4 ms·

I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship mi

I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship missiles. Smaller ships acting as drone carriers combined with arsenal ships can allow local power projection to keep shipping lanes open. Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. The aircraft carrier does have a role, but it is far behind the contact line.

oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
jabl 2y ago
> The aircraft carrier does have a role, but it is far behind the contact line. That's why they're called 'aircraft carriers'. The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. They don't need to sail the carrier right up beside the enemy in order to hit him with their swords, you know. Jokes aside, there might (eventually, maybe not today?) be a point in what you're saying. It's been a long time since 1945 when carriers last were used in a major peer conflict, and a lot has changed since then.
- Yeul 2y ago
  NATO exercises always ended with the nukes.
  - ragnot 2y ago
    Hence the emphasis on cyber and (US) dollar attack vectors. War without the bullets.
    - einpoklum 2y ago
      US dollar attack vectors are gradually drying up. Ironically, the more they are used - e.g. in sanctions - the stronger the motivation for detachment from USD as a reserve currency and direct trade in the parties' own currencies. Plus - how much of the world can the US sanction at the same time before it's only the select few that it trades with? Russia + Iran + China + Venezuela + Mexico + Canada + + + ...
    - Neonlicht 2y ago
      I agree. Mao once said that he was willing to accept US atomic bombs. But that was when China didn't have fancy cities... Both sides are simply too vulnerable in an all out war. Xi wants to make China great again he doesn't want a nuclear wasteland.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. Cruise missiles have ranges >1500km: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family) And they're putting missiles in shipping containers so as long as you have a flat surface you can place them just about anywhere: * https://gcaptain.com/pacific-dragon-is-the-shipping-industry-ready-for-containerized-missile-warfare/ https://gcaptain.com/pacific-dragon-is-the-shipping-industry...
Ylpertnodi 2y ago
>Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. Until drones carrying drones carrying drones becomes a thing.
- XorNot 2y ago
  That doesn't mean anything. There's no reason to think a drone carrier ship would be smaller or cheaper then an aircraft carrier (if it was providing air capability at similar ranges, and if it's not then it'll be much more vulnerable).
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    Ships can also loiter and provide better cargo capacity for that sustained presence compared to aircraft which is it's own benefit. To replicate that with an air based carrier you'd have to have more of them flying in shifts to maintain presence and coverage of the area.
  - indymike 2y ago
    It depends on what kind of drones you are operating doesn't it? Range, speed and payload seems to be the drivers for gigantism in military vehicles. So if you look at shorter range, or more accurate, smaller explosive delivery, you don't need a USS Ford size thing to act as a mobile base for them. One of the big lessons in Ukraine is that small, cheap and accurate works.
    - ianburrell 2y ago
      The Marines are working in close support drone for their amphibious ships. The proposals are the size of helicopters. The problem is that can’t do short range from ships because it is too dangerous to get close to shore. Anti-ship missiles are common now, and guided artillery and glide bombs are possible. Finally, drones haven’t been useful against ships in Red Sea, and some are good size. Speed matters for getting through defenses. The slow and small ones can be shot down by guns or rockets, the fast ones are anti-ship missiles.
iuscommune 2y ago
Agree - this is a key lesson of the Falklands War which, despite being in the 80s, is one of the few hot naval wars of the missile age.
bluGill 2y ago
close ship on ship battle is dead but large ships are needed for large long range weapons that can hit opposing targets that cannot be seen. a wwi battleship could ignore a small drone of today - a much larger system is needed to sink a ship.
- deltarholamda 2y ago
  Can a large ship, or any ship, intercept a hypersonic missile? Because that's the reality of today.
  - greedo 2y ago
    Yes. Patriot has intercepted Kinzals in Ukraine (and older versions of Patriot at that), so the tech is well established. SM3/SM6 missiles on Aegis equipped ships can defend themselves against hypersonic missiles.
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      Patriot has not reliably intercepted Kizhals, they needed an uneconomic interceptor ratio which in a ship would lead to interceptor depletion and failure; at the same time Kizhals is even slower than something like the DF-21 or DF-ZF. It's a similar story for SM-2/3, in the Red Sea they faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave, and even then many missiles were not intercepted, we just got lucky that they missed.
      - indymike 2y ago
        > faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave Depletion is the problem with destroyers. Something like an arsenal ship (think instead of 90-120 missiles, being loaded out with 300) would make more sense. Cheap drones are more of a depletion problem than are hypersonics.
      - greedo 2y ago
        Again, the versions of Patriot handed over to Ukraine are not the latest versions, so their performance might not be illustrative. And we don't know the strategy used by Ukraine; they might feel like bigger salvos are worth bringing down hypersonics. SM6 is the primary USN weapon against hypersonic, not the SM2/SM3. SM3 is primarily designed for ballistic missile defense.
openasocket 2y ago
But submarines require a shipbuilding revolution too! The total number of submarines in US Navy service has been steadily decreasing over the last decade or so. We don't have the industrial capacity to build submarines faster than our old ones are decommissioning. The issue actually isn't with carriers, I believe we're more or less on schedule with carrier building. The issue where this is most apparent is submarines, and also with the merchant fleet (which would be needed during wartime to ship supplies).
- indymike 2y ago
  I'm not sure how much longer submarines will be militarily relevant. Longer for sure than large surface combatants, but we're relying largely on hiding for defense... and there's no guarantee that hiding will work forever.
  - openasocket 2y ago
    Sure, but if you are holding out for something that will be militarily relevant forever, you're going to be waiting a long time :) I also think the concerns about the the ability of large ships to defend themselves in modern combat are a bit overblown. Just because there exists a weapon system that can defeat something, doesn't mean that thing is irrelevant. You'll see all these comparisons of the cost of a surface combatant with the cost of an anti-ship missile or drone as though that decides the matter. But it really doesn't. It costs a ton of money to train and equip and infantry soldier, and yet you can kill that solider with a bullet that costs pennies. Does that mean infantry have been obsolete for the last few centuries? Of course not! A system is not obsolete until something comes along that can perform that same role, but better.
ianburrell 2y ago
The aircraft carrier needs to be protected by surface ships. Submarines can’t shoot down missiles. Drone ships can’t do the job unless they are the size of destroyer. Ships on long deployments need maintenance, so now you have manned ship. We almost can’t make automomous ships, they need Arsenal ships are a bad idea because putting all the missiles in one basket. It is better to have 3 destroyers that can cover different directions, or go on separate missions. The Navy has finally figured out reloading, it is much better to send one ship away to reload and still keep defense.
machiaweliczny 2y ago
True, Hitler mostly lost a war due to megalomania and spending 1/4th of naval budget on big destroyer instead of producing more ubots.
- pphysch 2y ago
  How did lack of Uboats make him lose the Eastern Front?
  - indymike 2y ago
    Failure to disrupt US shipping lanes to the Allies resulted in Germany having to fight much better-equipped Allied forces. A tank, a howitzer, or a truck on the bottom of the ocean is not a threat. The amount of equipment shipped to the USSR by the US is staggering as well, and one can argue that the Eastern Front would have collapsed without those supplies. More U-boats likely would have dramatically changed the war.
philwelch 2y ago
The problem with arsenal ships is twofold. One, we don’t have enough missiles to fill the ships we have now, let alone a ship specialized to carry as many missiles as possible. Two, missiles and ships are like eggs and baskets. To counteract the egg/basket problem you want to distribute your missiles among multiple ships, and then equip those ships with sensors and defensive systems so they’re harder to sink and so you can develop a detailed picture of the battlespace. We have a name for that kind of ship; it’s a guided missile destroyer. You can go smaller (that’s called a guided missile frigate) but thanks to the square cube law, a bigger ship can carry much more than twice as much missiles, sensors, etc. as two ships that are half the size. You also get economies of scale on maintenance. There are tradeoffs here, and the DDG as the backbone of the surface fleet and the guardian of the aircraft carrier is a great solution to those tradeoffs. Don’t be a doomer when it comes to the arms race between missiles and air defense. Air defense can defeat a concentrated missile/drone attack, as we’ve seen in the two recent Iranian attacks on Israel. There are novel air attack threats from drones, but there are also novel air defense systems to counter them such as lasers (https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520). If I had to guess I’d say that the balance is actually shifting in favor of air defense on net. I do agree with you that submarines are important. In fact the Ohio class SSGN practically is an arsenal ship. The problem with submarines is that they have to operate as lone wolves. Surface ships and carrier aircraft can share sensor data and use sensor fusion to construct a shared picture of the battlespace, but submarines can’t be looped into the network without exposing themselves. Again, tradeoffs. And usually the solution to these tradeoffs is combined arms—you build a task force with a carrier, some surface ships, and some submarines and each ship has its own job to do to cover the weaknesses of the others.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

jabl 2y ago

> The aircraft carrier does have a role, but it is far behind the contact line. That's why they're called 'aircraft carriers'. The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. They don't need to sail the carrier right up beside the enemy in order to hit him with their swords, you know. Jokes aside, there might (eventually, maybe not today?) be a point in what you're saying. It's been a long time since 1945 when carriers last were used in a major peer conflict, and a lot has changed since then.

Yeul 2y ago
NATO exercises always ended with the nukes.
- ragnot 2y ago
  Hence the emphasis on cyber and (US) dollar attack vectors. War without the bullets.
  - einpoklum 2y ago
    US dollar attack vectors are gradually drying up. Ironically, the more they are used - e.g. in sanctions - the stronger the motivation for detachment from USD as a reserve currency and direct trade in the parties' own currencies. Plus - how much of the world can the US sanction at the same time before it's only the select few that it trades with? Russia + Iran + China + Venezuela + Mexico + Canada + + + ...
  - Neonlicht 2y ago
    I agree. Mao once said that he was willing to accept US atomic bombs. But that was when China didn't have fancy cities... Both sides are simply too vulnerable in an all out war. Xi wants to make China great again he doesn't want a nuclear wasteland.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throw0101d 2y ago
> The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. Cruise missiles have ranges >1500km: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family) And they're putting missiles in shipping containers so as long as you have a flat surface you can place them just about anywhere: * https://gcaptain.com/pacific-dragon-is-the-shipping-industry-ready-for-containerized-missile-warfare/ https://gcaptain.com/pacific-dragon-is-the-shipping-industry...

Ylpertnodi 2y ago

>Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. Until drones carrying drones carrying drones becomes a thing.

XorNot 2y ago
That doesn't mean anything. There's no reason to think a drone carrier ship would be smaller or cheaper then an aircraft carrier (if it was providing air capability at similar ranges, and if it's not then it'll be much more vulnerable).
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Ships can also loiter and provide better cargo capacity for that sustained presence compared to aircraft which is it's own benefit. To replicate that with an air based carrier you'd have to have more of them flying in shifts to maintain presence and coverage of the area.
- indymike 2y ago
  It depends on what kind of drones you are operating doesn't it? Range, speed and payload seems to be the drivers for gigantism in military vehicles. So if you look at shorter range, or more accurate, smaller explosive delivery, you don't need a USS Ford size thing to act as a mobile base for them. One of the big lessons in Ukraine is that small, cheap and accurate works.
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    The Marines are working in close support drone for their amphibious ships. The proposals are the size of helicopters. The problem is that can’t do short range from ships because it is too dangerous to get close to shore. Anti-ship missiles are common now, and guided artillery and glide bombs are possible. Finally, drones haven’t been useful against ships in Red Sea, and some are good size. Speed matters for getting through defenses. The slow and small ones can be shot down by guns or rockets, the fast ones are anti-ship missiles.

iuscommune 2y ago

Agree - this is a key lesson of the Falklands War which, despite being in the 80s, is one of the few hot naval wars of the missile age.

bluGill 2y ago

close ship on ship battle is dead but large ships are needed for large long range weapons that can hit opposing targets that cannot be seen. a wwi battleship could ignore a small drone of today - a much larger system is needed to sink a ship.

deltarholamda 2y ago
Can a large ship, or any ship, intercept a hypersonic missile? Because that's the reality of today.
- greedo 2y ago
  Yes. Patriot has intercepted Kinzals in Ukraine (and older versions of Patriot at that), so the tech is well established. SM3/SM6 missiles on Aegis equipped ships can defend themselves against hypersonic missiles.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    Patriot has not reliably intercepted Kizhals, they needed an uneconomic interceptor ratio which in a ship would lead to interceptor depletion and failure; at the same time Kizhals is even slower than something like the DF-21 or DF-ZF. It's a similar story for SM-2/3, in the Red Sea they faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave, and even then many missiles were not intercepted, we just got lucky that they missed.
    - indymike 2y ago
      > faced massive interceptor depletion and had to leave Depletion is the problem with destroyers. Something like an arsenal ship (think instead of 90-120 missiles, being loaded out with 300) would make more sense. Cheap drones are more of a depletion problem than are hypersonics.
    - greedo 2y ago
      Again, the versions of Patriot handed over to Ukraine are not the latest versions, so their performance might not be illustrative. And we don't know the strategy used by Ukraine; they might feel like bigger salvos are worth bringing down hypersonics. SM6 is the primary USN weapon against hypersonic, not the SM2/SM3. SM3 is primarily designed for ballistic missile defense.

openasocket 2y ago

But submarines require a shipbuilding revolution too! The total number of submarines in US Navy service has been steadily decreasing over the last decade or so. We don't have the industrial capacity to build submarines faster than our old ones are decommissioning. The issue actually isn't with carriers, I believe we're more or less on schedule with carrier building. The issue where this is most apparent is submarines, and also with the merchant fleet (which would be needed during wartime to ship supplies).

indymike 2y ago
I'm not sure how much longer submarines will be militarily relevant. Longer for sure than large surface combatants, but we're relying largely on hiding for defense... and there's no guarantee that hiding will work forever.
- openasocket 2y ago
  Sure, but if you are holding out for something that will be militarily relevant forever, you're going to be waiting a long time :) I also think the concerns about the the ability of large ships to defend themselves in modern combat are a bit overblown. Just because there exists a weapon system that can defeat something, doesn't mean that thing is irrelevant. You'll see all these comparisons of the cost of a surface combatant with the cost of an anti-ship missile or drone as though that decides the matter. But it really doesn't. It costs a ton of money to train and equip and infantry soldier, and yet you can kill that solider with a bullet that costs pennies. Does that mean infantry have been obsolete for the last few centuries? Of course not! A system is not obsolete until something comes along that can perform that same role, but better.

ianburrell 2y ago

The aircraft carrier needs to be protected by surface ships. Submarines can’t shoot down missiles. Drone ships can’t do the job unless they are the size of destroyer. Ships on long deployments need maintenance, so now you have manned ship. We almost can’t make automomous ships, they need Arsenal ships are a bad idea because putting all the missiles in one basket. It is better to have 3 destroyers that can cover different directions, or go on separate missions. The Navy has finally figured out reloading, it is much better to send one ship away to reload and still keep defense.

machiaweliczny 2y ago

True, Hitler mostly lost a war due to megalomania and spending 1/4th of naval budget on big destroyer instead of producing more ubots.

pphysch 2y ago
How did lack of Uboats make him lose the Eastern Front?
- indymike 2y ago
  Failure to disrupt US shipping lanes to the Allies resulted in Germany having to fight much better-equipped Allied forces. A tank, a howitzer, or a truck on the bottom of the ocean is not a threat. The amount of equipment shipped to the USSR by the US is staggering as well, and one can argue that the Eastern Front would have collapsed without those supplies. More U-boats likely would have dramatically changed the war.

philwelch 2y ago

The problem with arsenal ships is twofold. One, we don’t have enough missiles to fill the ships we have now, let alone a ship specialized to carry as many missiles as possible. Two, missiles and ships are like eggs and baskets. To counteract the egg/basket problem you want to distribute your missiles among multiple ships, and then equip those ships with sensors and defensive systems so they’re harder to sink and so you can develop a detailed picture of the battlespace. We have a name for that kind of ship; it’s a guided missile destroyer. You can go smaller (that’s called a guided missile frigate) but thanks to the square cube law, a bigger ship can carry much more than twice as much missiles, sensors, etc. as two ships that are half the size. You also get economies of scale on maintenance. There are tradeoffs here, and the DDG as the backbone of the surface fleet and the guardian of the aircraft carrier is a great solution to those tradeoffs. Don’t be a doomer when it comes to the arms race between missiles and air defense. Air defense can defeat a concentrated missile/drone attack, as we’ve seen in the two recent Iranian attacks on Israel. There are novel air attack threats from drones, but there are also novel air defense systems to counter them such as lasers (https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520). If I had to guess I’d say that the balance is actually shifting in favor of air defense on net. I do agree with you that submarines are important. In fact the Ohio class SSGN practically is an arsenal ship. The problem with submarines is that they have to operate as lone wolves. Surface ships and carrier aircraft can share sensor data and use sensor fusion to construct a shared picture of the battlespace, but submarines can’t be looped into the network without exposing themselves. Again, tradeoffs. And usually the solution to these tradeoffs is combined arms—you build a task force with a carrier, some surface ships, and some submarines and each ship has its own job to do to cover the weaknesses of the others.