Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

Complex nothing, it's a hollow shell that you detach before combat.

Rather, I'd say fitting the C3 and sensors on a freighter without compromising the disguise is going to be more difficult that just adding a break away hull.

It is way easier than what you are suggesting and far less complicated. For a cargo ship carrying a targeting and tracking system avoiding detection of the system is as simple as leaving it turned off until you need it and better yet, containerizing that as well. There is also the fact that missiles and various munitions systems can carry their own targeting and tracking equipment. If your entire point is to get close to spam an attack in a surprise maneuver the weaponized container is easier, cheaper, and far more likely to succeed option.

It is way more complex to build a full out warship sized shell that fits exactly around the warship, has mechanisms to facilitate its removal in a way to leaves the ship clear, masks the full-sized warships features and equipment, and does not compromise the ability of the ship to travel and maneuver. The big shell disguises a significantly more complicated and far more difficult approach to carry out and it is far more likely to be noticed. A cargo ship carrying any variety of cargo containers draws a lot less attention than an oddly shaped ship. The masked warship is still going to have warships equipment and drives.

The alternative to a clumsy full-scale ship shell is ground up purpose-built Q ship. Insert Honor Harrington Reference here x3.

It makes more sense to either use a modified cargo vessel or to build a warship whose frame, build, and layout closely mimics another vessel until it is close enough to strike.

Now as a rule of cool approach I would pick the shell and make it flashy as hell.

Who watches the watchmen?

Externally mounted containers are worse. Having a single layer severely limits your drone payload. Having multiple layers means you need to eject them. Said ejection system will have no backup so one bad ejection actuator could plausibly lead to problems with multiple containers. The ejection system can also not be too obvious as the containers will be exposed. You Can Not use the normal cargo management systems as those are universally designed for slow and careful cargo management rather than deploying containers as fast as possible.

Heating the containers to keep the circuits from freezing would raise suspicion as sensitive cargo like that would best be stored internally so the crew can check on it regularly. It's the modern equivalent to shipping livestock in a cargo container. Technically, it's a hassle that cuts into payload space with heaters and extra batteries.

Finally, you run into support issues. Besides the Command, Control, and Communications handling you also run into resupply issues. Remember that Pearl Harbor was a multiple wave attack. Planes returned to the carriers to rearm and refuel. This isn't possible with containerized launchers so if you have more targets than drones you've got no options.

Also, a giant aluminum ship-shell is easier to make than you think. Remember, the ISS only has about 5mm of aluminum for a pressure hull with the rest being insulation. Which we don't need in this case. Detaching the shell can be done with explosives but you also have the carrier's Point Defense systems for backup. Actually shedding the shell can be done by first firing retros for the forward sections and then firing main thrust for the aft sections. As an added bonus, the shell will keep moving until it hits something. Like, say, the primary cargo management hub.

Edited by Belisaurius on Dec 15th 2019 at 6:33:12 AM

...what?

Containerized systems are highly efficient. The Navy is switching over to a highly containerized system for their new distributed lethality paradigm, and they’ve found that these weapons are incredibly flexible in almost any arrangement. They can easily and quickly deploy weapons with minimum hassle. They can be mounted anywhere. The entire point about “deploying containers” makes zero sense, in a containerized weapons system the container just opens up for weapons release, the container itself doesn’t have to move at all. You keep talking about command and control, mission systems can be containerized as well easily. We already have containerized mission systems. Not only that, we already have containerized launch and recovery systems for RP As.

Your ship shell idea is a whole bunch of hassle for essentially zero benefit. The idea of breaking free of a structural shell using explosives and point defense guns is almost laughable, and you are severely underestimating how practical and robust containerized systems are.

They should have sent a poet.

Couple problems with that viewpoint. First off, containerized weapons DON'T USE COMMERCIAL CONTAINERS. Often, these containers having only a passing resemblance to a shipping container.

Second, containerized weapons are tied to the ship's electronics. They don't use their own for launching.

Third, if weaponized containers are so great, wouldn't a carrier be a more optimized means of deploying said containers?

Fourth, I've addressed this point entirely when I said you'd only be able to load a single layer of containers. Detaching the containers have to do with multiple layers of containers.

Edited by Belisaurius on Dec 15th 2019 at 8:46:59 AM

First, a “commercial container” is merely a set of dimensions. Containerized weapons don’t use commercial containers, but as long as the container fits the standard ISO footprint that doesn’t matter. Modern containerized weapons use purpose-built containers that can still none the less be stacked with conventional commercial containers.

Second point, completely incorrect. The entire point of containerized weapons and mission systems is that they can be snapped onto any vessel. Containerized missiles usually use the seeking equipment in the missile itself for target acquisition, or will have a separate containerized fire control unit.

Third point is nonsensical. The containers aren’t themselves deployed, they’re just a storage box for a launcher or system of some kind. Why on earth would you need a carrier to launch containers?

Fourth, I’m not sure quite what you’re talking about with layers of containers. Not only would it be trivially easy to create a setup to maximize the number of exposed containers, but you only have to “stack” containers in gravity. In space, you could conceivably have a ship with every single container exposed.

The breakaway shell is incredibly complex and dangerous, not to mention being a massive engineering problem, for essentially zero benefit over the containerized model which can be snapped together trivially easily on existing cargo ships. Your objections here seem to be based on a serious misunderstanding of what exactly containerized systems are and their capabilities.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 15th 2019 at 6:16:50 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Archon: Some of the systems actually do use modified shipping containers. Shit the military uses them for everything from holding equipment, work shops, chow halls, housing, shooting ranges, etc. We modified just under a dozen into a protected armory.

Bel: You can easily arrange a large number of containers to be hauled and positioned to serve as launchers. With hauling items through space you have a lot more options to arrange and haul containers. It is really a trivial task to arrange a large number of containers to expose a launch point. Even using multiple layers that shed a container at a time, it is far and away still the better option than the shell which is still significantly more complex and more difficult to arrange.

Problems with shedding any layers also counts against your shell. You fail to shed a piece or something doesn't come off right you have problems. Containers will already have systems to remove them from the ship.

Yes, you can use conventional container systems, we use them for deployable systems already and are built that way on purpose to make shipping them on cargo ships, rail, and truck easier. Pretty much all US military shipping containers are fully compatible with all civilian cargo handling systems because we use civilian systems to help ship them in the first place. We can mount very complex systems inside conventional shipping containers. That and you are grossly underestimating just how many varieties of shipping containers there are in use in the world. There are a lot of options. Some of the US containers are just modified civilian containers. Modifying a cargo container that is compatible with shipping is already going to be a thing as it is done with standard shipping, to begin with.

No, you won't have to heat containers to anything approaching livestock levels because machines don't require it. You can quite readily leave them in a low power mode and operate them at very low-temperature extremes. We already do this far more fragile equipment sitting outside of a nice protective shell like a container. It isn't an issue. Still far simpler and easier than trying to build a very large elaborate shell to contain a full-sized warship.

Resupply issues apply to everything it is not a unique negative to the cargo container ship with weaponized containers. And unlike the warship, it doesn't require specialized munitions handling equipment to reload magazines. You can literally just swap out cargo containers.

You are failing to understand just how much of an undertaking you are looking at with the shell. It won't ever be simple. You need to create a large and elaborate exterior with mounting points to hold the shell on and you can't float every piece away neatly and has to handle the forces of maneuvering. You also have to create complex shapes, add on anything to keep it camouflaged and mask its existing systems, place deliberate gaps to accommodate the warships systems, and you aren't going to get away with a "simple aluminum shell" you are talking about something that is going to have a lot more elaborate layering than just an aluminum shell. It would look really odd if the supposed "merchantman" just happened to be missing all the exterior material you would expect to find on its hull along with unexplained variations in hull shaping. That is before you account for a notable increase in mass you just added to the ship.

This isn't creating a simple disguise. The shell idea while neat in terms of appearance is not anywhere close to being the most practical option.

Who watches the watchmen?

The mounting system need not be elaborate at all. In fact, the more simple system the better it'll work. Ideally, you'd use electromagnets but I'm being conservative by suggesting steel cables.

Remember, this is space and we're playing the part of a freighter. That suggests very little acceleration under normal operation. Since the shell material is already very light you could get away with very minimal connections with the hull.

In fact, it might be beneficial for deliberately week mountings as exceeding their limits would be another means of detaching the shell. With the material so thin and the required acceleration to break it so low the threat to the actual hull would be minimum.

I suppose I need to ask why would a thin aluminum shell be so hard to attach. I'm not seeing it.

To the first point, Containerized weapons are a known quantity. Differentiating between them is going to be a priority. Any freighter that mounts cargo externally would be treated as a warship until proven otherwise.

To the second point, warships mount radar antennae that range from the size of a small car to the size of a small house and are mounted as high as possible. The only containerized weapon system with integrated sensors that I could find was the CWS from HDT global. http://www.hdtglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HDT_Containerized_Weapon_System_12.pdf Which gets away with it because it's a sentry gun. Not sure if the Club-K counts. The Russians are being cagey about it but I'd guess fire control would be linked to a separate radar array.

Third and Fourth points seem to be linked to a single misunderstanding. I'm gonna need to use a thought experiment to explain it so please bear with me.

Imagine the containers stacked 3 by 3 by three, long side down. You'll notice that one of the containers is surrounded by other containers. Why would you do this? Because it's how Cargo Ships do it and they do it because it's the safest way to pack lots of containers into a small area.

Now stack the containers narrow side down and one layer deep. This is how VLS stores missiles because it gives you access to all the container. However, cargo ships would never use this method because it uses a lot of area and isn't as safe. If a station sees that they wouldn't even assume you're trying to sneak in. They'll assume you're a Pirate doing something phenomenally stupid and shoot first. I mean, why else would you stack cargo containers like VLS cells.

The "Deploying" idea was a compromise suggested by...AFP, I think. The idea was to stack the containers 3x3x3 but detach them before deployment. Thus giving you space to deploy.

You’re using earthbound naval conventions to try and dictate spaceship design. Your logic doesn’t track at all. You wouldn’t need to mount your sensors “up high”, because there’s no horizon in space. You wouldn’t need your containers to all stack in the same direction, because there’s no gravity. You wouldn’t even need them to stack period, or all face the same way for launch like you’re describing. You could release missiles any way, the very concept of “VLS” loses all meaning in an environment where there’s no vertical direction.

Frankly, though, I’m not sure the comparison you’re attempting to make is even a relevant comparison to begin with. A purpose-built warship with a camouflage shell around it and a cargo ship hauling containerized weapons are two completely different things and would be used for completely different missions. They’re not really comparable. It’s like saying a sniper rifle is a better weapon than a machine gun.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 15th 2019 at 9:50:53 AM

They should have sent a poet.

I'd like to point out that in space, everything and anything would be a potential weapon by default. Any cargo ship even with the best intentions is still a multi-ton projectile with megajoule+ energy weapons to push it forward. And it has MIRV capability by default. So the idea that a warship with a shell would be treated different from a cargo ship is nonsense. Civillian ships would still be treated with caution and respect.

I'm also not sure what's meant by "cargo ships with external pods". Cargo ships would essentially be an engine compartment with a pile of cargo stacked on top. Fancier cargo ships may have a skeleton around it for easy loading or unloading. Even fancier might come with some armor for more sensitive cargo (especially the military type). But in space, mass is a penalty, and if they can scrape off 1mm off of every bulkhead they would. And if they could get away with 0.1mm steel sheet hulls they would too. They'd pay double if you could make it 0.05mm. It's less "wet navy in space" and more "aircraft-style construction on a naval ship scale".

So if you intend to attack a space dock with a civilian ship, you could just hijack the local asteroid hauler and dump it on them. Even better if you use explosives to scatter the asteroid, creating the biggest shotgun you could imagine.

Edited by devak on Dec 16th 2019 at 9:02:01 PM

Incidentally, all of the stuff you mentioned that you could do to make the shell easier to attach or discard also applies to the containers. If you're concerned about the enemy detecting the weapons containers, just combine both ideas and conceal them under a shell of regular shipping containers. Discard the shell, unfurl your sensor antennae like a pirate flag, and begin spamming missiles and drones.

And for the record, I was talking about launching the containers, but think less launch-like-a-rocket and more launch-like-a-mine. Eject the containers from the outer layer, they launch their missiles after they're clear of the ship, launch your next batch and repeat. Or deploy a whole bunch of containers for a massed salvo. In other words, the Honor Harrington method of using containerized missiles.

As far as a release system failing and getting a container stuck? Meh, it'll come loose when you release the layer below it. Just make sure you have positive control of the system so you know if any of the containers haven't properly deployed, so that those will not try to launch their missiles.

I still don't understand how a thin aluminum shell is supposed to be a complicated hassle compared to all the secondary systems you need to attach to a freighter in order to support a drone attack.

Again, you miss understand. "Down" is the direction of the hull and stacking containers perpendicular means you've got more shearing force to deal with. You could mount the containers so "Down" is aftwards but that means you can only mount a single layer of containers on the front of the ship, severely limiting payload.

Radars don't come in containerized weapon systems because they're A. too big, B. need to be placed in entirely different locations than the weapon systems. For ground based forces you pack them in entirely different containers. For naval systems you use ship-borne radar. This places your C3 burden onto the Freighter which needs to be modified to deal with it. This isn't even accounting for launching a second wave of attacks due to unforeseen circumstances.

And remember, this is a Pearl Harbor style attack against a hardened but unaware military facility. If a privateer vessel could pull it off we wouldn't need warships.

If weight is an issue you can reduce the weight of each individual container by putting them in a pressurized hull.

And if you were designing a fortified military facility, how would you go about defending it? Would you allow it to be vulnerable to ballistic attacks like this?

Yes and no. In the case of the shell, the shell is expendable so you can make it weaker than the Carrier hull. The Shell will take the lions share of the damage and the hull will be relatively unharmed.

For the modified cargo ship, all the drone containers are equally valuable so you don't have any sacrificial material to crumple. There are ways around it but it adds weight that cuts into your payload budget.

And for the record, your idea makes more sense if it was strictly a missile attack but I'm using Pearl Harbor as a model so we'd want multiple waves of attacks.

You are still confused and misinformed.

First of all, the shell idea is ridiculously more complex. The shell has to be at least as robust as the normal exterior of the ship to stand up to impacts from debris and dust. It has to still allow the ship’s engines and RCS to fire, or have new engines and RCS mounted on the outside. It has to have exterior sensors so the ship can navigate. Oh, and it has to actually look like another spaceship. It’s not going to be “thin aluminum”, you’ll be building a whole second hull around your first hull.

And you’re still thinking in terms of gravity. Why should down be the direction of the hull? What if the hull is a long spine running through the center of the container assembly, or if containers are mounted on both the top and the bottom of the ship? Moreover, why do you insist that every single container needs to have an exposed surface for an attack to be successful?

“Radars don’t come in containers” is quite literally just flat out wrong. For starters, we’re talking about sci-fi. Here’s a picture of a containerized X-Band radar used to for shipping. [1] You wouldn’t even need the mast in space, given that again there isn’t any horizon. Another good example is the ARAD missile containers Northrop Grumman makes, which use the missiles own seeker heads after launch, or the numerous containerized anti-air systems that all have built in sensors. You keep talking about C3, or as if you need some sort of elaborate battlespace awareness suite to launch a few missiles, or as if those systems can’t just be put in a container too. If you’re so concerned about every missile container being on the exterior, put the missions systems containers on the interior.

This is not a concept for a warship. This is a concept for a sneak attack. There’s no need for this ship to actually put up a fight like a warship could, it just comes close nice and easy and then launches missiles. Hiding a warship with camouflage serves a totally different purpose.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 16th 2019 at 10:51:28 AM

They should have sent a poet.

"If weight is an issue you can reduce the weight of each individual container by putting them in a pressurized hull."

A pressurized hull would be very heavy. Also, the air has mass. There's absolutely no reason to have air anywhere in your cargo section. A space freighter would be as barebones as it could possibly be.

"And if you were designing a fortified military facility, how would you go about defending it? Would you allow it to be vulnerable to ballistic attacks like this?"

The only way to avoid ballistic attacks is to allow absolutely nothing on any path that crosses yours. AKA, never receive any ship, any supplies, nothing. Shoot any approaching rock with a gun, blast any dust with a laser. It's the only foolproof way to ensure nothing can ever hurt your base.

But if you need supplies (and virtually any base is going to need it) then you need supply ships, which will either need to dock directly or they need to shoot cargo at a cargo catcher. Any ship is a bullet, any engine that can push a ship is a weapon. A giant cargo ship could melt half a base just by blasting its main thrusters.

Anyway, i don't really understand the discussion. A cargo ship can carry cargo. If you need a base destroyed with a sneak attack, load the cargo ship with missiles. When you are close enough (far away enough that you have time to launch your missiles, close enough that enemy point defense won't pick them all apart), fake an accidental release of cargo. Cargo boxes open up and reveal missile racks that blast a few hundred missiles at the base. Put your engines on full blast towards the base as well. They can't stop everything.

Edited by devak on Dec 16th 2019 at 8:28:14 PM

You do raise a solid point, re: the value of containerized drones. Yes, all the containers are equally valuable. Which is to say, entirely expendable and intended to be used and discarded for the enemy to clean up for you.

That's right, we're not just blowing up their space station. We're littering too!

Actually, you don't. Remember, you have the carrier's main hull inside. Inspection crews aren't going to care if there are pinholes in your forwards hull and there are plenty of plausible excuses if they do.

Engines, yes, RCS, no. COADE suggests that you only need a Gimballed engine for turning. Gyroscopes can help with the rest. Adding a single port for the main engines would be easy to add as you can use the hull nearest the engine as an anchor point. It's one of the structurally most robust areas on the ship anyway.

The pressure hull on the ISS is only 3mm thick. Most radars aren't going to penetrate it. As for the one's that do, wouldn't they be able to see through the hulls of the containers as well?

Analogies are lost on you, I see.

Fine, in literal terms you're suggesting we stack Weaponized Containers one deep, oriented perpendicular to the Direction of Thrust. Now answer the question Why Would You Store Cargo Like That?

Because Firepower is Always at a Premium and a Carrier will store and deploy drones more efficiently than that.

Now THAT is a flat out STRAWMAN. Radars come in radar containers, not weapon containers. You don't store both in the same container because it cuts into weapon space.

Missile-borne radars are made for short range terminal guidance. Actually finding, identifying, and plotting intercept is done from the Operator side. Without accurate Fire Control all the missiles would just target the closest hull regardless of priority and attack it and it alone. This will cause the Entire Pearl Harbor attack to result in a Single Case of Massive Overkill...and nothing else.

Congrats, you've made a full warship that is good for a single mission despite costing about as much as a full warship.

Actually, it's like three different attacks. The Original Pearl Harbor attack had three separate attacks planned simply because of the number of targets involved. The third wave was called off because the US Carriers weren't present.

This isn't some Raid, it's a Naval Coup de Grace that cripples the entire regional fleet.

@dvorak "The only way to avoid ballistic attacks is to allow absolutely nothing on any path that crosses yours. AKA, never receive any ship, any supplies, nothing. Shoot any approaching rock with a gun, blast any dust with a laser. It's the only foolproof way to ensure nothing can ever hurt your base." Actually, you can also make your base mobile so that a long range ballistic attack can be dodged or bury it into an asteroid several hundred tons massive. Yes, you can dig into soft, sandy asteroids. That's why we have tunnelling shields

"Anyway, i don't really understand the discussion. A cargo ship can carry cargo. If you need a base destroyed with a sneak attack, load the cargo ship with missiles." Why does everyone hear "Pearl Harbor" and think, "Small Raid"? It sunk or damaged every US battleship in the Pacific in a single battle.

Edited by Belisaurius on Dec 16th 2019 at 5:08:04 AM

Well, the main difference between a military and a civilian space ship isn't going to be the hull, it's going to be the drive, because civilian ships will be designed for maximizing cost-efficiency, which in space translates to a high specific impulse, like an ion drive or even a light sail. Military vessels will maximize performance which in space will translate to a high acceleration, low efficiency design like a nuclear pulse rocket, or even a NERVA (or whatever equivalents they are using in the far future).

The thing is, you can't camouflage the drive, nor the mass that the drive is pushing. So putting a thin aluminum shell around a normal star destroyer (or whatever) probably isn't going to work. That means using actual cargo vessels and putting your weapons inside them. But this immediately runs into a second problem—inspection patrols. In a universe where container-sized weapon systems are sufficient to destroy a starbase, no competent military authority is going to let a large cargo hauler within firing range of it's facility without clearing an inspection first (and remember, there is no effective stealth in space).

Finally, this whole scenario runs into narrative plausibility problems. In any universe where a single cargo container hauler is capable of destroying a starbase, there won't be any starbases, because people aren't that stupid (unless some new technology is involved)—or rather, there will be too many spread over too large an area for a "Pearl Harbor" style attack to do significant damage to the entire fleet at one go. And if one cargo ship alone is insufficient to do the job by itself, then you are going to have to deploy a fleet of them at once, which makes it even less likely that they will achieve surprise.

Second finally—this is a one way potential suicide mission if anything goes wrong. Remember that they have low acceleration drives on board—they aren't escaping anywhere if any significant fraction of the enemy fleet survives.

The reason that the original Pearl Harbor attack worked was because naval aviation was a brand new, rapidly developing technology that no one had used at that distance before. It was the kind of thing that could work only once, and indeed, it's never happened since. To make this plausible in a story, you dont need a special kind of ship—you need a special kind of society, one which more or less reproduces the strategic situation on Earth in the early 1940's. A scenario in which no one prepares against this type of attack because no one imagines that it's possible.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Wrong on all counts again.

Your hull has to be at least passably resembling another ship. If it’s shredded it isn’t going to pass any kind of inspection. It has to have a visually correct exterior, as well. Your “gimballed engines” are going to have to be outside the hull as well, which basically gives the whole thing away anyways on top of not camouflaging the drive signature. Cargo ships come and go, a ship with military engines and a plastic hull visibly shot full of holes is going to attract a lot more attention.

We don’t need a premium of firepower for this concept. It isn’t going to be conducting sustained combat operations or launch and recovery. All it has to do is get close and launch.

As for “radar containers”, that’s almost laughable. You did see in the photo I linked that the entire radar system was situated inside an ISO shipping container? And again, sci fi. What exactly is stopping you from putting a radar in a shipping container?

Wrong about fire control as well. Even modern missiles aren’t as dumb as you’re describing. The NG ARAD missiles I mentioned use LOAL and can be fired into the general vicinity of the target and still find it anyways. Fire control systems for that are fully enclosed within the container, which fits in a standard ISO footprint. Shocking, I know, that it’s possible to store fire control and missiles in the same container.

Again, you’re arguing for something completely unrelated to what we’re talking about. If you wanted to sneak a warship somewhere, the camp shell idea isn’t bad. This isn’t that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 16th 2019 at 2:33:28 AM

They should have sent a poet.

@Archonspeaks "Shredded" is an exaggeration. You'd have to fly through several orbital rings for that kind of damage and you'd probably loose any external containers from that kind of stunt.

"Military engines" Surplus engines from a retired warship. It's the most expensive part after all. It's not so unbelievable that an entrepreneuring captain would buy one.

" a plastic hull" Another strawman. I never mentioned plastic.

" It isn’t going to be conducting sustained combat operations or launch and recovery. " Yes it will be. Pearl Harbor, remember?

"What exactly is stopping you from putting a radar in a shipping container?" Mostly it's just a dumb idea. Putting both means you're splitting space between them and need to deal with the exhaust. There's also no benefit because most AA networks keep launchers and radars separate to keep one shot from taking it all out. It also makes it difficult to predict where the next attack is coming from.

"LOAL" You mean that system that requires radar or infrared cuing? No, an intact or slightly damaged vessel has very similar infrared and radar profiles as a recently destroyed vessel. Without Fire Control linking all the missiles together they'd just attack a single target.

Gonna be honest, I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

@De Marquis "Military Engine" Surplus engine bought by a foolish captain. Not unheard of. This also assumes that warships don't mount secondary engines for quick maneuvering while the primary engines are used for travel.

"The reason that the original Pearl Harbor attack worked was because naval aviation was a brand new, rapidly developing technology that no one had used at that distance before" Naval aviation existed during WW 1. In fact, Billy Mitchell proved you could sink battleships by plane in 1920.

That being said, it's a sci-fi setting. You could have new tech making the Carrier more effective than anyone though was possible.

If you want to talk about arguing in good faith, you should probably inform yourself on how containerized systems and missiles actually work because you do not seem to understand them at all, or have been incredibly misinformed.

A radar system can be easily fit into a conventional shipping container. I have already provided you with a modern example of a containerized radar array that is currently in production, so your claim that it’s impossible or impractical is not only false but contrary to already provided evidence. Ditto to the claim that you can’t put fire control and weapons in the same container, because again we are already doing that exact thing. For example, the containerized AA systems many ships use contain the full fire control suite and the weapon in a single package.

LOAL missiles don’t require active guidance from the launch platform, and we already have networked missiles for on-site independent target discrimination. This isn’t the 70s any more. And again, sci fi.

You’re proposing building an entire warship, outfitting it with old cargo ship engines, and then building an entire breakaway hull around the outside. Compared to a few missiles in boxes that is absurdly expensive and over engineered for essentially the exact same result.

I’ll also add that there’s really no need to perform recovery operations in space. Building fighters you have to recover is a waste of time compared to launching missiles or autonomous weapons.

They should have sent a poet.

@Bel: ""Military Engine" Surplus engine bought by a foolish captain."

Ah, it's not going to work that way. Military grade engines are going to be an entirely different technology than that used on civilian craft. Even if your spacedog captain could obtain one, he wouldn't be able to find fuel or replacement parts.

It's analogous to how nuclear powered naval vessels are handled now. When the navy decommissions a nuclear powered ship, they don't put it up for sale on the civilian market, they take them apart. Reason being that they aren't criminally stupid, and no civilian shipping company would find them cost-efficient anyway.

I mean, imagine it: using a nuclear pulse rocket to haul space ore from place to place? Why would anyone do that? Even if you could find a government dumb enough to sell you one, you would end up spending more on fuel than you make from selling the ore (because your shipping rivals are using cheaper drives, and underselling you).

And finally, anyone who did utilize a military grade surplus drive for their cargo ship would end up being subjected to more intense inspection scrutiny anyway. There is basically no way to smuggle a fleet's worth of offensive weaponry into a secured zone.

OTOH—I don't see a fleet of actual civilian cargo handlers being able to pull this off, either. The sheer number of containerized weapon systems, fire control systems, fleet communication and intelligence systems, all of which have to be somehow snuck into a controlled area simultaneously, and deployed in a coordinated fashion "would strain credulity at that!"

The more I think about this, the more skeptical I am that it can be pulled off at all.

Edited by DeMarquis on Dec 16th 2019 at 8:17:08 AM

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Also note here, that military grade is kind of a misnomer. Rarely does it mean performance is better than civilian counterparts.

New Survey coming this weekend!

Fitting all of that stuff into shipping containers isn’t as difficult as it sounds. Many containerized weapons systems either contain their own fire control systems or the systems are containerized as well and merely need to be plugged together. The Navy has actually been examining the possibility of converting cargo ships into combat ships just like that: [1]

The shipping container attack is almost certainly going to be a one way trip for a surprise attack against an enemy with its guard down. If you’re trying to move an actual warship somewhere unnoticed or attack a base during wartime it’s not gonna work.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 16th 2019 at 5:44:40 AM

They should have sent a poet.

@Archonspeaks "A radar system can be easily fit into a conventional shipping container." Again, strawman. It's not fitting the radar in a container, it's fitting it into a container with a missile. Why bother? Just put them into two containers.

You're basically advocating for containerized weapons to be created SOLELY for this operation while arguing against an aluminum shell.

"LOAL missiles don’t require active guidance from the launch platform," No, they require Target Cuing. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you.

" and we already have networked missiles for on-site independent target discrimination." Target Discrimination isn't the same as Fire Control. Target Discrimination means you attack the Warship over the Cargo Ship. It wouldn't allocate one missile to a particular warship and another missile to another warship.

"outfitting it with old cargo ship engines" Two strawmans in one post, you're on a roll here. Anyhow, I was suggesting that a warship would mount both high efficiency engines and high power engines

"I’ll also add that there’s really no need to perform recovery operations in space. Building fighters you have to recover is a waste of time compared to launching missiles or autonomous weapons." The propulsion system is the most expensive part so the logical means of saving money is to have the propulsion system return for reuse. Likewise, this allows for a more expensive guidance system as the drone can account for all but terminal guidance.

That's at least 3 strawmans. You're either trolling or aren't paying attention in the least.

@Demarquis Again, this argues that military ships would ONLY mount high powered engines when most of their time would require high efficiency engines.

It's possible that military ships might mount multiple types of engines, but civilians would have only one (because that's all they need). And you cant conceal that, because the enemy can easily calculate any ship's mass to thrust ratio (while it is under thrust), and a hidden engine plus propellant is going to weigh a lot (and they can tell the density of the "cargo" by comparing to the ship's volume). then there's the comparison to shape, and if the ship maneuvers, weight distribution as well. Plus an infrared signature, since a civilian ship has no need to conceal it's heat sources. There is going to be an entire profile that any civilian cargo ship would match, and a military one wouldn't.

Then there is the whole inspection problem. How do you hide an entire extra drive?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."