestinely. It has to maintain secrecy from elements in the GA, SL, and possibly even from elements in its own camp, like Galton, etc.

It also could have been that they could not afford to divert or re-task the brains and skilled workers that would be needed to do so from elsewhere.

And God only knows where that elsewhere is; which cues a thought …

The MAN’s insane logistics of possibly having to ferry tools, parts, materials, research (and possibly even skilled workers) all over creation makes me sympathize with the MA's plight. I see MAlign agents attending seminars and classes in League space availing themselves of the many breakthroughs and early research in the SL completely oblivious to the SLN; oblivious to their own breakthroughs AND to what a particular breakthrough might mean for the Navy. At any rate, I sympathize with the possible round trips of some of the MA’s research having to “run the gauntlet” of WHs and governments aboard inconspicuous dispatch boats. Each boat from each system dependent upon the research obtained from another.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:If that was the case prior to the attack, it still is now. If the LD is better at carrying torpedoes internally, then why would you have the Sharks do it too?

I think this is a good time to reexamine an age-old problem and longstanding prerequisite of war; projecting force.

Do consider that since time eternal the goal is to get ones weapons into striking distance of the enemy; from troops pulling weapons on wagons to horses and elephants to planes to bombers to stealth bombers to ICBMs to hypersonic missiles, etc., the goal has always been the same. Projecting force. Period. The delivery system is simply a way to wage war. The US just deployed a bunker busting bomb against Iran, which was so large and heavy it could only be carried by one plane. But a single engine crop duster would have been used against Iran or Japan if it would have been deemed effective. If a Shark can carry g-torps, it’ll carry them. Especially if the Shark can get them deep into enemy territory.

How do we get our weapons close enough to the enemy to attack them?

I do believe that if the US could have gotten an A-bomb into Japanese territory on a bicycle, let alone consistently do so, then bicycles might have been the chosen delivery system instead of the B-2 bomber. The bicycle definitely would have been a redundant vehicle used in case the bombers never got through.

Think of a g-torp like our A-bomb. “How do we get our A-bomb into enemy territory?” We use bombers. Long range bombers. How do we get those bombers all the way from here to all the way to there before they are detected and destroyed? We use bomber escorts. But if the US could forego all of that song and dance, we would.

penny wrote:Sharks, by nature, are aggressive beasts. Literally unafraid of anything but killer whales. Ironic if we consider the LD’s immense size. But Sharks are aggressive by nature. I assume these Sharks will also be aggressive in their attack profile. Being much smaller than an LD, if all else as far as its stealth is equal, then by sake of its smaller size its stealth should be inherently better. Which might mean the Shark can get even closer to the enemy.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Would you also say that the Minotaur-class CLACs are good at hiding, especially in mazes?

Snip

No. But then they were not designed to be. The Shark is designed to slink in and out of systems.

Actually I suspect that Sharks could pull double duty as armed Ghosts.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or that the Javelin-class destroyers should be ramming enemy ships?

Damn straight if a destroyer can take out an aircraft carrier by ramming it! Even for the loss of the destroyer and its crew. During WWII, if a destroyer could have taken out a Japanese carrier by ramming it and it got the opportunity, what do you really think would have happened? But that isn’t what we’re discussing here. We’re discussing ramming warships with kinetic weapons, not ramming warships with warships.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:No, I don’t think a lumbering ship pulling 150 gravities is going to be aggressive. If it’s a pod layer relying on stealth, it will drop its load and skedaddle out. A better name for the class would be “Chicken,” not “Shark.”

Your appreciation of a spider ship’s aggressiveness seems to be limited. I’m talking about aggressive in its mission profile. Not in its flight profile.

If a Shark can slither deep inside enemy territory, and if being deep inside enemy territory affords a Shark shark-like opportunities, then the shark will attack.

Summon an image of a Shark in perfect firing position of an enemy fleet sitting like ducks in orbit with wedges and sidewalls down.

“I wish we had a couple of g-torps now!”

A Shark is not going to shy away from helpless prey that can’t fight back. THIS Shark will not hesitate to attack if the prize is worth its death. Heck, it was thought that the crew of the Enola Gay would perish after it delivered its payload over Japan. That sure didn’t stop the mission.

I agree that laying pods and skedaddling is the normal tactic. But a once in a Shark’s lifetime opportunity will cause it to deviate from its normal tactic and strike.

penny wrote:As I also introduced in one of my threads, since the Shark and the LD may get much closer to its target, they need a specialized missile that can attain maximum velocity very quickly; shooting its wad out of the gate.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Yes, you have and I’ve argued it’s still a death sentence for that ship unless it can destroy everyone who might shoot back. That’s a desperation tactic.

I agree, the Shark must and will weigh the risk against the reward. An honorable death if the prize is acceptable. Again, the Enola Gay.

However, there could come a situation where the Shark needs to strike immediately because of a closing window of opportunity. It better not let the Inner Onion find out it passed up an incredible opportunity because it was concerned with its own mortality.

There are no Pavel Youngs in the MAN. Sharks will not be chicken. Again, a Shark is a hungry officer looking for a promotion. LOL

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Instead, if it lays pods from afar and lets those coast in before activating their drives, the ship survives. Whether the missiles have extra acceleration or not is irrelevant here, though of course it helps if they do.

You’re too preoccupied with the survival of the ship rather than the completion of a mission. A mission that might have been conceived on the opportunistic spot by an opportunistic predator.

Look at them sitting there all dumb and happy like sitting ducks. I could kill them all if only I had a couple of G-torps. Maybe even just one!

Anyway, if NIMMs perform like I think they will, pods of them let loose will seal the deal. Even if the Shark dies, it is a death with honor for a once-in-a-Shark’s-lifetime return.

penny wrote:The pod bay door is simply to feed the few internal g-torps to the external racks. Current US warplanes can configure themselves with a varying mixture of ordnance depending on the mission. Certainly the LD, at least, can do the same. And as I suspect, the Shark as well. There may be many different types of Shark, you see. As I also suggested in the Attacking Darius thread.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:We don’t know for certain this can be done or cannot be. But the fact that the MAN did not attempt to modify the ships to carry torpedoes internally for Oyster Bay would indicate that it can’t be done without a very expensive redesign, a long down time, or both. If that was the case prior to the attack, it still is now. If the LD is better at carrying torpedoes internally, then why would you have the Sharks do it too?

That’s like the case of the frigate: you can make them, but they carry so few missiles that they can’t really fight anyone worth fighting.

That is not even remotely the same tactical situation! Again you are dismissing the projection of force. I assure you that if a destroyer could carry an A-bomb and could get close enough, and if it could deploy it, it would. Are you dismissing the destructive potential of only a single gtorp under the right conditions? Let alone several.

I’m willing to bet certain suicide bombers would strap on an A-bomb and detonate it if it were possible. Certain entities would strap one onto a kid as well.

tlb wrote:I do not agree that the Sharks predate the G-torpedo, it was always intended that the LD-class carry out the full attack. That was their design function and the Sharks were only substituted because events were moving too quickly to wait for the completion of the LD ships.

Jonathan_S wrote:We certainly don’t know.
But I suspect that if the Shark design had been finalized after the gtorp specs/dimensions were locked in that they’d have built the Sharks with at least one gtorp launch tube so they could serve as better training vessels for crews destined for the LDs. (And so they could more fully test the weapon and its final launch system before the LDs were too far along to easily modify)

And note that to serve as a training and testbed ship such a vessel wouldn’t require a full up magazine behind the launch tube. You’d get some benefit out of having just a launch tube acting like a 1-cell box launcher; a bit more if you had a 1-round magazine feeding it; and the vast majority of the training and testing benefit from even just a 3-round magazine feeding a single tube. In a ~6 mton ship I think they’d have found the same for that if the gtorp had already been a thing before the Sharks were too far along.

However that’s just my thinking. It’s also possible that because the Sharks were intended primarily for training they only build in some of the Maligns weapons. But, to me, that seems an odd decision and one that fails to maximize the usefulness of a training vessel.

It might have been those many many unforeseen delays of the LDs. Everything would make sense if they thought they’d have the first LDs when they needed them. And if they thought they’d have at least one LD for training purposes. What better to train in but an LD itself!

Jonathan_S wrote:While I agree that it's likely a very long and expensive refit to add internal gtorp carriage it's possible there's some quicker way of doing it by just remuddling the pod bay. But the MAlign wouldn't have wanted to do that for Oyster Bay because the gtorp was untried in actual combat and they viewed the cataphract pods as a necessary redundancy and would have rejected any thought of reducing Cataphract pods to carry more of the less trusted gtorps.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Your argument appears to be that even if it could be done, it wouldn't have been because they needed the internal volume for the pods that they did have to carry. Is that it?

I disagree. My first argument was that if it could have been done in a reasonable time frame, some of the Sharks to be used in Oyster Bay would have had this refit to carry the torpedoes internally and thus not subject them to weeks-long run at high fractions of c, thus abrading their exteriors and potentially compromising their stealth. The counter-argument to yours is that the pods limpeted to the hull might abrade, but not the missiles themselves, so no capability would be lost. And since the pods would travel ballistically anyway, they were as stealthy as they could be, abraded or not.

Why do you think the run would cause abrasion? Certainly the Shark has the same particle screening as everyone else, after all the ship would be as subject to abrasion as anything fastened to it. Note that the pods still had as much as five weeks of coasting to reach their targets (MOH end of chapter 12). Also the missile pods were traveling at .2c (MOH end of chapter 27) and I believe they had particle shielding while coasting.

penny wrote:

Actually I suspect that Sharks could pull double duty as armed Ghosts.

To some extent. They're both very stealthy.
That said we've no way to know whether the Sharks also carry the fire-control communication platforms the Ghost's dropped to provide final targeting instructions for the 'over-the-horizon' gtorps and cataphract pods. So the Sharks might not be able to do 100% of what a Ghost can do.

And even if they can it'd be a misuse of resources to take a mission that a Ghost can do and for which a Ghost is available and send a Shark to do it instead. When two different platforms can both do the current mission, but only one of them can do other mission types, then you almost always want to reserve the more flexible one in case one of those other missions comes up. (Doubly so when the more flexible one is also the less numerous and more expensive to replace one)

Now, if all your Ghosts are off doing other things and you still need to scout a system, then sure, you might send a Shark to do it instead. Or if you're interesting in possibly striking juicy enough targets of opportunity while scouting then sending an armed ships (like a Shark) is reasonable -- in that case the Ghost can do the primary (scouting) mission but not the entire secondary missions.

penny wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or that the Javelin-class destroyers should be ramming enemy ships?

Damn straight if a destroyer can take out an aircraft carrier by ramming it! Even for the loss of the destroyer and its crew. During WWII, if a destroyer could have taken out a Japanese carrier by ramming it and it got the opportunity, what do you really think would have happened? But that isn’t what we’re discussing here. We’re discussing ramming warships with kinetic weapons, not ramming warships with warships.

Even in WWII a destroyer would only ram a carrier if that was the only remaining way to accomplish its mission. Such a collision will definitely mission kill the DD and could easily cause it to sink outright.

Plus it's both harder to survive all the way to ramming range than it is to survive to gun range or torpedo range and it's likely to inflict less damage than hitting with torpedoes. You'd prefer to keep the destroyer functional so it could continue with its screening, anti-submarine, or attack duties and no throw itself away (unless absolutely necessary) ramming a much larger ship.

Heck in 20 May 1945 in a heavy fog off Okinawa the Q-class destroyer HMS Quilliam collided, pretty much perpendicularly, with the carrier HMS Indomitablethe. The destroyer's bow, all the way back to A turret was destroyed and the carrier was basically undamaged. (Fortunately, in this case, as it wasn't an enemy ship)

For that matter the Royal Navy tried to discourage ships from ramming U-Boats, which were much smaller than the ships ramming them, because the loss of use of the ramming ship while it limped home and then went into drydock to get repaired, wasn't worth it if the sub could be killed any other way.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or that the Javelin-class destroyers should be ramming enemy ships?

penny wrote:But that isn’t what we’re discussing here. We’re discussing ramming warships with kinetic weapons, not ramming warships with warships.

No, we are not discussing ramming ships with kinetic weapons (although I believe you have proposed that at times). The only kinetic weapons are those used against planetary targets. Even counter missiles attack with the wedge and not kinetic energy.

penny wrote:Actually I suspect that Sharks could pull double duty as armed Ghosts.

Jonathan _S wrote:To some extent. They’re both very stealthy.
That said we’ve no way to know whether the Sharks also carry the fire-control communication platforms the Ghost’s dropped to provide final targeting instructions for the ‘over-the-horizon’ gtorps and cataphract pods.

I’m at a loss. Could you elaborate? Is there another memo I didn't get? Why would a Shark need the fire-control platform for ‘over-the-horizon’ gtorps if it is carrying its own gtorps? Surely an LD and a Shark can supply its own fire-control???

Jonathan_S wrote:So the Sharks might not be able to do 100% of what a Ghost can do.

And even if they can it’d be a misuse of resources to take a mission that a Ghost can do and for which a Ghost is available and send a Shark to do it instead. When two different platforms can both do the current mission, but only one of them can do other mission types, then you almost always want to reserve the more flexible one in case one of those other missions comes up. (Doubly so when the more flexible one is also the less numerous and more expensive to replace one)

Now, if all your Ghosts are off doing other things and you still need to scout a system, then sure, you might send a Shark to do it instead. Or if you’re interesting in possibly striking juicy enough targets of opportunity while scouting then sending an armed ships (like a Shark) is reasonable – in that case the Ghost can do the primary (scouting) mission but not the entire secondary missions.

I don’t look at it that way. The reason you’d substitute a Shark in the place of a Ghost is because:

1. You need the recon for an operation / LD.
2. You need an armed warship for a possible window of opportunity.
3. The reason you need an armed warship is because there might be a chance at a juicy target.
4. The juicy target is the object.
5. Then there won’t be a need to waste an LD on a juicy target that a Shark destroyed.

This is a mission where a Ghost won’t do. Can’t do. There may be a need for more than an apparition on this mission.

Jonathan_S wrote:So the Sharks might not be able to do 100% of what a Ghost can do.

And even if they can it’d be a misuse of resources to take a mission that a Ghost can do and for which a Ghost is available and send a Shark to do it instead. When two different platforms can both do the current mission, but only one of them can do other mission types, then you almost always want to reserve the more flexible one in case one of those other missions comes up. (Doubly so when the more flexible one is also the less numerous and more expensive to replace one)

Now, if all your Ghosts are off doing other things and you still need to scout a system, then sure, you might send a Shark to do it instead. Or if you’re interesting in possibly striking juicy enough targets of opportunity while scouting then sending an armed ships (like a Shark) is reasonable – in that case the Ghost can do the primary (scouting) mission but not the entire secondary missions.

penny wrote:I don’t look at it that way. The reason you’d substitute a Shark in the place of a Ghost is because:

1. You need the recon for an operation / LD.
2. You need an armed warship for a possible window of opportunity.
3. The reason you need an armed warship is because there might be a chance at a juicy target.
4. The juicy target is the object.
5. Then there won’t be a need to waste an LD on a juicy target that a Shark destroyed.

This is a mission where a Ghost won’t do. Can’t do. There may be a need for more than an apparition on this mission.

By that logic, you only send a Ghost when Shark is not available (and only send a Shark when an LD is not available).

It is a paltry system that only has one target every few months, so you need to hit it when you first see it or you will have wasted time. Consider any major system, there will be a constant flow of targets and some will be worth more than others. So if you just attack the first few targets you see; you may miss out on the most important ones, because you did not know the best route to take.

The Malign was smarter than that in Oyster Bay, they sent the Ghosts in first to precisely map out all the targets and then the Sharks delivered the weapons to hit those targets.

PS: If a Shark attacks a target of opportunity, when it is supposed to be scouting for a major raid by LD's; then that commander should be court-martialed, stripped of all rank and priviledges and cast out on the beach to rot. He would have caused increased states of readiness and redeployments that made any scouting report worthless.

penny wrote:

penny wrote:Actually I suspect that Sharks could pull double duty as armed Ghosts.

Jonathan _S wrote:To some extent. They’re both very stealthy.
That said we’ve no way to know whether the Sharks also carry the fire-control communication platforms the Ghost’s dropped to provide final targeting instructions for the ‘over-the-horizon’ gtorps and cataphract pods.

I’m at a loss. Could you elaborate? Is there another memo I didn't get? Why would a Shark need the fire-control platform for ‘over-the-horizon’ gtorps if it is carrying its own gtorps? Surely an LD and a Shark can supply its own fire-control???

Most of the time a Shark wouldn't need to do that. But you appeared to claim that a Shark can do everything a Ghost could do; and this appears to be one thing a Ghost can do that a Shark can't.

So, yes, a Shark logically must carry its own fire control, and yes it can use it if it want to engage a target at fairly normal MDM ranges. (And against many target systems that'd be plenty -- sneak around until you ID everything you want to hit; roll a bunch of pods, fire them off, and then try to slip away)

But against Manticore the MAlign was far more cautious and kept their shooters safely far outside the hyper limit and instead did use that 'over-the-horizon' capability. So, if they're really paranoid about some future target system they might want to repeat that safer mission profile again. And that would require something to slip in and not only pre-scout the targets (which either a Ghost or a Shark should be able to do) but also leave those fire-control communication platforms (which AFAWK only a Ghost can do).

Hence there's one mission (but likely an uncommon one) where a Shark cannot fully substitute for a Ghost.

penny wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:So the Sharks might not be able to do 100% of what a Ghost can do.

And even if they can it’d be a misuse of resources to take a mission that a Ghost can do and for which a Ghost is available and send a Shark to do it instead. When two different platforms can both do the current mission, but only one of them can do other mission types, then you almost always want to reserve the more flexible one in case one of those other missions comes up. (Doubly so when the more flexible one is also the less numerous and more expensive to replace one)

Now, if all your Ghosts are off doing other things and you still need to scout a system, then sure, you might send a Shark to do it instead. Or if you’re interesting in possibly striking juicy enough targets of opportunity while scouting then sending an armed ships (like a Shark) is reasonable – in that case the Ghost can do the primary (scouting) mission but not the entire secondary missions.

I don’t look at it that way. The reason you’d substitute a Shark in the place of a Ghost is because:

1. You need the recon for an operation / LD.
2. You need an armed warship for a possible window of opportunity.
3. The reason you need an armed warship is because there might be a chance at a juicy target.
4. The juicy target is the object.
5. Then there won’t be a need to waste an LD on a juicy target that a Shark destroyed.

This is a mission where a Ghost won’t do. Can’t do. There may be a need for more than an apparition on this mission.

I'm confused. You say you don't agree, and then you provide a list of reasons to send a Shark "in place of a Ghost" none of which appear to have been suitable for a Ghost to do.

And I'd already said that it you need the capabilities of a Shark (and all 5 of your examples seem to require them) send a Shark. But that isn't substituting for a Ghost; because a Ghost can't do those things.

The only time I said you shouldn't use a Shark to do a Ghost's job is when a) you have a Ghost available; and b) you only want to do what a Ghost can do.
If you want to do, or want the option to do, Shark things then obvious send a Shark. But in that case it isn't doing a Ghost's job, it's doing a Shark's job.

penny wrote:You could be right, but not necessarily. I got the impression that it was simply a matter of not having enough time. The MAN didn’t just have the same hindrances that the GA has when needing to refit. The MAN also has to do it all clandestinely. It has to maintain secrecy from elements in the GA, SL, and possibly even from elements in its own camp, like Galton, etc.

It also could have been that they could not afford to divert or re-task the brains and skilled workers that would be needed to do so from elsewhere.

And God only knows where that elsewhere is; which cues a thought …

People, no. See below.

Equipment and availability? Yes, that could be. The Sharks were built in the Darius system, which is the same place where the LDs were being built. So it's entirely possible that all of the available equipment, resources, and personnel were on the LDs. To modify a Shark, they'd have to close a half-built LD and pull it out of the build slip, then bring the Shark in. They could therefore have made a decision not to do it because it would further delay the LDs' completion. That is even more likely if the refit was a risky one: the risk/reward ratio would be too skewed.

The MAN’s insane logistics of possibly having to ferry tools, parts, materials, research (and possibly even skilled workers) all over creation makes me sympathize with the MA's plight. I see MAlign agents attending seminars and classes in League space availing themselves of the many breakthroughs and early research in the SL completely oblivious to the SLN; oblivious to their own breakthroughs AND to what a particular breakthrough might mean for the Navy. At any rate, I sympathize with the possible round trips of some of the MA’s research having to “run the gauntlet” of WHs and governments aboard inconspicuous dispatch boats. Each boat from each system dependent upon the research obtained from another.

There's no way the MAN wouldn't have sufficient personnel. I could see your point that a few of the top-most scientists were travelling out of Darius (under direct scrutiny from a GAUL-like minder and with suicide nanites, whether they were aware of it or not), but that is irrelevant.

One, the number of people who were travelling is inconsequential to the ask. The task requires thousands of people, and there's no way that many people would be allowed to leave the Darius system.

Two, the people who are travelling aren't the ones who need to work on the refit. No technician is ever going to be allowed out of the Darius system.

Three, the few top designers who might have been allowed to travel aren't the only people who could do it. They might be the best to design the change, but they wouldn't be the only. Their understudy could do the job, and if not at least get it started before the top designer came back to do a final review. There would be others to critique the design too.

And four, the timing doesn't make sense for those few who can travel. The paper designs would have been made if they were possible, even if they never were necessary. For this to be the case, you'd have needed to ship all the designers of the Shark class away soon after they were done, while the LDs were in construction, which were likely designed by the same people. That's not likely.

Actually I suspect that Sharks could pull double duty as armed Ghosts.

Yes. But I suspect there will be another ship type in-between that is armed and isn't battleship-sized. Something the size of a CA.

Your appreciation of a spider ship’s aggressiveness seems to be limited. I’m talking about aggressive in its mission profile. Not in its flight profile.

Fair.

If a Shark can slither deep inside enemy territory, and if being deep inside enemy territory affords a Shark shark-like opportunities, then the shark will attack.

Side note, sharks are not stealthy. Doesn't every movie show them having a fin above the water line?

“I wish we had a couple of g-torps now!”

A Shark is not going to shy away from helpless prey that can’t fight back. THIS Shark will not hesitate to attack if the prize is worth its death. Heck, it was thought that the crew of the Enola Gay would perish after it delivered its payload over Japan. That sure didn’t stop the mission.

The Enola Gay is more like a LAC than a Shark. The reward required to sacrifice a full ship needs to be really big. And as I've said before, while Alphas might be hyper-rational and logical, they are also hyper-arrogant and think they are the ones to rule, leading to their not willingly sacrifice themselves.

However, there could come a situation where the Shark needs to strike immediately because of a closing window of opportunity. It better not let the Inner Onion find out it passed up an incredible opportunity because it was concerned with its own mortality.

But it had also better not let the Inner Onion down because it let the spider drive be captured because it risked too much. Or worse, the navigational database hadn't been completely wiped out.

The chance that it can get such a total victory against an important target is low. I will agree that if the opportunity turns up, it should take it. I'm saying it's a rare unicorn type of opportunity, one that the MAN cannot train for.

There are no Pavel Youngs in the MAN. Sharks will not be chicken. Again, a Shark is a hungry officer looking for a promotion. LOL

No, I don't agree. The doctrine will call for cautious officers who complete their mission without risking the advantages the MAN has. Just look at the inner monologues of the COs of the Oyster Bay attack: all of them were Shark COs and flag officers, and none of them appeared to be "hungry officer looking for a promotion."

You’re too preoccupied with the survival of the ship rather than the completion of a mission. A mission that might have been conceived on the opportunistic spot by an opportunistic predator.

Not the survival of the ship, but the non-capture of the ship. The two are linked.

Look at them sitting there all dumb and happy like sitting ducks. I could kill them all if only I had a couple of G-torps. Maybe even just one!

They'd have a couple. Mounted externally.

That is not even remotely the same tactical situation! Again you are dismissing the projection of force. I assure you that if a destroyer could carry an A-bomb and could get close enough, and if it could deploy it, it would. Are you dismissing the destructive potential of only a single gtorp under the right conditions? Let alone several.

I'm not. I am questioning the risk/reward. Again the case of the BC(P): it was designed and built, but the end result was the RMN concluded it was too fragile and carried too few missiles anyway. If the conclusion is that the Shark is too fragile if it has a hollow core to carry a torpedo, then it shouldn't be done.

And I'll give your argument back to you: every Shark refit or newly built is time that an LD wasn't being worked on. An LD is far more survivable, carries far more torpedoes per unit of personnel and of time and resources invested. Its disadvantage is that it can only be in one place at a time, whereas the equivalent mass of Sharks could be in two or three.

tlb wrote:Why do you think the run would cause abrasion? Certainly the Shark has the same particle screening as everyone else, after all the ship would be as subject to abrasion as anything fastened to it. Note that the pods still had as much as five weeks of coasting to reach their targets (MOH end of chapter 12). Also the missile pods were traveling at .2c (MOH end of chapter 27) and I believe they had particle shielding while coasting.

Ok, I need to rethink the argument then.