2 ms·

Drones have limited range. Perhaps a submarine would be better: sneak close to your target, raise a pipe from the sub to the surface, then launch a bunch of dr

Drones have limited range. Perhaps a submarine would be better: sneak close to your target, raise a pipe from the sub to the surface, then launch a bunch of drones from it.

jmward01 6mo ago
Look at SSGNs. Not drone carriers, but TLAM is pretty close to drone warfare from the US's point of view.
- don_esteban 6mo ago
  Ehm, there is the tiny issue of cost and overall inventory size ...
throwawayffffas 6mo ago
Limited range? Shaheds have over 2000 kilometers more than tomahawks. And btw, if you can get a submarince close to your target, torpedoes and missiles are going to be much more effective than drones. Space is limited on platforms, a submarine might have space for 60 drones or 30 missiles, given the immense cost of the submarine, going with the missiles is the right call. The trucks launching shaheds that iran is using can fit like 5 such drones, a similar truck could probably fit 2 to 4 cruise missiles the only reason they are using drones is the rapid production and cost associated with drones instead of the cruise missiles.
AngryData 6mo ago
Driving your submarines into a narrow area with limited depth is driving right into a bottleneck trap. It may be hard to locate a submarine out in the deep open sea, not so much if they are limited in escape routes. Some $50 microphones in the water will be able to pick up submarine activity and if the sub is in range of sending out drones it is in range of being detected by drones equipped with simple magnetic sensors. And that is assuming they can't put an active bit of sonar on two or three drones and drop them in the sea and triangulate it to within a few hundred feet to start with. That still doesn't make them easy to take out, but the cost of potentially losing a submarine is so massive that it doesn't make sense to risk them to start with.

Drones have limited range. Perhaps a submarine would be better: sneak close to your target, raise a pipe from the sub to the surface, then launch a bunch of drones from it.

jmward01 6mo ago

Look at SSGNs. Not drone carriers, but TLAM is pretty close to drone warfare from the US's point of view.

don_esteban 6mo ago
Ehm, there is the tiny issue of cost and overall inventory size ...

throwawayffffas 6mo ago

Limited range? Shaheds have over 2000 kilometers more than tomahawks. And btw, if you can get a submarince close to your target, torpedoes and missiles are going to be much more effective than drones. Space is limited on platforms, a submarine might have space for 60 drones or 30 missiles, given the immense cost of the submarine, going with the missiles is the right call. The trucks launching shaheds that iran is using can fit like 5 such drones, a similar truck could probably fit 2 to 4 cruise missiles the only reason they are using drones is the rapid production and cost associated with drones instead of the cruise missiles.

AngryData 6mo ago

Driving your submarines into a narrow area with limited depth is driving right into a bottleneck trap. It may be hard to locate a submarine out in the deep open sea, not so much if they are limited in escape routes. Some $50 microphones in the water will be able to pick up submarine activity and if the sub is in range of sending out drones it is in range of being detected by drones equipped with simple magnetic sensors. And that is assuming they can't put an active bit of sonar on two or three drones and drop them in the sea and triangulate it to within a few hundred feet to start with. That still doesn't make them easy to take out, but the cost of potentially losing a submarine is so massive that it doesn't make sense to risk them to start with.