4 ms·

Cheap drones are pretty useless against large naval vessels. Making a dent in those ships requires a heavy, specialized penetrating warheads. And even then you'

Cheap drones are pretty useless against large naval vessels. Making a dent in those ships requires a heavy, specialized penetrating warheads. And even then you'll need to score several hits. Just the warhead alone on a standard anti-ship weapon weighs more than an entire Shahed-136 drone.

ceejayoz 7mo ago
To sink it, yes. To render it useless for a while is easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire All from a little drone-sized warhead.
fsagx 7mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire (~20kg warhead)
- jandrewrogers 7mo ago
  That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant.
  - thedrexster 7mo ago
    > That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant. This is Trump's America, brother, we don't learn from the past here!
  - fsagx 7mo ago
    Seems likely to be even worse now. USS Ford out of action, removed from region due to "laundry fire" and some socks in the toilets. Also USN has far fewer carriers to deploy. Three or more were deployed continuously off Vietnam for years at a time.
newsclues 7mo ago
You could fly an FPV drone into the hangar and smash a plane full of ordinance if you get lucky. Unfortunately warships have a lot of flammables and explosives aboard.
brokencode 7mo ago
Imagine trying to launch fighters when there are explosions on the deck from swarms of drones. And of course the fighters themselves could be hit and destroyed. An aircraft carrier that can't launch fighters is pretty much worthless.
shiroiuma 7mo ago
I disagree: lots of cheap drones would be extremely effective against an aircraft carrier. They don't need to sink the ship; they just need to damage the jets or disrupt operations on the flight deck. Even a small drone is a serious threat to a jet. How can a carrier defend against a drone swarm? They only have so much ammunition for those CWIS guns, and defending against the swarm will probably cost a lot more than the swarm itself does. Of course, this assumes the carrier is within range of the drone swarm, but that seems to be the assumption in this line of argument. Eventually, I think they'll have more cost-effective defenses against small, cheap drones, but they don't have them yet.
- hax0ron3 7mo ago
  Yes, but it is not certain that cheap drones have the range or navigational technology to reach and hit a carrier in the current circumstances. More expensive drones do, but that's a different matter.
  - shiroiuma 7mo ago
    The Shahed drones have more than enough range for this, easily. Whether they're "cheap" I guess depends on your perspective; they're certainly not as cheap as some handheld drone, but they're still pretty cheap compared to all the stuff the US is using now.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      Shaheds are $20-50k; F-35s are $100M-ish. You can use a thousand and break pretty even if you get even one good hit in.
- Axsuul 7mo ago
  Aircraft carriers are part of a strike group so the other ships would be responsible for defending it.

ceejayoz 7mo ago

To sink it, yes. To render it useless for a while is easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire All from a little drone-sized warhead.

fsagx 7mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire (~20kg warhead)

jandrewrogers 7mo ago
That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant.
- thedrexster 7mo ago
  > That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant. This is Trump's America, brother, we don't learn from the past here!
- fsagx 7mo ago
  Seems likely to be even worse now. USS Ford out of action, removed from region due to "laundry fire" and some socks in the toilets. Also USN has far fewer carriers to deploy. Three or more were deployed continuously off Vietnam for years at a time.

newsclues 7mo ago

You could fly an FPV drone into the hangar and smash a plane full of ordinance if you get lucky. Unfortunately warships have a lot of flammables and explosives aboard.

brokencode 7mo ago

Imagine trying to launch fighters when there are explosions on the deck from swarms of drones. And of course the fighters themselves could be hit and destroyed. An aircraft carrier that can't launch fighters is pretty much worthless.

shiroiuma 7mo ago

I disagree: lots of cheap drones would be extremely effective against an aircraft carrier. They don't need to sink the ship; they just need to damage the jets or disrupt operations on the flight deck. Even a small drone is a serious threat to a jet. How can a carrier defend against a drone swarm? They only have so much ammunition for those CWIS guns, and defending against the swarm will probably cost a lot more than the swarm itself does. Of course, this assumes the carrier is within range of the drone swarm, but that seems to be the assumption in this line of argument. Eventually, I think they'll have more cost-effective defenses against small, cheap drones, but they don't have them yet.

hax0ron3 7mo ago
Yes, but it is not certain that cheap drones have the range or navigational technology to reach and hit a carrier in the current circumstances. More expensive drones do, but that's a different matter.
- shiroiuma 7mo ago
  The Shahed drones have more than enough range for this, easily. Whether they're "cheap" I guess depends on your perspective; they're certainly not as cheap as some handheld drone, but they're still pretty cheap compared to all the stuff the US is using now.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    Shaheds are $20-50k; F-35s are $100M-ish. You can use a thousand and break pretty even if you get even one good hit in.
Axsuul 7mo ago
Aircraft carriers are part of a strike group so the other ships would be responsible for defending it.