5 ms·

Are ships really going to be a 'thing' in any next war anyway, in an age of missiles and drones (both above and below water)? It really pisses me off my dumbass

Are ships really going to be a 'thing' in any next war anyway, in an age of missiles and drones (both above and below water)? It really pisses me off my dumbass govt spent hundreds of billions of dollars on what I believe will be irrelevant tech, and we may not even get the tech, hows that lol!!! "Here guys, have some money our taxpayers payed us, you don't even need to give us the goods". You'd think the pollies had been bought or something...

Retric 2y ago
Yes, most wars aren’t between countries with similar military capabilities. Even in a hypothetical war between US and China being limited to moving fuel, food, bullets etc by aircraft alone is a major logistical issue. Military conflict is potentially millions of people and within an order of magnitude that many vehicles. Guarding such slow moving cargo vessels by air alone is again impractical, thus surface ships and subs. Every minute a drone or jet is in the air has an associated cost, an aircraft carrier a few 100’s of miles offshore is still a lot closer than mainland USA.
- hx8 2y ago
  Piling on * Navies guard shipping/supply lines. This is true for war time, but it is also true for peace time. * Navies can disrupt enemy supply lines. Supply lines are critical in any prolonged conflict. * Air superiority remains an important aspect of war. We need places near the theater of war to operate aircraft from. An aircraft carrier essentially means we can place an airbase anywhere in the world. This is a more dynamic than limiting ourself to just allies that give us land to build bases. * Armies often use their navy to secure critical resources needed for the war effort, and guard supply lines extracting those resources. Oil, minerals, food, etc. If we increase our industrial capacity during a war we will need to increase our raw material input, at a time when former trading partners might stop selling to us.
Ekaros 2y ago
Somehow you have to get the drones and missiles around. Or are cargo planes a thing? In age of missiles and drones... I think it looks like those would need quite extreme ranges. Well intercontinental ballistic missiles are a real solution.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  If you worry about missiles and drones taking out the cargo planes, don't you worry about missiles and drones taking out cargo ships as well?
  - Tostino 2y ago
    Ships can easily mount a CWIS or similar to help with a wide range of threats. Not so easy to do the same on a cargo aircraft.
    - bearjaws 2y ago
      Will CWIS be able to handle drone boats that are submerged except for their cameras and satellite dishes? They are primarily used for cruise missiles. Watching the Russian fleet "deal with" Ukranian drone boats (aka sink to the bottom of the Ocean) made me realize that most war ships aren't prepared for these encounters.
      - rtkwe 2y ago
        Suicide attack boats aren't a wholey new threat (see USS Cole) the US has been thinking about defending from small surface craft too. It's really hard to guess how effective any attack and countermeasure will be until you see it in the field and given the shabby state of a lot of Russia's military I'm dubious that the results will be directly comparable especially since the planners on the US side are getting to see and evaluate both sides.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - talldayo 2y ago
        CWIS have an extremely low radar horizon - most contemporary AShM weapons fly extremely close to the water, sometimes even lower than the bow of a suicide vessel. It's very feasible for such a weapon to neutralize a USV in terminal attack. > Watching the Russian fleet "deal with" Ukranian drone boats Most of the successes I've seen with Ukraine's drones are against unarmed targets. They had great success using USVs to attack oil rigs in Crimea and Mi-8s with very weak countermeasures. This isn't to say that USVs are useless against the Russian Navy proper, but even Russia has weapons intended to pick off surface combatants at a standoff range. I suspect we don't hear more success stories because they're at least partially capable of defending against them.
jjk166 2y ago
Is there an ocean between you and your adversary?

Retric 2y ago

Yes, most wars aren’t between countries with similar military capabilities. Even in a hypothetical war between US and China being limited to moving fuel, food, bullets etc by aircraft alone is a major logistical issue. Military conflict is potentially millions of people and within an order of magnitude that many vehicles. Guarding such slow moving cargo vessels by air alone is again impractical, thus surface ships and subs. Every minute a drone or jet is in the air has an associated cost, an aircraft carrier a few 100’s of miles offshore is still a lot closer than mainland USA.

hx8 2y ago
Piling on * Navies guard shipping/supply lines. This is true for war time, but it is also true for peace time. * Navies can disrupt enemy supply lines. Supply lines are critical in any prolonged conflict. * Air superiority remains an important aspect of war. We need places near the theater of war to operate aircraft from. An aircraft carrier essentially means we can place an airbase anywhere in the world. This is a more dynamic than limiting ourself to just allies that give us land to build bases. * Armies often use their navy to secure critical resources needed for the war effort, and guard supply lines extracting those resources. Oil, minerals, food, etc. If we increase our industrial capacity during a war we will need to increase our raw material input, at a time when former trading partners might stop selling to us.

Ekaros 2y ago

Somehow you have to get the drones and missiles around. Or are cargo planes a thing? In age of missiles and drones... I think it looks like those would need quite extreme ranges. Well intercontinental ballistic missiles are a real solution.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
If you worry about missiles and drones taking out the cargo planes, don't you worry about missiles and drones taking out cargo ships as well?
- Tostino 2y ago
  Ships can easily mount a CWIS or similar to help with a wide range of threats. Not so easy to do the same on a cargo aircraft.
  - bearjaws 2y ago
    Will CWIS be able to handle drone boats that are submerged except for their cameras and satellite dishes? They are primarily used for cruise missiles. Watching the Russian fleet "deal with" Ukranian drone boats (aka sink to the bottom of the Ocean) made me realize that most war ships aren't prepared for these encounters.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      Suicide attack boats aren't a wholey new threat (see USS Cole) the US has been thinking about defending from small surface craft too. It's really hard to guess how effective any attack and countermeasure will be until you see it in the field and given the shabby state of a lot of Russia's military I'm dubious that the results will be directly comparable especially since the planners on the US side are getting to see and evaluate both sides.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - talldayo 2y ago
      CWIS have an extremely low radar horizon - most contemporary AShM weapons fly extremely close to the water, sometimes even lower than the bow of a suicide vessel. It's very feasible for such a weapon to neutralize a USV in terminal attack. > Watching the Russian fleet "deal with" Ukranian drone boats Most of the successes I've seen with Ukraine's drones are against unarmed targets. They had great success using USVs to attack oil rigs in Crimea and Mi-8s with very weak countermeasures. This isn't to say that USVs are useless against the Russian Navy proper, but even Russia has weapons intended to pick off surface combatants at a standoff range. I suspect we don't hear more success stories because they're at least partially capable of defending against them.

jjk166 2y ago

Is there an ocean between you and your adversary?