7 ms·

I recall an HN comment that the Van Riper story leaves out some details. Like, while he used motorcycle couriers, they were simulated. In network terms, they ha

I recall an HN comment that the Van Riper story leaves out some details. Like, while he used motorcycle couriers, they were simulated. In network terms, they had low latency and no "packet loss". But it sounds funny, so it gets repeated without the qualifications. Same thing with the F-15 vs F-22 fight, where the F-22's had to visually identify targets before engaging, stripping them of advantages. That said, I don't think the US Navy is prepared for drone zerg tactics. I hope I'm wrong.

foxyv 5y ago
Even the MQ-9 has a top speed of 200 knots. Way too slow to overwhelm defenses. Most drones are hardly better than a typical fighter jet or a cruise missile. Cruise missiles have been around for decades now and we have pretty good defenses for them. Drones cheap enough to be produced in massive quantities cannot carry enough payload to be effective against modern ships unless you are in such a short range you may as well shoot a shell at the target. However, the autonomous F-16 project is something else. Small radar cross section, datalink guided missiles, AIM-120Ds and ship killer missiles on an autonomous fighter platform is just scary.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Way too slow to overwhelm defenses. Doesn't much matter if the battle group runs out of ammo. They've only got a few hundred anti-aircraft missiles between them; hundreds of drones wouldn't be fun to have to deal with. Imagine a thousand of something like these: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-weapon-brings-power-peril-u-s-military-n1285415 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-we... lining the Strait of Hormuz.
  - enkid 5y ago
    They don't have to use a missile to shoot down every drone. [0] That being said, it's a good question, how many drones could a destroyer shoot down, between the missiles, CIWS systems and other defensive equipment? I have a feeling it's a lot, but I have nothing actually supporting that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      CIWS has 1500 round magazines and fires 60-100 in a burst. As with the missiles, fairly easy to overload. I've no doubt a modern warship can shoot down a lot of drones, but at a few thousand bucks a pop, an adversary can field a lot of drones.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        CIWS shoots bullets, which are cheaper than drones. Much much much cheaper than drones. EDIT: CIWS shoot 20mm autocannons, which are estimated to be $30 per shot.
        lostlogin 5y ago
        > CIWS shoots bullets, which are cheaper than drones. Much much much cheaper than drones. Much cheaper until they run out. If (a big if) one drone can disable the ship, it’s all suddenly very worthwhile.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        Generally speaking, charging into an aimbot gatling gun that has the sensor-network + AI system to shoot down 500mph targets is a bad idea. Especially when said gatling gun reloads in just 4 minutes, you're over water with no terrain to hide behind except the horizon, the horizon is 30km out, and the supporting aircraft (E2-Hawkeye) can see 300km out because its the eye-in-the-sky. ------ Hoping that the enemy runs out of $30 bullets before you run out of $1000+ drones is... a bad bet I think
        lostlogin 5y ago
        That’s the strategy that has been employed by armies for a long time - see Vietnam, the WW2 eastern front and numerous other conflicts. But instead of equipment versus equipment it was lots of ill trained farmers versus relatively few well trained soldiers.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    Anything you can fit in a backpack is not causing damage to a warship.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      That's also a good point. Warships have the thickest armor out of everything in our armory by a significant margin. The M1 Abrams has 350mm armor, the biggest, baddest tank of the US Army. The Arleigh Burke Destroyer doesn't have one armor plate like the M1 Abrams: it has multiple plates wrapping other plates wrapping its hull which wraps Kevlar to protect the people inside. It turns out that boats can just have much much thicker armor than any tank, because floating is much easier than moving with an engine.
q1w2 5y ago
> I don't think the US Navy is prepared for drone zerg tactics. I don't think any military is. Look at what happened to Armenia recently.
- wikidani 5y ago
  I believe that the Armenian defeat was caused by their soviet era tactics and command and the fact that the Azeris had a way better strategic position than the Armenians. Also, drones could have been replaced with pretty much any other plane on that war, Armenia just didn't have air superiority, air defense or mitigation tactics on the lower levels
  - AniseAbyss 5y ago
    Armenia defeated Azerbeidzjan in the early 90s, whom then spent 30 years building up their military forces with oil money and get revenge. The outcome was never in question. It's perhaps not all that dissimilar a story with China's PLA.
    - adventured 5y ago
      Who defeated or went to war with China's PLA in the comparison story? Vietnam?
      - AniseAbyss 5y ago
        Taiwan. It was the US Navy that made it clear that they would fire upon any Chinese who went after the fleeing Nationalists. Mao actually assumed the USSR would back him up but he was betrayed.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    > I believe that the Armenian defeat was caused by their soviet era tactics and command The military doctrine hasn't changed much from the soviet era, except guess what: drones!

foxyv 5y ago

Even the MQ-9 has a top speed of 200 knots. Way too slow to overwhelm defenses. Most drones are hardly better than a typical fighter jet or a cruise missile. Cruise missiles have been around for decades now and we have pretty good defenses for them. Drones cheap enough to be produced in massive quantities cannot carry enough payload to be effective against modern ships unless you are in such a short range you may as well shoot a shell at the target. However, the autonomous F-16 project is something else. Small radar cross section, datalink guided missiles, AIM-120Ds and ship killer missiles on an autonomous fighter platform is just scary.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Way too slow to overwhelm defenses. Doesn't much matter if the battle group runs out of ammo. They've only got a few hundred anti-aircraft missiles between them; hundreds of drones wouldn't be fun to have to deal with. Imagine a thousand of something like these: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-weapon-brings-power-peril-u-s-military-n1285415 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-we... lining the Strait of Hormuz.
- enkid 5y ago
  They don't have to use a missile to shoot down every drone. [0] That being said, it's a good question, how many drones could a destroyer shoot down, between the missiles, CIWS systems and other defensive equipment? I have a feeling it's a lot, but I have nothing actually supporting that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    CIWS has 1500 round magazines and fires 60-100 in a burst. As with the missiles, fairly easy to overload. I've no doubt a modern warship can shoot down a lot of drones, but at a few thousand bucks a pop, an adversary can field a lot of drones.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      CIWS shoots bullets, which are cheaper than drones. Much much much cheaper than drones. EDIT: CIWS shoot 20mm autocannons, which are estimated to be $30 per shot.
      - lostlogin 5y ago
        > CIWS shoots bullets, which are cheaper than drones. Much much much cheaper than drones. Much cheaper until they run out. If (a big if) one drone can disable the ship, it’s all suddenly very worthwhile.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        Generally speaking, charging into an aimbot gatling gun that has the sensor-network + AI system to shoot down 500mph targets is a bad idea. Especially when said gatling gun reloads in just 4 minutes, you're over water with no terrain to hide behind except the horizon, the horizon is 30km out, and the supporting aircraft (E2-Hawkeye) can see 300km out because its the eye-in-the-sky. ------ Hoping that the enemy runs out of $30 bullets before you run out of $1000+ drones is... a bad bet I think
        lostlogin 5y ago
        That’s the strategy that has been employed by armies for a long time - see Vietnam, the WW2 eastern front and numerous other conflicts. But instead of equipment versus equipment it was lots of ill trained farmers versus relatively few well trained soldiers.
- panzagl 5y ago
  Anything you can fit in a backpack is not causing damage to a warship.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    That's also a good point. Warships have the thickest armor out of everything in our armory by a significant margin. The M1 Abrams has 350mm armor, the biggest, baddest tank of the US Army. The Arleigh Burke Destroyer doesn't have one armor plate like the M1 Abrams: it has multiple plates wrapping other plates wrapping its hull which wraps Kevlar to protect the people inside. It turns out that boats can just have much much thicker armor than any tank, because floating is much easier than moving with an engine.

q1w2 5y ago

> I don't think the US Navy is prepared for drone zerg tactics. I don't think any military is. Look at what happened to Armenia recently.

wikidani 5y ago
I believe that the Armenian defeat was caused by their soviet era tactics and command and the fact that the Azeris had a way better strategic position than the Armenians. Also, drones could have been replaced with pretty much any other plane on that war, Armenia just didn't have air superiority, air defense or mitigation tactics on the lower levels
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Armenia defeated Azerbeidzjan in the early 90s, whom then spent 30 years building up their military forces with oil money and get revenge. The outcome was never in question. It's perhaps not all that dissimilar a story with China's PLA.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Who defeated or went to war with China's PLA in the comparison story? Vietnam?
    - AniseAbyss 5y ago
      Taiwan. It was the US Navy that made it clear that they would fire upon any Chinese who went after the fleeing Nationalists. Mao actually assumed the USSR would back him up but he was betrayed.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > I believe that the Armenian defeat was caused by their soviet era tactics and command The military doctrine hasn't changed much from the soviet era, except guess what: drones!