6 ms·

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 th

by 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.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        I'm not entirely sure if the Russian strategy on the Eastern Front was a "good strategy", but the Russian soldiers at least had the benefit of knowing where the enemy was. A drone flying out to sea doesn't know where the enemy ships are. The horizon is 30km away to 50km, depending on how high the drone is flying. E2 Hawkeyes fly very high, so they see out 300km. Any reasonable fight will have the E2 Hawkeye spot the mass of drones long before the drones spot the ships. Once we account for how cheap bullets are and how effective they are on an aimbot (be it an F18 fighter or a CIWS on a ship), it seems impossible for a swarm of drones to even think about approaching any ship.
        lostlogin 5y ago
        > I'm not entirely sure if the Russian strategy on the Eastern Front was a "good strategy", but the Russian soldiers at least had the benefit of knowing where the enemy was. For sure, and the cost was immense. It worked though. It might not be cost effective but that alone isn’t the full picture. Taking out a ship or carrier or something would be an incredible PR win/loss depending on one’s side and would change everyone’s strategies.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        But that still begs the question. What's the launch platform? How do you program the drones to find its target? Its not too hard to imagine the drone as a slow-moving missile, with maybe a similar launch platform where drones can be easily programmed with GPS-coordinates and go off on their mission. But the minute we think about logistics of storing, programming, and deploying this hypothetical weapon... we realize that we're just building a really crappy version of the MLRS (multiple-launch rocket system).
- adventured 5y ago
  What kind of drones is an adversary fielding in large numbers for a few thousand dollars per drone? And how far can said toy drones fly so as to reach a destroyer in the first place? Unless we're talking about China or Russia, how are they going to manufacture, move and maintenance those drones once we've pancaked their infrastructure? The adversary will be under non-stop bombardment, all of their relevant infrastructure will be targeted, all major manufacturing, their electrical grid, all transport roads, all rail, all bridges, all ports. How are they getting the toy drones out to deep water if they have no ports? How will they manufacture replacement boats / ships with no manufacturing? And so on. Sure, if we're talking about war with China or Russia, that's entirely different. Then you're talking about something closer to WW3 (and good luck). Everyone else is trivial to cripple.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I mean, I worry about "drones" like the DF-21. Except most people call the DF-21 a "ship-killer hypersonic missile" (with big questions on whether or not it actually works as China claims) That's the thing: "drones" that most people are talking about in these discussions are just really bad Tomahawk cruise missiles or really really bad ICBMs.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > What kind of drones is an adversary fielding in large numbers for a few thousand dollars per drone? I linked an example of such a drone up-thread; $5k. 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... > how are they going to manufacture, move and maintenance those drones once we've pancaked their infrastructure? You build the drones before the war, not during. > And how far can said toy drones fly so as to reach a destroyer in the first place? Doesn't have to be too far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz We're on a thread about Pearl Harbor, after all. Load up thousands of drones on a number of container ships and do a surprise attack with them.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
dragontamer 5y ago
> how many drones could a destroyer Destroyers aren't even anti-air. Cruisers are, since Cruisers have two CWIS per ship while Destoyers only have 1x CWIS.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer absolutely perform air-defense roles. England's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer are primarily in an anti-air and anti-missile role, even.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I was under the impression that modern Destroyers were a combination of air-defense and anti-submarine defenses. While Modern Cruisers were closer to specializing in the air-defense role. But yes, Destroyers have lots of anti-air on them for sure.
- jeffdn 5y ago
  Yes, but CWIS isn't the only anti-air defense on a US Navy ship -- there's also the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, as well as vertically-launched anti-air missiles (RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile). CWIS is the weapon of last resort, after all of the other anti-air options have failed. Additionally, ships are usually not alone. The other vessels in the battlegroup will also provide their anti-air capabilities. If they are with an aircraft carrier, then there are also planes to provide air defense.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    The alleged argument... is apparently that quadcopter drones are cheaper than missiles. So the enemy can always deploy more suicide quadcopter drones than missiles. ------ Which seems like an insanely bad strategy to me, because of the whole CIWS thing. Sure, you negate the usefulness of missiles by making drones cheaper, but you can't negate the cheapness of a CIWS, or the gatling gun of an F18 Hornet / F35B / F35C. That's why we still use guns today: because bullets are really, really cheap.

by enkid 5y ago

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.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        I'm not entirely sure if the Russian strategy on the Eastern Front was a "good strategy", but the Russian soldiers at least had the benefit of knowing where the enemy was. A drone flying out to sea doesn't know where the enemy ships are. The horizon is 30km away to 50km, depending on how high the drone is flying. E2 Hawkeyes fly very high, so they see out 300km. Any reasonable fight will have the E2 Hawkeye spot the mass of drones long before the drones spot the ships. Once we account for how cheap bullets are and how effective they are on an aimbot (be it an F18 fighter or a CIWS on a ship), it seems impossible for a swarm of drones to even think about approaching any ship.
        lostlogin 5y ago
        > I'm not entirely sure if the Russian strategy on the Eastern Front was a "good strategy", but the Russian soldiers at least had the benefit of knowing where the enemy was. For sure, and the cost was immense. It worked though. It might not be cost effective but that alone isn’t the full picture. Taking out a ship or carrier or something would be an incredible PR win/loss depending on one’s side and would change everyone’s strategies.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        But that still begs the question. What's the launch platform? How do you program the drones to find its target? Its not too hard to imagine the drone as a slow-moving missile, with maybe a similar launch platform where drones can be easily programmed with GPS-coordinates and go off on their mission. But the minute we think about logistics of storing, programming, and deploying this hypothetical weapon... we realize that we're just building a really crappy version of the MLRS (multiple-launch rocket system).
adventured 5y ago
What kind of drones is an adversary fielding in large numbers for a few thousand dollars per drone? And how far can said toy drones fly so as to reach a destroyer in the first place? Unless we're talking about China or Russia, how are they going to manufacture, move and maintenance those drones once we've pancaked their infrastructure? The adversary will be under non-stop bombardment, all of their relevant infrastructure will be targeted, all major manufacturing, their electrical grid, all transport roads, all rail, all bridges, all ports. How are they getting the toy drones out to deep water if they have no ports? How will they manufacture replacement boats / ships with no manufacturing? And so on. Sure, if we're talking about war with China or Russia, that's entirely different. Then you're talking about something closer to WW3 (and good luck). Everyone else is trivial to cripple.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  I mean, I worry about "drones" like the DF-21. Except most people call the DF-21 a "ship-killer hypersonic missile" (with big questions on whether or not it actually works as China claims) That's the thing: "drones" that most people are talking about in these discussions are just really bad Tomahawk cruise missiles or really really bad ICBMs.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > What kind of drones is an adversary fielding in large numbers for a few thousand dollars per drone? I linked an example of such a drone up-thread; $5k. 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... > how are they going to manufacture, move and maintenance those drones once we've pancaked their infrastructure? You build the drones before the war, not during. > And how far can said toy drones fly so as to reach a destroyer in the first place? Doesn't have to be too far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz We're on a thread about Pearl Harbor, after all. Load up thousands of drones on a number of container ships and do a surprise attack with them.
  - dragontamer 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago

> how many drones could a destroyer Destroyers aren't even anti-air. Cruisers are, since Cruisers have two CWIS per ship while Destoyers only have 1x CWIS.

ceejayoz 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer absolutely perform air-defense roles. England's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer are primarily in an anti-air and anti-missile role, even.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  I was under the impression that modern Destroyers were a combination of air-defense and anti-submarine defenses. While Modern Cruisers were closer to specializing in the air-defense role. But yes, Destroyers have lots of anti-air on them for sure.
jeffdn 5y ago
Yes, but CWIS isn't the only anti-air defense on a US Navy ship -- there's also the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, as well as vertically-launched anti-air missiles (RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile). CWIS is the weapon of last resort, after all of the other anti-air options have failed. Additionally, ships are usually not alone. The other vessels in the battlegroup will also provide their anti-air capabilities. If they are with an aircraft carrier, then there are also planes to provide air defense.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  The alleged argument... is apparently that quadcopter drones are cheaper than missiles. So the enemy can always deploy more suicide quadcopter drones than missiles. ------ Which seems like an insanely bad strategy to me, because of the whole CIWS thing. Sure, you negate the usefulness of missiles by making drones cheaper, but you can't negate the cheapness of a CIWS, or the gatling gun of an F18 Hornet / F35B / F35C. That's why we still use guns today: because bullets are really, really cheap.