I saw the following headline and read the article with great
anticipation. I’ve been calling for a
drone carrier for some time now and only Turkey has made a move in that
direction so I was very interested to see what kind of vessel this would be,
what kind of drones it would operate, and how it would fit into combat
operations.
“Damen launches ‘Drone Carrier’ for the Portuguese Navy”
To say I was disappointed is a huge understatement. The following describes the ship’s mission focus.
Does anyone else notice the one glaring omission? There’s no combat mission!
In addition, the vessel is butt-ugly and woefully
non-stealthy.
The vessel has a high degree of system autonomy. It is designed for unrestricted service in tropical and moderate environments and is especially suited for multi-purpose activities such as oceanographic research, environmental control, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and maritime surveillance and support tasks.[1]
Does anyone else notice the one glaring omission? There’s no combat mission!
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/04/damen-launches-drone-carrier-for-the-portuguese-navy/
Just had a "lol" over this!!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious... what "drones" do humanitarian and disaster relief? What exactly is "environmental control"?? It sounds like the ship/CONOP was designed by an advertising agency in Kansas thats never seen a ship before...
But to be fair, at least they built a ship...
This is a military-centered blog, so I fully agree with CNO's criticism of the platform, in that context.
DeleteHowever, drones absolutely do have a role in humanitarian aid/disaster relief, and I can imagine a definition for "environmental control" to which drones are also applicable. Let's criticize in good faith.
Disaster relief often requires searching for survivors. If a drone can find enemy soldiers, it can find injured civilians. There are also many kinds of disaster that might need relief. Survivors trapped on top of buildings during flooding might benefit tremendously from drone-delivered food, water, and blankets while awaiting more manpower-intensive rescue.
Environmental control could be interpreted as enforcement of conservation-minded regulations. We can agree or disagree on conservation as a political goal, it isn't within the purview of this blog. But so long as it is illegal to fish in certain areas, dump certain fluids, clear-cut certain forests, those laws should be fully enforced. Nothing can carry out such enforcement as efficiently as a drone net. This is a weaker point, admittedly, since I'm still just guessing what "environmental control" means. It is a silly phrase.
Again, not weighing in on the value of this concept as a military drone carrier. Only pushing back on the total ridicule—it might be a fine vessel in a non-military role.
As a non-military vessel, it should then be designed to non-military standards: no sensors needed beyond basic nav radar, no damage control measures required beyond basic civilian fire protection, no weapons, no magazines, etc. It should also not be operated by a military crew but, instead, some sort of civilian or government organization. Crew habitability and comfort should be maximized. All in all, a completely different vessel from what this apparently is.
DeleteAs a military vessel this ship is a useless disaster. As a civilian aid vessel it appears to be vastly overbuilt and, therefore, a colossal waste of money and resources.
I fail to understand the purpose of a drone carrier with low subsonic drones. What could be interesting would be a drone carrier with stealth MALEs drones capable of long loitering time at great distance, for ISR purposes, and lots of long distance missiles for strike. Could event replace an aircraft carrier at a fraction of the costs.
ReplyDelete"I fail to understand the purpose of a drone carrier with low subsonic drones."
DeleteThen you fail to understand the value of situational awareness in warfare.
Stealth MALE for ISR are very useful. Slow subsonic drones are easily detected and killed.
DeleteSlow, subsonic stealth drones, which I've been calling for, are very difficult to find and kill and would offer great situational awareness. What don't you understand?
DeleteThis looks to be in the vein of our expeditionary sea bases - a potentially useful resource but only in very low threat environments (where neither firepower nor stealth is a prime consideration). Counter-drug/piracy, humanitarian assistance, etc. Can do many things but is great at none of them.
ReplyDeleteI think the jury is still out on how useful these sorts of platforms are. Some people hate them. Some love the potential (for example, Cdr Salamander's reaction to this same news: https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/i-hate-being-out-innovated-by-checks).
"I think the jury is still out on how useful these sorts of platforms are."
DeleteIf the need and objective is for a multi-purpose CIVILIAN research/aid vessel then this might be a good design. If the need/objective is for a WARship then this is a horrible design.
I will add that I would love to see these "swiss army knifes" be replaced with purpose-built ships designed to accomplish specific tasks/missions. I see these types of ships as a lazy way to address needs without going through the trouble to do it right.
ReplyDeleteCombat! Combat!! Combat!!!
ReplyDeleteThat's all I ever hear from you people!!!
Don't you realize that some navies have FEELINGS?!?
No! That didn't even occur to you, did it?
All you care about is your war toys....well, some navies are a little bit more enlightened than you knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
They care about people, they prioritize humanitarian relief over outdated ideas like 'national defense'!
Has your EMCON ever fed a hungry child?!?!
Has your Stealth ever cared for a little baby duckling covered in oil?
Have your Mk 48 torpedoes ever dug a well for starving Sub-Saharan villagers?
'NO' to all of those things!!!
We need to realize that we are all one people, and show it with a big international group hug.
You people have a lot to learn about modern navies, you disgust me.
I'd like to buy the world a home, and furnish it with love...
Grow apple trees, and honey bees, and snow-white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony...
I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and keep it company.
Wait, no, not that last part....but you know what I mean.
Lutefisk
I stand humbly corrected.
DeleteI live within an hour's drive of Madison, WI.
DeleteI can pretty much guarantee that I could find someone that would not recognize that as satire, and would fully endorse it, in about 17 minutes.
Lutefisk
"I could find someone that would not recognize that as satire"
DeleteOh, you know the admiralty?
"Oh, you know the admiralty?"
DeleteI didn't realize they were in Madison...but, you know, it all kind of makes sense now.
Lutefisk
At the risk of being told to learn and come back I want to ask a question. How much different does a drone carrier and a helicopter carrier need to be? Hangar space, elevator flight deck, control tower. I not a fan of multipurpose ships, but the aviation element is akin to load out VLS. The larger ship run should make them cheaper to procure and operate i supposee it all goes back to conops and fleet structure.
ReplyDeleteHow many drone carriers does USN need?
"How much different does a drone carrier and a helicopter carrier need to be?"
DeleteThat's a good question! There are several levels of answer.
1. A helo carrier like the Wasp class must also house a thousand Marines, their equipment, and landing craft so the carrier must be enormously larger and more capable than a drone carrier.
2. An ASW helo carrier doesn't need the troop facilities but still does need munitions magazines and munitions handling elevators.
3. All helos require large amounts of deck space to take off and land. Look at the size of, say, the Wasp or America class in terms of the limited number of deck spots compared to the gigantic size of the flight decks.
4. Drone carriers (as I envision them!) operate small drones that don't require catapults or sophisticated landing gear. A simple flat deck conversion on a small size merchant ship is sufficient. Of course, if you want to operate Predator size UAVs then you need much more room.
The simplest answer to your question is that a drone carrier can be quite basic whereas a helo carrier is much more complex and larger.
Does that make sense to you? Did that answer your question?
"How many drone carriers does USN need?"
This depends on CONOPS, as most things do. That aside, I would think a dozen or so simple, converted merchant ships would suffice to offer any surface group the benefits of drone surveillance.
Do the archives still offer a complete and up to date picture of your opinions on the roles of drones in naval warfare? If you have the time for a long post or series, I feel like you could expand in a few ways.
ReplyDeleteA fictional scenario or two designed to showcase your view of drone warfare could be useful and interesting. Piecing together many different paradigms and considerations, outlined across dozens of posts, military doctrine documents, and real-life examples, is difficult and prone to error. I've done some of that work for myself; I'd like to see how my mosaic compares to yours.
And a bit of elaboration on the actual design, or potential designs, of drone carriers could be useful. You explain one possibility above in reply to a comment. Naturally, a post has better visibility and is more prone to multiaxis discussion. Furthermore, there could be a lot of different drone carrier paradigms, and a long post divided into sections could explore them each in depth. If nothing else, I'm curious about your thoughts on this paper:
https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/app/uploads/2024/02/The-Need-For-CCAs-for-Disruptive-Air-Warfare-FULL-FINAL.pdf
Aimed at the Air Force, but there is an awful lot of air combat in the Navy these days (last eighty years), so it's probably relevant.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you're looking for. I've written fictional posts about drones and/or included them in posts, notably the "Piece It Together" story. I've done many posts about various aspects of drones. You can find links in the archive using the keyword UAV or Drone. I've described my vision of drone carriers and how they would integrate into fleet activities. I'm not sure what else you'd be looking for. Can you be more specific?
DeleteIf your view is completely and accurately represented in the archives, that's fine. I'll keep reading.
Delete"Piece it together" is great, but it is narrowly focused. How did they get to the zone? If the enemy has a passive ISR drone net spread out across the approaches, what's the best way to shoot through them without giving away the assault axis in negative? Are supercarriers involved, and if so, how are they being protected against enemy drone swarms? What kind of preparation has to go into an operation like this? How about a shorter raid? Do you need one type of drone carrier (mass ScanEagle launcher) for assault ISR and another type (bigger drones) for maritime ISR, due to range differences? Illustrative questions only, there could be plenty more.
Technically, all of that information is available across the archives and other sources. I can wargame it out myself, so can other readers. But you, me, and everyone else will piece it together differently, so it would be useful to see your vision of the complete operation or war, and I can compare it to mine.
Another example would be "The Task Force." Another great, informative, but limited piece. EMCON obviously helps—but the enemy still probably has passive ISR drones out to a pretty good distance. How does the task force break into the ring without giving themselves away, or do they need to? What kind of Air Force assets are they going to need for support? What kind of rapid response should they expect to face once detected, and what might the results of a battle look like under various conditions?
I mean, ideally, I'd like a competitor to the big CSIS wargames. Sky is the limit, I don't think you could write too much. But human limits apply, I'll take what I can get, including if that's just trawling further through the archives.
"it would be useful to see your vision of the complete operation or war"
DeleteSo, all you're asking for is a complete war plan? That might require that I use six paragraphs instead of my usual five! Seriously, you're asking for a book length writing!
I get the distinct impression that you're not comprehending all that read. For example, you mention enemy drones in "The Task Force" story but I address that with the counter-surveillance "CAP". Another example, you ask about the "Piece It Together" scenario but fail to note the drones are deployed once the assault begins, at which point the enemy knows where the assault axis is. And so on.
"Are supercarriers involved, and if so, how are they being protected against enemy drone swarms?"
I have often discussed the role of carriers in an assault as the interdiction force. As such, they operate far from the assault site and well out to sea. Distance alone would eliminate the "drone swarm" concern along with the carrier's inherent layered defense.
You seem to be asking for a complete, all-encompassing description of future war. Obviously, I don't have the time or space to do that. Legions of military staffs spend careers assembling that level of information. I'm one person with a part time blog. If you'd care to narrow your request to some specific aspect, I'd be happy to address that.
I make no demands. As I said: if the archives, in aggregate, accurately represent your complete view of modern naval warfare, I'll keep trawling, periodically posting a question based on my synthesis, and updating.
DeleteI only commented initially to say, you could probably do with a general "state of affairs" post, laying out what kinds of drones are useful and which are pointless, what paradigms drones should follow or ignore, and what kind of carriers you need to make them useful. Setting the record for 2026, either establishing your old posts as still accurate or explaining what changed.
Going by tags, this is the only post directly labeled "drone carrier." Could be reasonable to make a second one.
I don't think the accusation that I'm not comprehending what I am reading is entirely accurate, in this case.
"For example, you mention enemy drones in "The Task Force" story but I address that with the counter-surveillance "CAP"."
Yes. I could have been more specific with my question. How are the enemy drones being found and destroyed without giving away that they were found and destroyed? My synthesis is that both sides take reasonable measures, but war is risk, and the Task Force has just gotten lucky by the time the short story ends. Or not, and the Admiral just doesn't yet realize he's been found.
A long line of destroyed drones forms a photo, in negative, of your passage. That's fine, though, because the enemy must not know the drones are being destroyed—they aren't in a constant two-way link, since the radiation would give them away. But if there's no radiation for CAP to hunt, they're down to passive search for the drones, since presumably active search would violate EMCON and form a radiation beacon, itself a giveaway. Passive searching for drones, I assume, is not ideal for the F-35; there just aren't very many F-35s compared to the volume of sky they would have to search. So the Task Force needs its own sky-search drone mesh. (details on that? What's the mission profile, loiter time, survival rate like for these drones? Are they anything like the current USN/USAF fleet?) But how do they reliably find enemy drones and vector fires before the enemy finds them and makes a report? They would be using essentially the same passive sensor technology, so it seems like a coin flip who finds who. Jamming would prevent the enemy from reporting contact if they do get lucky, but isn't jamming just another form of detectable radiation? Wouldn't the next drone 10 or 50 miles back detect the wash of jamming and drop a red flag?
"Another example, you ask about the "Piece It Together" scenario but fail to note the drones are deployed once the assault begins, at which point the enemy knows where the assault axis is"
The protagonist's drones are deployed after the assault begins, but I was asking about the approach towards the assault. The same question I had about Task Force, really. How did they get through the outer enemy ISR ring? Redundant question in this case, ignore it.
"Distance alone would eliminate the "drone swarm" concern"
Ah, we use "drone swarm" differently, then. I suppose the drone swarm feeding intel to the LHA is a different class of drone than the ISR drones shot down by F-35 CAP in "The Task Force?" I would call either one a swarm, simple enough misunderstanding.
"complete view of modern naval warfare"
DeleteCOMPLETE view of naval warfare??!!! Good grief, no! Again, it would require books. The archives represent a great starting point for one to set a solid foundation to continue one's study of warfare.
"A long line of destroyed drones forms a photo"
It is clear from this statement and your entire comment that you are missing a key concept in warfare and the Pacific/China war and that is the vastness of the hemisphere and the oceans relative to the very small number of assets either side has. Start by looking to history in WWII. Despite literally thousands of ships and submarines and tens of thousands of aircraft, how often did either side actually spot the other? How many actual naval battles were there? The answer to both questions is, 'not many'. The vastness almost precludes contact!
Think about your statement about a line of drones. Do you have some vision that the air above the entire Pacific Ocean will be crowded with drones thereby assuring detection of any ship that moves? That's what your statement and questions strongly imply. Your statement also implies that you believe drones have unlimited range and endurance. That might be somewhat true for the very large Global Hawk type drones but those are few and easily spotted and destroyed. The small drones have very limited range and are not swarming the entire ocean by the millions, which is what would be required.
The Doolittle raid on Japan occurred at the peak of Japan's power with Japanese assets "roaming" the seas and yet the raid penetrated to around 600 nm of Japan without being spotted.
The drones that you are so worried about are almost a non-factor.
"Passive searching for drones, I assume, is not ideal for the F-35;"
Again illustrating your lack of understanding of the realities of combat. If you think the F-35 is less than perfect for searching, you have to recognize that a small drone is a thousand times less suited. How close would a small drone with its extremely limited field of view have to get to spot a carrier group? By then, one would hope that the layered carrier aircraft defenses would have spotted it or the many EO/IR sensors on the ships would have spotted it. Could a drone (ignoring that it wouldn't have the range to get anywhere near a mid-ocean ship) somehow defy all odds and fly up to the bridge window of a carrier and snap a picture? Sure, it's theoretically possible but so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration but, hey, that's war. Stranger things have happened, I guess.
" asking about the approach towards the assault. "
DeleteYet again, this demonstrates that you may not understand the realities of combat on a global scale. As discussed above, the likelihood of detecting a force during transit is low. Layered on that reality is the reality that it probably doesn't matter all that much. The reaction time required for an enemy to, say, suddenly reinforce an assault site because the attacking force was spotted approaching, is weeks to months, not hours or even days.
Your view of war seems to encompass total drone coverage of the entire hemisphere, instantaneous communication, instantaneous enemy reactions, zero fog of war, and other unrealistic assumptions. You really need to study WWII, as a starting point, and understand the entire war, meaning distances, time, logistics, movements, etc. Sure, we can make worst case assumptions that the moment the first ship leaves port for an attack it will be spotted and seconds later the enemy will surge thousands of assets to destroy us but that's not realistic and would just lead to paralysis on our part. Consider the real world factors I've pointed out and most of your questions go away.
"I make no demands."
DeleteAs I said, I simply don't have the time, desire, or room to author an all-encompassing view of warfare! If you have a specific question, I'll gladly try to address it.
Consider the Normandy assault. The Germans knew it was coming. They knew the starting point of the assault force. They knew it was one of two locations. They knew approximately when it would occur. The English Channel was well within range of all manner of German sensors and aircraft. ... ... ... And yet the Germans were still surprised due to the realities of war that are failing to recognize.
Delete"Think about your statement about a line of drones. Do you have some vision that the air above the entire Pacific Ocean will be crowded with drones thereby assuring detection of any ship that moves?"
DeleteYou know what's funny? The source of my confusion was mixing up the Shahed 131 and the Shahed 149, taking the best attributes from each—2,500 km range of a 149, $75,000 price tag of a 131. Giving me the severely mistaken picture that a few thousand 2,500 km recon platforms per year would be ridiculously affordable.
So, I'll go do a bunch more math and see what I come up with.
" If you think the F-35 is less than perfect for searching, you have to recognize that a small drone is a thousand times less suited."
This is why I think you should make a drone post. If you wanted to secure the skies above a task force, couldn't you build a carrier-based drone with the same sensor package of an F-35 for cheaper than an F-35? Save carrier bandwidth with a smaller number of 5th gens airborne, but maintain a good passive sensor picture of the surrounding skies.
"How close would a small drone with its extremely limited field of view have to get to spot a carrier group?"
Some drones have a large field of view. The term "drone" is not very specific.
"Your view of war seems to encompass total drone coverage of the entire hemisphere, instantaneous communication, instantaneous enemy reactions, zero fog of war, and other unrealistic assumptions."
This is probably the key point. My view is extremely colored by the Ukraine war, I've spent much more time and energy on that than damn near anything else in the last four years. I have a lot of very basic heuristics that need to be broken.
"2,500 km range"
DeleteDo you understand what range really is? This is another reality that few people grasp.
A drone with 2500 km range? ! Great! I can send my drone out 2500 km to look for the evil American dogs. Of course, the moment you reach 2500 km, the drone will have to turn back. If you want it to be able to stay and conduct a search then you can't go 2500 km. You can only go, say, 1200 km because you need the rest of the range for the search pattern. Depending on the size of the search area, the "range" may be <1000 km.
Range is not distance, it's actually time aloft. Thus, those clouds of drones you envision searching for American carriers at 2500 km can't really do that. They can conduct searches at something around half or less of their stated range. That, in turn, means that the launch site/vessel for the drones has to be within around 1000 km of the American carrier which, of course, is conducting its own searches and either knows where your launch site is (for a fixed, land based facility) or is as likely, or more likely, to find your launch vessel than you are to find the carrier. In addition, the carrier can shoot down your drones. Your drones can't do anything to stop American search aircraft.
Reality has a way of spoiling our perfect visions of war.
If you are drawing lessons from Ukraine you are making a serious mistake. I've thoroughly demonstrated that Ukraine-Russia is a highly atypical situation being conducted by two shockingly inept sides. Drawing any conclusions is risky and trying to then apply incorrect conclusion to a naval setting is certain to be wrong.
DeleteIf you want to understand naval warfare, study WWII and then, with naval warfare concepts firmly in mind, look at Ukraine to see what from that is applicable. Hint: not much!
You see why I'm perhaps a bit annoyed? You're putting forth totally invalid concepts and trying to apply them to a setting they are not applicable to. I'm sorry but there's only so much time I'm willing to devote to educating you about the basics of naval warfare.
"Of course, the moment you reach 2500 km, the drone will have to turn back"
DeleteNot even. Very deep misreading on my part, I assumed that range was one-way since Geran-1 is a cruise missile and they don't often come back, by design.
Geran-1/Shahed-131 cost $75,000 for Iran. PPP advantages and all that, assume it would cost China $200,000. My conception was that you launch 300 per day on one-way searches, and send a real drone if they drop a red flag. Launch the way the Russians and Ukrainians do, very austere dirt catapults.
The idea is bunk, the whole math needs to be redone because the 2,500 km drones are not the cheap ones. So I need to go fact-find again and come up with a price estimate for an austere drone, maximum endurance 3000 ish km, good enough sensors to spot a fleet under EMCON.
"If you are drawing lessons from Ukraine you are making a serious mistake."
Drawing lessons was three and a half years ago, the Ukraine War is a native language now. And I'm learning a whole new language with naval warfare. How long would it take you to rival your English literacy in Tagalog?
Not a defense, just an explanation. It takes a while to shake the old way. I'm reading.
Another aspect of drones that everyone ignores is communications. How do you get a control signal to a drone that is thousands of miles away? How do you secure that comm signal? How do you get broadband, raw drone sensor data back to a control station/computer that can begin to analyze it? How do you keep the enemy from detecting that communication? The more drones you send out, continually broadcasting both ways, the more certain you/they are to be detected. All of these capabilities cost money. Do the drones that you're basing your conclusions on have all these capabilities? If they're Iranian drones, I doubt it but I don't know. You can get away, perhaps, with limited capabilities when you're line of sight, low power/signal but when you're trying to communicate thousands of miles away you need broadband comms and high power. Money!
DeleteWhat about navigation? GPS? INS? Money!