Naval News website has an article, relevant to the US Navy, about
the French navy installing electro-optical/infrared sensors on various
ships.[1] That’s a nice step but nowhere
near enough. We’ve talked about the future naval battlefield requiring purely
passive sensing systems and individual ships needing a dozen or more such
sensors spaced around the ship for complete hemispherical coverage and battle
damage resilience (redundancy and separation).
Adding one or two sensors to a ship is woefully insufficient and
indicates a peacetime mindset where the threat level is low to non-existent. In other words, it is an action by a navy
that is not serious about war.
That’s quite a list of suitable tasks and none of them have anything to do with combat. Even the French navy’s “high end” threat is laughably weak, as indicated below.
UAVs and USVs? That’s not a threat, it’s an annoyance, at most, for a competent navy. Saturation missile attacks are a threat. Ballistic missiles are a threat. Hypersonic missiles are a threat. Submarines are a threat. Believing that a few tiny, unmanned drones are a threat shows the absence of a combat mentality.
As we’ve previously discussed, the modern battlefield
requires passive sensing. Ships need
long range, hemispherical passive sensors (see, “PassiveHemispherical Sensing”) that can search, detect, track, and provide fire
control. To radiate is to die unless
you’ve got missiles coming at you and, if you do, you’ve already screwed up and
are already on the losing side of the battle ledger. Ships need to be able to sail, establish
situational awareness, search for enemy assets, and engage, all while remaining
passive and undetected (see, “The Passive Warship”).
Ship designers need to regain a combat design
philosophy. Battle damage will occur and
that requires significant redundancy and separation of all key equipment. A single EO/IR sensor is not a combat fit –
it’s a peacetime design failure.
I’m not picking on the French. The US Navy is doing exactly the same thing
and this should serve as a lesson for us.
______________________________
According to TRAKKA Systems, … The TC-375M [ed. one of the EO/IR systems the French are using] is ideally suited for long-range naval and coast guard missions including search and rescue, illegal immigration protection, drug interdiction, economic exclusion zone (EEZ) protection, anti-piracy, maritime patrol, naval C4ISR, and naval vessel force protection.[1]
That’s quite a list of suitable tasks and none of them have anything to do with combat. Even the French navy’s “high end” threat is laughably weak, as indicated below.
… the French Navy previously moved to fit Safran’s Paseo XLR advanced electro-optic infra red (EO/IR) system on all FREMM frigates and Horizon type Air Defense destroyers. The decision was taken as part of an “urgent operational requirement” in response to the escalating threat posed by kamikaze unmanned surface vehicles (USV) and unmanned air vehicles (UAV).[1]
UAVs and USVs? That’s not a threat, it’s an annoyance, at most, for a competent navy. Saturation missile attacks are a threat. Ballistic missiles are a threat. Hypersonic missiles are a threat. Submarines are a threat. Believing that a few tiny, unmanned drones are a threat shows the absence of a combat mentality.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/02/french-navy-fits-new-eo-ir-systems-aboard-mistral-class-lhds/
The need to be able to fight in a non-emitting posture seems so obvious.
ReplyDeleteBut the Navy seems to think that it is going to be able to both radiate and have full situational awareness, and that it is the winning approach.
Is there something we're missing here?
Are we just not getting it?
Logic says that emitting is a beacon that shows where you are at a far greater range than you can see.
So does the Navy know something that we don't?
Assuming not...
...one of the types of weapons that I would want to have, and we may have these already, are those that track to radar emissions.
I'm not talking about HARM missiles in a SEAD mission.
What I'm talking about are Standard missiles and LRASM missiles that can be fired at a distant radar emissions source, that will track to the target, and then use EO/IR sensors to supplement terminal guidance.
We should be prepared to fight in EMCON, and punish the enemy with those radar tracking missiles every time that they dare to power up their radar sets.
I would expect an enemy to do that to us.
Lutefisk
"So does the Navy know something that we don't?"
DeleteI think the evidence overwhelmingly says ... no. Quite the opposite. The Navy has repeatedly demonstrated that it knows nothing.
"Standard missiles and LRASM missiles that can be fired at a distant radar emissions source"
Here's yet another problem. Standard missiles are simply not ship-killers. Not even close. LRASM is an almost non-existent missile in terms of inventory numbers and does not exist as a ship-launched weapon. So, even if they had home-on-radiate capability, they're not available and/or not a threat. We lack a powerful, ship launched, cruise missile.
"Standard missiles are simply not ship-killers."
DeleteI had forgotten that they had an anti-ship mode. I was thinking of firing them at radiating air radars, like AWACS type of planes.
"LRASM is an almost non-existent missile in terms of inventory numbers and does not exist as a ship-launched weapon."
Kind of baffling, really. I suppose that the NSM could be used instead, but shorter range. And I like the stealthy characteristics of the LRASM.
Oh well, goes on the list of things I think the navy could use (along with closed cell steel foam as a lightweight armor layer).
Lutefisk
"I suppose that the NSM could be used instead, but shorter range"
DeleteAs with the LRASM, we have very few NSM in our inventory and precious few on order. The Navy is simply not serious about ship-launched anti-ship missiles. The Navy's main anti-ship missile, at the moment, is probably the Standard which is woefully inadequate, as we've noted.
'Believing that a few tiny, unmanned drones are a threat shows the absence of a combat mentality'
ReplyDeleteYeah, if just a few and they're tiny, then agreed.
But multiple drones launched simultaneously represent a potent threat to any warship regardless of 'combat mentality'.
And some drones in current use are 'tiny' but many are not and can easily carry a payload equivalent to a 155mm M107 shell (or an actual M107 shell).
This won't sink a warship (obviously) but a single hit would leave a sizeable hole in the 'armored' hull of a Burke which is < 1" thick.
Or kill everyone on the bridge, or knock out the gun or the radar.
A hit during refuelling (even underway) = potential catastrophe.
Also bear in mind that a US warship operating anywhere in the Persian Gulf (or the Taiwan Strait) is well within range of a shore based drone strike.
We shouldn't be too relaxed or dismissive about the threat from simple, cheap and expendable drones.
You are failing to grasp so many points about drones that I almost don't know where to begin.
Delete"But multiple drones launched simultaneously represent a potent threat to any warship regardless of 'combat mentality'."
You (and almost everyone else) fail to grasp that there is no way to launch multiple drones at a warship at sea. Drones don't just magically appear near a ship. They have to be transported within range and no warship is going to allow a drone "carrier" (whatever that might be) to get anywhere near them during war.
Drones also have the same targeting issue as missiles. Again, drones don't just magically appear. They need a target and a warship is difficult to find and target.
"some drones in current use are 'tiny' but many are not and can easily carry a payload"
Large drones that can carry large payloads, such as a Predator or Reaper, are very expensive, few in number, and land based. No country has "swarms" of large drones. Further, large drones are slow, non-maneuverable, easily spotted, and easily destroyed.
"bear in mind that a US warship operating anywhere in the Persian Gulf (or the Taiwan Strait) is well within range of a shore based drone strike."
If you are the Russian navy and are operating near shore while being totally oblivious then, yes, you're in danger. On the other hand, if you are a competent navy you have very long range sensors, air cover, various ranged weapons, AND YOU'LL BE STRIKING THE ENEMY'S POTENTIAL STAGING, MANUFACTURING, AND LAUNCH SITES PRIOR TO ATTACKS.
You're also ignoring the best data point we have which is the US Navy operating off Yemen and routinely intercepting every drone that has approached, demonstrating exactly what I've been saying that a prepared, competent navy has nothing to fear from drones.
"simple, cheap and expendable drones."
Simple, cheap, and expendable means, by definition, SMALL. Small drones are simply not a threat to a ship.
You desperately need to consider drones and warships from a REALISTIC operational and tactical perspective. You also need to acquaint yourself with the US Navy's experience off Yemen and recognize actual data instead of engaging in pure speculation.
Thanks.
Delete"....there is no way to launch multiple drones at a warship at sea. Drones don't just magically appear near a ship".
I was referring to shore-based drones when I wrote
"...... a US warship operating anywhere in the Persian Gulf (or the Taiwan Strait) is well within range of a shore based drone strike."
".....no warship is going to allow a drone "carrier" (whatever that might be) to get anywhere near them during war."
The drone carrier would likely be a Hilux (the world's most common pickup truck).
"...Predator (and) Reaper (drones), are very expensive, few in number, and land based."
Yes; but they are Tier II+ drones, and I am not referring to those, but to cheap and expendable tactical drones with a range of 30 - 60 miles, and a payload roughly equivalent to a 155m artillery shell.
"....They need a target and a warship is difficult to find and target."
True, but if you can find, hit and destroy a 70 ton MBT from 50 miles away when it's travelling at high speed, I guess you could probably - sooner or later and with the help of all those hundreds of dhow-type fishing boats - find and make a lucky hit on a 9,000 ton Burke from roughly the same distance.
"....the US Navy operat(ed) off Yemen and routinely intercept(ed) every drone that has approached.."
So they said, but not sure how routine it was, and presumably the Carney was on full alert at the time. None of the couple dozen (?) Houthi drones hit a Navy ship but two or three got through and struck Israeli targets. A surprise attack on eg a T-AO may have had a different result; hence my point that we need to be alert to the threat.
Hope that clarifies things.
I would think that the Phalanx CIWS would be the ideal weapon for ships to defend themselves against swarm attacks of drones.
DeleteThe slow-moving nature of the drones and their need to get in proximity to the ship should make them easy targets for the radar-directed 20mm Vulcan guns on the Phalanx.
And the 20mm ammunition is relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of missile interception.
Lutefisk
"But multiple drones launched simultaneously represent a potent threat to any warship regardless of 'combat mentality'."
DeleteDon't try to rewrite history. Here is what you actually wrote:
"But multiple drones launched simultaneously represent a potent threat to any warship regardless of 'combat mentality'."
Nothing in that refers to land or sea based drones. You may have meant only land based but you didn't say it. Later in your comment you did, indeed, mention land based drones as a separate point.
"cheap and expendable tactical drones with a range of 30 - 60 miles, and a payload roughly equivalent to a 155m artillery shell."
What drone are you aware of that meets those specs? The RQ-21 Blackjack, a medium size UAV, has a range of 58 miles but a payload of only around 39 lbs versus a typical 155 mm shell which weighs 100+ pounds. I'm quite dubious that your envisioned drone exists.
"with the help of all those hundreds of dhow-type fishing boats"
Do you really think there's a ship's captain stupid enough to sail withing range of an enemy fishing vessel during war? You're just making stuff up.
"So they said,"
You probably believe the earth is flat. There have been no reports or even rumors about any USN ship being hit so there is no reason to believe otherwise. Again, follow the evidence where it leads. Don't make up stuff to support a conspiracy theory.
" presumably the Carney was on full alert at the time."
You mean like any ship would be in a combat situation?
"A surprise attack on eg a T-AO may have had a different result"
Are you suggesting that an attack on a defenseless ship might succeed????!! That's some astute analysis.
"Hope that clarifies things."
It absolutely does. It clearly demonstrates that you have a pre-conceived idea, unsupported by any facts, and that you're willing to ignore actual data to try to argue your point. If you choose to comment again, please significantly increase the quality of your comment. I won't allow another substandard comment to stand.
"The slow-moving nature of the drones and their need to get in proximity to the ship should make them easy targets for the radar-directed 20mm Vulcan guns on the Phalanx."
DeleteAssuming the software gates are adjusted to recognize something that slow as a valid target.
"Assuming the software gates are adjusted to recognize something that slow as a valid target."
DeleteOn the plus side, if they adjust the software gates it will probably engage Hamas paragliders.
Lutefisk
Of course, they may also wind up engaging seagulls and pelicans!
DeleteCommunist seagulls and pelicans? ;)
DeleteLutefisk
"I would think that the Phalanx CIWS would be the ideal weapon for ships to defend themselves against swarm attacks of drones."
DeleteA last ditch defense for every ship.
But for the Task Force.
A reimagined "Atlanta" class anti aircraft cruiser... bristling with Phalanx and Rolling Airframe Missiles (SeaRam concept). I am suggesting a dedicated ship for this purpose. Designed, operationally integrated and built to counter the swarm. That's it. Two of these in the task force can vector towards where the swarm is approaching the group. Assuming these drones don't get so cheap you can literally 360 attack the task force.... and if this sounds suspiciously like naval anti air warfare in World War Two.... you would be right. For the developing threat of the drone swarm.
"A reimagined "Atlanta" class anti aircraft cruiser... bristling with Phalanx and Rolling Airframe Missiles..."
DeleteI would imagine that the concern with this would be the limited range of the weapons.
Phalanx uses a 20mm Vulcan gun with a range of only a couple thousand meters.
Goalkeeper with its 30mm A-10 gun has longer range, but still less than double of Phalanx.
I don't know that their engagement footprint would be enough to protect a task force/battle group.
Lutefisk
"Atlanta" class anti aircraft cruiser"
DeleteThat would provide effective defense for a one or two ships but, remember, a task force in war is spread out over a ten to fifty mile diam circle. One or two ships with close in weapons can only cover the 1-2 mile area around themself. All the other ships would be unprotected. That's why EVERY individual ship needs effective anti-drone weapons (electronic and kinetic).
"swarm"
We imagine a swarm of aircraft surrounding a single target ship such as a carrier but that's absurd unless the entire escort has been eliminated. Drones don't just appear out of nowhere around the target. They originate from somewhere (a ship, presumably, since we'll be operating well out at sea) and have to slowly fly past all the escorts to get to the center of the group they want to attack. If our escorts are properly armed, the swarm stands very little chance of reaching the main target. Further, if we are at war, NO enemy/unknown ship will be allowed to approach within a thousand miles of a task force without being instantly sunk. When we start thinking this drone issue through from an actual combat/war perspective, we quickly realize that the threat is nearly non-existent because it's operationally nearly impossible for the enemy to execute.
Here's another option for passive sensing that I haven't heard much about. Visual and infrared are both impaired by clouds and fog (to different degrees and depending on how thick the clouds are). Millimeter waves are affected much less. I've read that this frequency range IS affected by atmospheric absorption (effect varies by frequency) so the ranges are fairly short (maybe a few miles).
ReplyDeleteThe referenced article is about a system using passive millimeter wave microwaves to help pilots see the runway to land during bad weather conditions. Range seems to be a couple of miles. This might be useful for short range air defense. Does it seem worth doing?
Here's the article:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/october/30/see-through-clouds
The incredibly short range is of very limited use in a naval battle. If an enemy or weapon is withing a mile to two, you're either already dead or seconds away from it.
DeleteTethered drones would be a proven and inexpensive advancement. Tethered means power is fed to them and no one needs to "fly" them.
ReplyDeletehttps://defence-blog.com/raytheon-develops-tethered-drone-system-for-ship-defense/
G2mil
It's got some potential as a niche defensive weapon assuming the negative impact of adverse weather, rain, fog, etc. can be dealt with.
DeleteSo... did I read that right?? Its supposed to be a drone...on a leash. Attatched to a boat... towed by a ship?
DeleteIs there a quota for how many times you can say "unmanned" or "autonomous" in new projects??🤣
I mean... DARPA has come up with some good stuff in the past... but that's been a while ago...
ComNavOps had a post about it in the comments below to re-quote him:
DeleteComNavOpsOctober 21, 2021 at 6:33 PM
This idea keeps coming up and I keep shooting it down. A blimp/kite/whatever is a large radar reflecting beacon saying here I am and just below me is my ship! Offsetting a mile from the ship is nothing to anyone/anything looking for the ship.
There are practical problems like power source, data transmission, field of view, deployment/retrieval time, etc.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/10/passive-hawkeye.html
"DARPA has come up with some good stuff in the past... but that's been a while ago..."
DeleteI truly can't recall the last successful DARPA project that turned into something useful for the fleet. Can you think of any relatively recent example?
Recently? No. The Sea Shadow could be considered useful as far as Stealth research maybe, but that's the last thing I can think of that could've had any big naval impact, and that was 40-ish years ago.
Delete"Sea Shadow"
DeleteEven that didn't really provide any benefit. The vessel was never developed into anything practical and we already knew about stealth so that wasn't anything new.
Honestly, everything they do seems like just technological gimmickry with no practical application. I'd like to believe they develop SOMETHING that is of practical use to the fleet but I can't think of anything.
I think that systems like the Leonidas are going to be the end of the drone issue, as far as a naval context is concerned. I just wonder if they have a utility vs missiles as well(?). It'd be a last-layer defense like CIWS/RAM, but ( this is strictly a feeling) a more reliable defense than kinetic weapons, although being used in concert with them for layered defense seems wise.
ReplyDeleteMy "concern" is that, yes, it sounds good but if it were that good and that easy, why is the military still investing so much time and effort into developing anti-drone weapons? Like most systems, is it not as good as it sounds on paper?
DeleteThat's actually a good question. It's probably goes without saying that manufacturer claims are overstated- but it seems to me that an RF weapon vs laser is a fairly simple choice, since RF can be used in a broader swath, rather than having to focus on individual targets. I wonder how much of it has to do with the company being a relative newcomer vs the big established defense contractors? Could it be politics and industry/Pentagon inertia, rather than true capability? Im just thinking out loud, and don't have anything to support that.
Delete"goes without saying that manufacturer claims are overstated ... I wonder how much of it has to do with the company being a relative newcomer vs the big established defense contractors?"
DeleteThis is reminiscent of DARPA's unmanned Sea Hunter vessel with its tiny, low powered, unmanned sonar which was claimed to be able to find and follow enemy submarines. Simple, inescapable logic instantly told us that was not true and the claim was overstated to the point of being pure fiction. If the tiny, low power sonar had been able to actually find and track submarines - something our largest, most powerful, computer assisted, manned sonar systems can't do with any reliability - then all of the Burkes would have been instantly put on a crash replacement program to rip out their enormous bow sonars, power generators, sonar crew, computers, and equipment compartments ... but they weren't which tells me with absolute certainty that the DARPA claim was fraudulent.
Same here. As I said, if the microwave system was that effective, the entire anti-drone program would have already halted and some manufacturer would already have a contract for thousands of units ... but they don't ... so it's not as effective as the article suggested. That doesn't mean it can't someday be developed into something useful but it's not effective yet.
ofc, the elephant in the room issue is that pure passive EO/IR sensing, with some ESM, relegates you to line of sight of the horizon, which isn't really great thb. Otoh, the same issue affects the opposition.
ReplyDeletethe doctrinal answer to the prblem, in the Cold War, was to use the carrier's air wing to prosecute targets, but this runs into the problem that our air wings are seeing a reduction by as much as a third; a Nimitz air wing could have some 70 combat aircraft, being a mix of F-14, F-18, A-6 and S-3, but nowadays we're lucky to have 4 full squadrons of 12 aircraft each. That's a maximum of 48 combat aircraft.
"pure passive EO/IR sensing, with some ESM, relegates you to line of sight of the horizon,"
DeleteYou seem to be making a distinction between optical/IR and radar when they're essentially identical in terms of detection limitations. Radar is horizon limited just like EO/IR. What you seem to be forgetting is that the horizon is dependent on target altitude and sensor height. Radar can see hundreds of miles if the target is at altitude and so can EO/IR. Even back in the F-14 Tomcat days, the aircraft's camera was capable of spotting Soviet bombers a hundred miles away and optical sensing has only gotten better. So, there is no elephant or, at least, none that doesn't exist for standard radar.
"the doctrinal answer to the prblem, in the Cold War"
No, not really. Carrier air required active radar on the individual aircraft and that gave away the carrier's approximate location. The doctrinal answer was stay silent and force the enemy to use active sensors, giving away his location. Also, remember, that "carrier air" as a solution to anything is a very limited solution. We have a maximum of 9 functional carriers (that's how many air wings we have) so that mean's that solutions that depend on carrier air can only apply to a maximum of about two carrier task forces. Every other patrol ship, convoy, surface task force, etc. requires a non-carrier air solution. Hence, the doctrinal solution of silence (EMCON). What we need to do is "extend" our silent surveillance as I've suggested with small, passive UAVs for surface ships and much more numerous and powerful passive sensors for ships and the use of passive scout ships.
of course, the corrolary to that is that the higher your mast, for greater EO/IR sensing range, the greater your chance of detection, since, yanno, we're raising a giant mast in the sky. Of course, you could mitigate this with a stealthy mast, such as on the Visby or the Mogami 30FFM.
Delete"the higher your mast, for greater EO/IR sensing range, the greater your chance of detection"
DeleteAnd the EXACT same consideration applies to radar height and it's far worse for radar in that radar MUST go active to function which means a free giveaway location for the enemy. You seem to be trying your best to denigrate passive sensing when, in reality, passive and active have the exact same constraints for the factors you've cited. What's your problem with this?
My biggest issue with passive sensing is that it's really reactive and defensive by nature. You have to go out and look for the enemy, and that means you need radar, because passive sensing won't cut it for area search.
DeleteOf course if you're going to use a radar you might as well much higher than the height of a mast with an EO/IR sensor, but then that lets you fly your sensor at an offset so that it's giving the enemy a direct line back to you, the way a tethered sensor node would.
While I have never been the greatest fan of the IJN's pagoda masts, i have to say that having a mast be 40 meters up does give you GREAT visibility.
Delete"My biggest issue with passive sensing is that it's really reactive and defensive by nature."
DeleteIt is clear that you have very little grasp of tactical sensor operations. Whether this is from a lack of technical understanding of the various passive and active sensors or a lack of understanding of naval tactics, in general, is an open but irrelevant question.
Contrary to what you claim, passive sensors are for offensive purposes. The goal is to find and kill the enemy without him even knowing you're there. Active sensors (radar), on the other hand, are NOT used for searching during war as that gives away your own position. Radar is used when the enemy has found you and an attack is inbound - a purely defensive use.
So, you pretty much have it backward.
You need to do a great deal of research before you comment again.
" IJN's pagoda masts"
DeleteThese, and the USN's cage masts, were useful in the days of purely optical detection and fire control. They offered an elevated viewing platform (increased search range) in a very low observable form.
Today, however, a raised active sensor (platform, tethered, mast, whatever) is a net negative in that it can be detected at a greater range than it can detect (the flashlight analogy). Elevated passive sensors have a slight negative impact (slightly greater chance of being detected depending on what the elevation mechanism is) while offering greater range.
Of course, ANY elevated mechanism has other negative impacts in terms of stability, metacentric height margins, weight, equipment, etc.
A much simpler, more logical approach is a hemi-spherical passive sensor and fire control system plus extensive use of small, passive, stealthy UAVs for extended range search.
As a founder investor in a South Africa based start up focussed on I was interested in some of these comments as drones are a subject about which I have some knowledge which may be of interest to your Blog community.
ReplyDeleteI agree that small ground launched drones probably operated by non state actors and proxy forces are a significant threat to warships in naval bases, shipyards, repair facilities, during port visits and when operating in littoral waters with limited sea room - e.g the Persian Gulf - with the threat greater during periods of non active combat operations.
A kinetic defence against drone attacks in such locations (when the ship is not at sea) is very problematic owing to the probable high level of collateral damage. Laser directed-energy weapon systems such as DragonFire offer some grounds for optimism here.
Sea based / launched drones are not currently a serious threat to warships as opposed to commercial shipping although a prudent approach would recognise this situation may change.
To my knowledge a drone with a 45 mile range and a 45 kg payload exists in prototype only but caveat we have little insight into the military development pipeline. Such a drone could be built on commercial scale without great difficulty (it does not contravene any laws of physics) but the compromises necessary would limit demand for its development and the manufacturers’ focus would probably be elsewhere. There are many drones with similar ranges but still effective payloads which would be similarly effective in putting warships out of action for months.
I know nothing at all about Russian naval proficiencies but Russia is very much a leader in terms of drone development and operations and should definitely not be underestimated. The Rubicon Group has tight and fast feedback links to the Russian drone manufacturing industry and has been a highly successful model. Nb the Russian military is looking to double the number of personnel in drone units with a recruitment target of approximately 165,500 specialist troops in drone controller and EW roles by end 2026.
Re fishing boats. Outside my area of knowledge but I assume in a conflict the adversary country would militarise large numbers of fishing boats and use them for intelligence gathering purposes. China’s SCS fishing fleet numbers in the hundreds of thousands.
The data on recent engagements between US Navy ships and the Houthis (Operations Prosperity Guardian and Rough Rider) are in my view insufficient to draw firm or useful conclusions.
Thank you.
Michael S.
"small ground launched drones probably operated by non state actors and proxy forces are a significant threat to warships in naval bases, shipyards, repair facilities, during port visits "
DeleteANYTHING is a significant threat to a ship that is static and defenseless. A man with a rifle can do significant damage to a ship in those circumstances!
"and when operating in littoral waters with limited sea room"
The US Navy has already demonstrated that an alert, competent ship(s) have nothing to fear from land based, small drones. To dismiss this body of proof as "insufficient" is to ignore reality in favor of a false, pre-conceived notion.
"A kinetic defence against drone attacks in such locations (when the ship is not at sea) is very problematic"
It doesn't have to be. There are self-destruct rounds that can be used. For example, the Phalanx C-RAM as described by Wiki: "C-RAM uses the 20mm HEIT-SD (high-explosive incendiary tracer, self-destruct) ammunition, originally developed for the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System. These rounds explode on impact with the target, or on tracer burnout, thereby greatly reducing the risk of collateral damage from rounds that fail to hit their target."
"To my knowledge a drone with a 45 mile range"
A drone with that range is absolutely no threat to a ship at sea. The "carrier" vessel would have to approach the target within forty miles to launch the drones and no ship is going to allow an enemy/unknown vessel to approach that closely without having long since sunk it.
"Russian military is looking to double the number of personnel in drone units"
That's purely for land combat drone operations which are a completely different game and have no applicability to naval combat.
"I assume in a conflict the adversary country would militarise large numbers of fishing boats and use them for intelligence gathering purposes."
Good grief! This keeps coming up and I keep knocking it down. No naval task force is going to allow ANY kind of enemy/unknown ship/boat to approach within any sensing distance. Further, 99% of Chinese fishing vessels are short range boats operating well inside the SCS. The 1% that might be in the open ocean would be sunk long before they become a sensing threat. For a real world example of the fishing boat issue in war, read the Doolittle raid on Japan by the US. Japanese fishing vessels were sunk before they could report the US navy's task force. This was true throughout the war. Oblivious naval observers seem to naively believe that we would allow Chinese fishing vessels to operate with impunity. Nothing could be further from the truth. ALL enemy vessels, big or small, will be sunk on sight to deny the enemy whatever resources they might be collecting or carrying.
A quick search puts the total number of USN interceptions of missiles and drones at between 600 and 800, between Oct '23 to present. While the number launched vs intercepted is unknown, and many ( most?) weren't targeting USN ships, the fact that the Navy received zero hits suggests that the threat is minimal. Now, while the use of hundreds of multi-million dollar missiles to accomplish this shows a serious need for cheaper methods, it also seems to show that the systems in use work, and imho, it's not a stretch to conclude that the threat of drones to naval forces is hugely overstated.
Delete" the use of hundreds of multi-million dollar missiles to accomplish this shows a serious need for cheaper methods,"
DeleteIt partly shows that, for sure, however, it also illustrates the importance of the "shoot the archers not the arrows" philosophy. A naval force under possible threat should be eliminating the source of the threat not trying to shoot down every individual drone/missile. Find the financial sources, manufacturing sites, storage locations, launch sites, etc. and destroy the threat (archers) before they become arrows. The USN did a little bit of this off Yemen but refused to wholeheartedly commit to it and, hence, foolishly, wound up shooting at arrows, instead.
Absolutely. And the same thought about costs applies there. What effect did the ~200+ Tomahawks achieve in Yemen for what...$250M???
DeleteI wonder how many of those launch sites were within 15 miles of the coast... somthing that say, a resurrected 8in gun could reach easilly??
"...a resurrected 8in gun..."
DeleteAnd we have 36 16-inch guns wasting away as museums.
Lutefisk
I didn't go there, even if it crossed my mind lol! As much as I hate it, ( I had my dream orders to the Missouri before Desert Storm, changed at last minute) their time has passed. But they, and the other museum ships are doing stellar service keeping history alive, and inspiring future generations of sailors.
DeleteMy youngest boy joined the Army rather than the family Navy tradition. He has an absurdly big fear of the ocean. After AIT, he came home to collect his young family. I gave them an atlas with a prechosen course, and laid out a nice sightseeing tour of the US for his drive from WA to GA. I put the USS Alabama on his list. To say he was blown away by her, and that it made a huge impression is an understatement. "If the Navy still had these, then maybe...", was the closest he'd ever been to having an interest in the Navy haha... so... I think our old battleships in some ways are ... "still in service"!!
"their time has passed."
DeleteReally? A ship that's nearly immune to modern weaponry, has unmatched lethal firepower, could provide the missing shore fire support the Marines crave, can effortlessly sink any ship in the world ... what about that says their time has passed?
Oh... I misspoke again!!! I was referring more to the lack of infrastructure, knowledge etc, to support using THOSE specific ships again, and the likelihood of ever using them again. The CONCEPT of battleships, with the specifics you mentioned, on the other hand, is very valid- no argument, and Im behind it 100%!!
DeleteThat's probably why I'm constantly bringing up the 'ol 8in gun- because it's probably the biggest gun that could have a realistic chance of returning. It's just one piece of the "battleship" puzzle, and it'd take a lot of work to bring back the other elements, but its never far from my mind, and it's a start!
Delete"the lack of infrastructure, knowledge etc, to support using THOSE specific ships"
DeleteI don't understand that. Not just you but many people seem to believe that battleship technology is gone ... lost in the mists of time and can never be reproduced. We have drawings, blueprints, written descriptions, procedures, etc. Sure, that's not the same thing as actually producing some of that stuff but it wouldn't be hard to bring it back. There would be a short re-familiarization curve but we have all the information. We routinely create new factories with new technologies all the time. Is there some mystical, ethereal barrier that prevents us from bringing back old technology? Was all the old information written in the Elvish language and we can no longer read it?
There's a lot of institutional knowledge that's been lost over the years, especially with the business mindset of firing the old experienced senior staff in the name of cost savings. I'm reminded of the difficulty in reproducing FOGBANK - they kept the notes, the records, documentation in case they ever needed to make more FOGBANK, and when they did a test run it just straight up failed and didnt work, leaving the US without a means of producing nuclear weapons. NNSA had to spend years and millions of dollars reverse engineering FOGBANK so we could make more nukes.
Delete“FOGBANK”
DeleteThis is not a valid comparison. Due to the extreme secrecy, there were almost no written records or documentation about the process. For battleships, we have complete documentation.
" Is there some mystical, ethereal barrier..."
DeleteNo, of course not. I dont believe there's any barrier that's insurmountable, besides perhaps cost. The Navy could absolutely reposess the Iowas tomorrow, and put them back to use. We could reproduce the factorys to build 16in gun barrels, and ammunition. We could reopen the BT rate and recreate the school. We could work with modern boiler manufacturers and merge legacy repair and maintenance programs for the boilers with modern techniques and materials. And we could do similar things with every system aboard- either replace with modern materials and practices, or relearn/rebuild the original ones. We could gut and modernize our hearts out. But what would that cost? Although the main battery may not even be the most expensive part of recreating the operational and support infrastructure for exhumed Iowas, that in itself would be a pretty big undertaking! For example, how long and how much to create a production line and refill all the magazines, plus churn out thousands more rounds? How long til we can produce a stock of barrels so they can be swapped out for a reline? Smaller details might cause problems too- for instance, how many of our shipyards even have cranes that are capable of doing a barrel swap? Maybe they all do... but what if they dont? So where do the barrels go to be relined... and how do they get there? Do we need to build the specialized heavy duty railcars to carry them again? Do railroad lines even exist that run from the shipyards to the gun factory/relining site? Again, yes, all things we can fix. No doubt. And perhaps building new ships would be the better use of all that rebuilt infrastructure, because then at least we wouldn't have to relearn the care and feeding of the old tech(??). On the flip side, if we build new, now we also need the ability to build heavy armor plates, lift and install turrets, machine massive turret rings, and countless other heavy industrial processes that are long gone. Either way- anything is possible with enough desire, urgency, and common sense. In spite of what i commented earlier, I'm not arguing, and actually agree with you.
But heres my veiw. I've been a 60s Dodge/Chrysler restorer/hobbyist/ racer all my life- and after that lifetime of doing it, plus having a diesel/ heavy equipment career behind me, I have skills. If you bring me a VIN tag and a dustpan full of rust- I can recreate the whole car. IF... IF the pile of cash is big enough. And the Iowas are kinda the same thing. They could be brought back. But would it be worth the probable tens of billions? They'd be the hardest hitting, best protected, most survivable and potent ships afloat... without a doubt... but would it be worth it? Maybe back in the 90s, when they were retired, when more of the infrastructure still existed and could be built upon. But now? I'm sad to say, I'm not convinced.
( Again, as often, this convo is tough to have because there are the different perspectives of "what could be", "what should be", and the real life "what did/will actually happen ". )
I kinda think we have to walk before we can run. Look at the railguns - we keep trying to have a revolutionary leapfrog and jump straight to long range hundred mile railguns and then get confused when we can't make them.
DeleteMeanwhile the Japanese decided to excercise project disciplne, pursuing a 40mm railgun purely as a point defense weapon, and now that they've gotten it working, then they consider scaling it up another notch.
We haven't built bug guns in a long time. We should start with 8 inch guns and build our way back up. Certainly 8" guns are a relevant weapon for our destroyers and cruisers.
"We could reopen the BT rate ..."
DeleteSo many people want to present this as an almost infinite list of near-impossible technologies that we would have to recreate but is that true? How many technologies (pieces of equipment) would we really need to "re-create"? 16" guns and shells, yes. Armor, yes (though hopefully we can improve even that with modern advances in tank armor technologies?). But what else? We could replace the boilers with modern turbines. The optical range finders can be replaced with laser range finders. The 5" guns/ammo can be replaced with modern 5" guns/ammo. What else is there that we would need to re-create? Armor and guns is not a long list and we'd be starting from an advanced position since we have all the documentation and procedures. We make 5"-6" shells today so we wouldn't be re-creating from scratch. We already have the foundation of the industry in place.
Would it be that hard or are we (the generic we, not you) just looking for excuses to not bring back battleships (for reasons I don't understand)?
What are the limitations/drawbacks of Limited Probability of Intercept radars which would assume beneficial when bad weather puts major limitations on passive sensors.
ReplyDeleteIn simplest terms, low probability of intercept (LPI) radar achieves its low probability be using lower power. It could equally be called a "low probability of detecting the target" radar. Power output is reduced which means shorter range and less chance of detecting a target. Other techniques than just reduced power are also employed. Wiki has a basic LPI article which you can read for more details.
DeleteFor example, a stealth aircraft which can barely be detected at a given range with a regular, full power radar, cannot be detected using LPI at the same range. So, the use of LPI is a tradeoff. You run less risk (not no risk!) of being detected but you also have less chance of finding your target. Full power, see the target, and give the enemy your position or less power, miss the target, but stay hidden from the enemy? Which to do? All depends on the circumstances of the moment.
Off topic but shocking:
ReplyDelete"USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group redeploying from Caribbean to Middle East"
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/uss-gerald-r-ford-carrier-strike-group-redeploying-from-caribbean-to-middle-east/291-bacd7d19-2854-430a-b3b3-ce2a0d26f22c
Trump likes to threaten Iran but we only have one carrier there, we had six when we attacked Iraq. Now they are sending the USS Ford that has been deployed for EIGHT MONTHS! The Ford was kept deployed to bully Venezuela, but won't be replaced, so what happens there? But overall, does this mean the US Navy has no other carrier ready to send? Will the Ford crew riot?
Also shocking, I assumed the USS Truxton recently "bumped" a supply ship in bad weather. No, it swung hard starboard and rammed it.
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/krassenstein/status/2022295213163577512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2022295213163577512%7Ctwgr%5E3812fcefbaf858c51b467059cd314ba3ae24b916%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dsnafusolomont_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.snafu-solomon.com2F20262F022Fopen-comment-post-12-feb-26.htmlt_d%3DSNAFU3A20Open20Comment20Post.201220Feb2026t_t%3DSNAFU3A20Open20Comment20Post.201220Feb2026s_o%3Ddefaultversion%3D670b3f7229f9c5e11382076cc0d25eb5