6 ms·

Drones are the new aircraft carriers. That is, pre-WWII, the dominant naval ship was the battleship. Heavily armored, with enormous guns, military planners expe

Drones are the new aircraft carriers. That is, pre-WWII, the dominant naval ship was the battleship. Heavily armored, with enormous guns, military planners expected that the battle for the Atlantic and Pacific would be carried out by these monsters slugging it out. Though there were hints that planes could be quite effective against ships, few admirals realized that the longer range of an aircraft carrier would make the battleships effectively obsolete in ship-ship battles. And after all, they'd spent a ton of money producing those battleships, and developing doctrine. Would you really want to throw that all away on some newfangled novelty? After Pearl Harbor, it became clear that the answer should have been Yes. Drones offer overwhelming advantages -- they're cheap and disposable. A drone generally costs less than the US missile used to shoot it down. You can lose 100 of them, and there will be no lives lost on your side. During WWII, by 1943 the European theater was essentially decided, except for a lot of killing. The US was producing tanks and planes so quickly that it was simply mathematically impossible for the Germans to counter them. Will the same thing happen when China decides to throw its manufacturing capacity into war drones?

dtwest 5y ago
When battleships and tanks are the weapon, manufacturing capacity powers the war machine. Perhaps drones usher in a new dynamic in that regard too. Maybe it's not how many drones you produce but how well programmed they are, what sensor or communication technology they use, etc.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Fit-for-purpose quality(including design, construction, tech) vs efficiency of production(cost) has always been a factor for the battlefield since forever. Iron vs bronze vs wood. In modern times, software already runs a lot of tanks/missiles/planes/ships/communications etc. As I see it the single biggest new factor is that "drone enabling software" significantly reworks hardware design parameters and thus affects manufacturing capacity. For example, in a plane, the drone technology allows removal of a lot of weight along with "human onboard" red tape safety factors while enlarging G force parameters. It has added other factors for control and operation. But on the whole it is deemed a quite significant win it seems. Drone on drone warfare leads to thinking about "software exploits" but on the battlefield it is always about exploits. Historically see spitfires and their limited ability to dive being exploited by the opposition but then being hardware "patched". edit: conciseness
magicsmoke 5y ago
A drone with the same range as a missile would be indistinguishable from a missile. A drone without the same range as a missile would likely have its carrier detected and destroyed before it can get in range to release it's drones. Drones are great for irregular forces that can hide among civilian populations or in dense terrain to have short ranged air strike capabilities cheaply, but they are not substitute for long range naval strikes.
- justaguy88 5y ago
  The drone swarm can have a carrier vehicle, like a (perhaps autonomous) big plane or sub to get it within range
  - ericd 5y ago
    Or perhaps a missile full of drones, similar to those bombs with lots of guided submunitions.
    - MikeDelta 5y ago
      Indeed, cheap and available in massive amounts also makes very dangerous. Funny that we see this in various computer games, ships with drone bays. What you mention would be a drone missile perhaps?
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      Tomahawk TLAM/D carries 166 submunitions in 24 canisters. There's no reason those submunitions need to be dumb — or stationary for that matter.
      - racnid 5y ago
        I can't seem to find any reference for what actual submunitions a Tomahawk carries but conventional cluster munitions can already be smart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon
  - 5y ago
f38zf5vdt 5y ago
Drones are the new infantry and land mines. For sea battles missiles still dominate, since all you need to do is destroy the ship with the drones. Drones fly around and autonomously eliminate targets while maintaining perimeters, which replaces infantry doing the same thing. Drones are easy to launch from land-based bases and due to their limited range are best suited to land-based operations. Aerial drones are easily countered by autonomous weapons systems that fire on drones quickly and accurately. Drones are able to be disabled with a single large bullet, which makes their cost exceptional once countered. I expect that land based drones will become a pretty big thing, since they can take advantage of cover and camouflage.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  The line between drone and missile is fuzzy at best. Most of the distinguishing characteristics often cited in these conversations are wrong. For instance, missiles are usually powered by rockets, but many missiles are powered by jet engines instead. Drones are usually meant to be reusable, but the first drones ever made were specifically expendable (which is why they are named after drone bees, which fly once before dying.) Loiter munitions are sometimes considered drones instead of missiles, but nobody doubts that a tomahawk cruise missile is a missile, and yet, a modern tomahawk is also a loiter munition that can cruise in a circle for hours. Sometimes autonomy is cited as a key characteristic of drones. But the first drones were pure-RC with no autonomy at all, while there are a myriad of autonomous missiles and non-autonomous human-guided missiles. So autonomy is not a distinguishing characteristic either.
  - magicsmoke 5y ago
    It feels like most of the recent fascination with drones is due to overlap with civilian off-the-shelf technology and the fantasy of being able to buy something that could potentially go toe to toe with advanced militaries. When in fact, militaries have always had "aerial munitions with varying degrees of intelligence and maneuverability and propulsion methods selected based on speed/maneuverability/range tradeoffs." An off the shelf quadcoptor is as far from military weaponry as a hand calculator is from a supercomputer even if they're both calculating machines. It's weird seeing this fascination with drones yet not seeing an analogous fascination for Toyota trucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
fighterpilot 5y ago
Plausible. One thing that makes China today different to the US of WW2 is that China's export oriented economy would collapse in a war with the West and their industrial production capabilities would be hurt significantly along with that.
- jude- 5y ago
  Doubtful. The CCP runs a command economy. It doesn't need to sell its goods to finance a war when the state can simply force the economy to produce the means of war. Want to stop China from waging war? Knock out its means of production -- target its imports.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    China has a mixed economy, not a command economy. My point is that the analogy of US in WW2 doesn't really hold up because the US had an excellent economy throughout WW2 relative to others which fueled their excess industrial production. China would be in the opposite situation - economic collapse. Would China be able to maintain industrial production by forcing workers and firms to produce equipment despite economic collapse? Perhaps. But the US in WW2 shouldn't be considered historical precedent, due to the above distinction.
  - godtoldmetodoit 5y ago
    Agreed - in this awful scenario where the US is fighting China, their economy would absolutely crater as the US shoots any ship heading towards Chinese ports after the embargo was declared. China can't feed itself. China only produces a third of the oil it consumes. If your people begin to starve as soon as war starts and you all of a sudden have 1/3rd the oil you used to.... well, that's not exactly a recipe for success.
    - hash872 5y ago
      They have a gigantic strategic oil reserve (it has its own Wiki page!), and I would assume the same for food as well. I'm sure that Pakistan and especially Russia would be happy to help with them as imports as well, maybe not as much as they use in a given year, but enough to help out. Most of the simulations for a naval war around Taiwan predict that it would be over in a few days, maybe weeks, but not long enough to really draw down those reserves. Most importantly, it's really not realistic that the US Navy could prevent the rest of planet Earth from providing goods to the world's largest trading nation. Our navy isn't big enough, for one thing, but the economic damage to every other country that imports into China makes this blockade idea pretty unrealistic. I can't even imagine how much inflation would spike when the world's factory can't export for a few weeks
sklearncowboy 5y ago
China was already way past this by the late 90s. This is old thinking. Same battlefield with different technology. The war that changed everything was the 1st Gulf War. 20 years ago they could see how stupid it was to use weapons to blow things up that cost more than what you were blowing up. Our military has already been lapped. We only don't think so because we waste so much money on outdated expensive weapon systems and then use the amount spent as proof we have the better military.
- cma 5y ago
  We also use it as a loss leader exhibition space to sell the tech to allied dictators that want to appear stong with fighter jets and stuff.
- woeirua 5y ago
  Which explains why China has spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to catch the US tech advantage? Please. This is comically false.
ethbr0 5y ago
The battleship vs carrier debate, as we understand it today, is incomplete. Carriers won over battleships in the 1930s, because of strike distance. Carriers won in the 1950s+ because they were the more upgradeable platform. If you built a battleship in 1945, and then developed a better cannon or missile in 1955, what were your options? If you built a carrier in 1945, and then developed better aircraft and armaments for them in 1955, you retooled your carrier air groups. The 4 Ohio class SSBN -> SSGN conversions are the same lesson. It's expensive to build a new boat. It's cheaper to put new things on a boat (of the right size / shape). Following that logic, the conclusion is to invest in robust, large drone delivery vehicles (aircraft or missiles), that allow for simpler, iterable micro-drone development.

dtwest 5y ago

When battleships and tanks are the weapon, manufacturing capacity powers the war machine. Perhaps drones usher in a new dynamic in that regard too. Maybe it's not how many drones you produce but how well programmed they are, what sensor or communication technology they use, etc.

_carbyau_ 5y ago
Fit-for-purpose quality(including design, construction, tech) vs efficiency of production(cost) has always been a factor for the battlefield since forever. Iron vs bronze vs wood. In modern times, software already runs a lot of tanks/missiles/planes/ships/communications etc. As I see it the single biggest new factor is that "drone enabling software" significantly reworks hardware design parameters and thus affects manufacturing capacity. For example, in a plane, the drone technology allows removal of a lot of weight along with "human onboard" red tape safety factors while enlarging G force parameters. It has added other factors for control and operation. But on the whole it is deemed a quite significant win it seems. Drone on drone warfare leads to thinking about "software exploits" but on the battlefield it is always about exploits. Historically see spitfires and their limited ability to dive being exploited by the opposition but then being hardware "patched". edit: conciseness

magicsmoke 5y ago

A drone with the same range as a missile would be indistinguishable from a missile. A drone without the same range as a missile would likely have its carrier detected and destroyed before it can get in range to release it's drones. Drones are great for irregular forces that can hide among civilian populations or in dense terrain to have short ranged air strike capabilities cheaply, but they are not substitute for long range naval strikes.

justaguy88 5y ago
The drone swarm can have a carrier vehicle, like a (perhaps autonomous) big plane or sub to get it within range
- ericd 5y ago
  Or perhaps a missile full of drones, similar to those bombs with lots of guided submunitions.
  - MikeDelta 5y ago
    Indeed, cheap and available in massive amounts also makes very dangerous. Funny that we see this in various computer games, ships with drone bays. What you mention would be a drone missile perhaps?
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    Tomahawk TLAM/D carries 166 submunitions in 24 canisters. There's no reason those submunitions need to be dumb — or stationary for that matter.
    - racnid 5y ago
      I can't seem to find any reference for what actual submunitions a Tomahawk carries but conventional cluster munitions can already be smart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon
- 5y ago

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

Drones are the new infantry and land mines. For sea battles missiles still dominate, since all you need to do is destroy the ship with the drones. Drones fly around and autonomously eliminate targets while maintaining perimeters, which replaces infantry doing the same thing. Drones are easy to launch from land-based bases and due to their limited range are best suited to land-based operations. Aerial drones are easily countered by autonomous weapons systems that fire on drones quickly and accurately. Drones are able to be disabled with a single large bullet, which makes their cost exceptional once countered. I expect that land based drones will become a pretty big thing, since they can take advantage of cover and camouflage.

wearywanderer 5y ago
The line between drone and missile is fuzzy at best. Most of the distinguishing characteristics often cited in these conversations are wrong. For instance, missiles are usually powered by rockets, but many missiles are powered by jet engines instead. Drones are usually meant to be reusable, but the first drones ever made were specifically expendable (which is why they are named after drone bees, which fly once before dying.) Loiter munitions are sometimes considered drones instead of missiles, but nobody doubts that a tomahawk cruise missile is a missile, and yet, a modern tomahawk is also a loiter munition that can cruise in a circle for hours. Sometimes autonomy is cited as a key characteristic of drones. But the first drones were pure-RC with no autonomy at all, while there are a myriad of autonomous missiles and non-autonomous human-guided missiles. So autonomy is not a distinguishing characteristic either.
- magicsmoke 5y ago
  It feels like most of the recent fascination with drones is due to overlap with civilian off-the-shelf technology and the fantasy of being able to buy something that could potentially go toe to toe with advanced militaries. When in fact, militaries have always had "aerial munitions with varying degrees of intelligence and maneuverability and propulsion methods selected based on speed/maneuverability/range tradeoffs." An off the shelf quadcoptor is as far from military weaponry as a hand calculator is from a supercomputer even if they're both calculating machines. It's weird seeing this fascination with drones yet not seeing an analogous fascination for Toyota trucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

fighterpilot 5y ago

Plausible. One thing that makes China today different to the US of WW2 is that China's export oriented economy would collapse in a war with the West and their industrial production capabilities would be hurt significantly along with that.

jude- 5y ago
Doubtful. The CCP runs a command economy. It doesn't need to sell its goods to finance a war when the state can simply force the economy to produce the means of war. Want to stop China from waging war? Knock out its means of production -- target its imports.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  China has a mixed economy, not a command economy. My point is that the analogy of US in WW2 doesn't really hold up because the US had an excellent economy throughout WW2 relative to others which fueled their excess industrial production. China would be in the opposite situation - economic collapse. Would China be able to maintain industrial production by forcing workers and firms to produce equipment despite economic collapse? Perhaps. But the US in WW2 shouldn't be considered historical precedent, due to the above distinction.
- godtoldmetodoit 5y ago
  Agreed - in this awful scenario where the US is fighting China, their economy would absolutely crater as the US shoots any ship heading towards Chinese ports after the embargo was declared. China can't feed itself. China only produces a third of the oil it consumes. If your people begin to starve as soon as war starts and you all of a sudden have 1/3rd the oil you used to.... well, that's not exactly a recipe for success.
  - hash872 5y ago
    They have a gigantic strategic oil reserve (it has its own Wiki page!), and I would assume the same for food as well. I'm sure that Pakistan and especially Russia would be happy to help with them as imports as well, maybe not as much as they use in a given year, but enough to help out. Most of the simulations for a naval war around Taiwan predict that it would be over in a few days, maybe weeks, but not long enough to really draw down those reserves. Most importantly, it's really not realistic that the US Navy could prevent the rest of planet Earth from providing goods to the world's largest trading nation. Our navy isn't big enough, for one thing, but the economic damage to every other country that imports into China makes this blockade idea pretty unrealistic. I can't even imagine how much inflation would spike when the world's factory can't export for a few weeks

sklearncowboy 5y ago

China was already way past this by the late 90s. This is old thinking. Same battlefield with different technology. The war that changed everything was the 1st Gulf War. 20 years ago they could see how stupid it was to use weapons to blow things up that cost more than what you were blowing up. Our military has already been lapped. We only don't think so because we waste so much money on outdated expensive weapon systems and then use the amount spent as proof we have the better military.

cma 5y ago
We also use it as a loss leader exhibition space to sell the tech to allied dictators that want to appear stong with fighter jets and stuff.
woeirua 5y ago
Which explains why China has spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to catch the US tech advantage? Please. This is comically false.

ethbr0 5y ago

The battleship vs carrier debate, as we understand it today, is incomplete. Carriers won over battleships in the 1930s, because of strike distance. Carriers won in the 1950s+ because they were the more upgradeable platform. If you built a battleship in 1945, and then developed a better cannon or missile in 1955, what were your options? If you built a carrier in 1945, and then developed better aircraft and armaments for them in 1955, you retooled your carrier air groups. The 4 Ohio class SSBN -> SSGN conversions are the same lesson. It's expensive to build a new boat. It's cheaper to put new things on a boat (of the right size / shape). Following that logic, the conclusion is to invest in robust, large drone delivery vehicles (aircraft or missiles), that allow for simpler, iterable micro-drone development.