4 ms·

I totally agree. Surface ships are now just sitting ducks. Does the US have more carriers under construction? You need carriers to launch planes, but I guess th

I totally agree. Surface ships are now just sitting ducks. Does the US have more carriers under construction? You need carriers to launch planes, but I guess the future could be quadcopter drones launched from subs?

PeterisP 4y ago
The concept of "carriers" might change as they start to carry smaller unmanned planes - quadcopters tend to be at a disadvantage to fixed wing drones when longer ranges and longer loiter times are required. The solution to ship-killer weapons is decentralization, replacing a single juicy target with many dispersed targets. A Predator or Bayraktar sized drone designed for naval operations could be launched from a "dronecarrier" much, much smaller and cheaper than the current carriers.
- zeusk 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  You don't necessarily need a light UCAV to make this work, for the record the variant B of the F35 is easier to deploy from smaller boats than a TB2 or a predator while also being orders of magnitude more capable.
- nradov 4y ago
  The size of carriers is driven not so much by the size of strike aircraft (regardless of whether they're manned or unmanned), but rather by the need to launch larger AWACS aircraft, conduct flight operations in heavy sea states, provide enough hangar space for maintenance work, and carry enough aviation fuel and munitions for several days of high intensity operations. Even a slight decrease in size severely impacts those areas. In other words, carrier effectiveness doesn't scale linearly with size; a 20% reduction in size might result in a 40% loss of effectiveness. And a hypothetical drone carrier probably wouldn't even be much cheaper.
the__alchemist 4y ago
Why do you figure quads over fixed/wing or VTOL? Quads, compared to every other propulsion model, are inefficient. What you buy is mechanical simplicity, and its associated durability/repair-ability.
simonblack 4y ago
You need carriers to launch planes But are planes the most cost-effective form of throwing high-explosive long distances? Once, they were. They had a much greater range than a battleship's guns and thus obsoleted the battleship. These days, missiles have double the range of carrier aircraft. So a very inexpensive frigate with long-range missiles is far more cost-effective than a huge expensive Carrier Group. (Most of the Group's ships are there merely to protect and support the carrier. Without the carrier, they are redundant. Sure, a Group looks big and powerful, but cost-effective? No.)
- nradov 4y ago
  Long-range missiles can only work if you know in advance where the target will be. Manned tactical aircraft are still far better at searching out unknown targets, and at handling dynamic situations like close air support. Perhaps that will change in a few decades as sensors and AI technology improve, but the reality today is that long-range missiles simply can't fulfill the required mission set.

PeterisP 4y ago

The concept of "carriers" might change as they start to carry smaller unmanned planes - quadcopters tend to be at a disadvantage to fixed wing drones when longer ranges and longer loiter times are required. The solution to ship-killer weapons is decentralization, replacing a single juicy target with many dispersed targets. A Predator or Bayraktar sized drone designed for naval operations could be launched from a "dronecarrier" much, much smaller and cheaper than the current carriers.

zeusk 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI
littlestymaar 4y ago
You don't necessarily need a light UCAV to make this work, for the record the variant B of the F35 is easier to deploy from smaller boats than a TB2 or a predator while also being orders of magnitude more capable.
nradov 4y ago
The size of carriers is driven not so much by the size of strike aircraft (regardless of whether they're manned or unmanned), but rather by the need to launch larger AWACS aircraft, conduct flight operations in heavy sea states, provide enough hangar space for maintenance work, and carry enough aviation fuel and munitions for several days of high intensity operations. Even a slight decrease in size severely impacts those areas. In other words, carrier effectiveness doesn't scale linearly with size; a 20% reduction in size might result in a 40% loss of effectiveness. And a hypothetical drone carrier probably wouldn't even be much cheaper.

the__alchemist 4y ago

Why do you figure quads over fixed/wing or VTOL? Quads, compared to every other propulsion model, are inefficient. What you buy is mechanical simplicity, and its associated durability/repair-ability.

simonblack 4y ago

You need carriers to launch planes But are planes the most cost-effective form of throwing high-explosive long distances? Once, they were. They had a much greater range than a battleship's guns and thus obsoleted the battleship. These days, missiles have double the range of carrier aircraft. So a very inexpensive frigate with long-range missiles is far more cost-effective than a huge expensive Carrier Group. (Most of the Group's ships are there merely to protect and support the carrier. Without the carrier, they are redundant. Sure, a Group looks big and powerful, but cost-effective? No.)

nradov 4y ago
Long-range missiles can only work if you know in advance where the target will be. Manned tactical aircraft are still far better at searching out unknown targets, and at handling dynamic situations like close air support. Perhaps that will change in a few decades as sensors and AI technology improve, but the reality today is that long-range missiles simply can't fulfill the required mission set.