3 ms·
Interesting to think that aircraft rendered armor obsolete so ships stopped having appreciable armor. But if your threat is swarms of small drones then armor b
by jandrese 1y ago
Interesting to think that aircraft rendered armor obsolete so ships stopped having appreciable armor. But if your threat is swarms of small drones then armor becomes a viable defense. Especially since the quantity of the drones is what makes them effective. If they have to build much heavier drones to punch through the armor that would significantly reduce the quantity that can be carried and increase the effectiveness of the other anti drone defenses.
I guess it's true that countries are always preparing for the last war they fought, not the next.
It's gotta be a nightmare on one of those drone carrier ships to be hit by an anti-ship missile or a drone and have thousands of lithium batteries strapped to high explosives light off.
- biaachmonkie 1y agoWell what really is the difference between a missile and a single use drone built to punch through armor? Is the missile not basically a drone and is the drone not a missile?
- jandrese 1y agoThe difference is size and cost. Missiles are large and expensive so ships can carry only a handful of them, and anti-missile defenses are designed based on that assumption. Drones defeat anti-missile defenses by coming in huge swarms that skim the waterline. The drones are also small because they have a relatively small warhead compared to anti-ship missiles. It's the difference between needing to stop a dozen or so MIG-17 sized hypersonic missiles vs. hundreds of oversized quadcopters that move relatively slowly but chaotically.