Because they're stealing and copying technology developed everywhere, they are catching up on us technologically very fast. Inventiveness in design and development, and subsequent deployment, can make things very difficult for us even if we do hold an edge in the technology. Even as just a test bed will show them what parts work well, and what don't.
Quantity has a quality of its own because it allows more raining and experimentation. Earlier command opportunities. Ability to grow and cultivate the culture and knowledge.
I sketched out a very viable, inexpensive drone carrier a couple of years back. It wouldn't take much to build a fleet of 20k ton drone carriers, lofting and recovering long endurance drones that could be armed with an ASCM or LWT or two. There's a huge need for sea control ships like that, that aren't part of the battle fleet.
Exactly. My thought has been eg the Philippines should repurpose some of the countless old tankers and turn them into grounded air and naval drone carriers. Far cheaper than building and island and movable if need be. And then build 5,000 cheap drones. Rather asymmetric move against China, at entirely reasonable cost.
Launching from a land base hours away is a lot different than launching from inside the JEZ or FEZ envelope. I guess we need a DEZ now to work with a MEZ.
Iran's leadership may be evil, but they ain't stupid.
Escalation of the conflict was not what Iran wanted. (There is evidence to support the idea that this Hamas war cooked off because of uncoordinated actions of one militia. Iran might not have wanted any of this.) A harmful attack would be escalation. It is not inconceivable that Iran tossed a bunch of antique first-generation products at Israel knowing they'd be knocked down, which allowed them to save face, while simultaneously learning the Israelis' battle order. They could have been gathering data in preparation for building fifth generation products.
And, let's be honest. Bombing an embassy is a provocative act.
I though it was very successful how much did it cost Iran to preform the attack vs how much Israel had spend to defend. How mush is it costing us to defend shipping in the red sea vs what its costing the Houthi to attack shipping even if they never hit anything. If you figuring in total system cost of the iran/houlthi attacks (cost to research, maint, platforms they are deployed from cost, personal cost, etc) compared to the US/Israel. Its even worse
This may be true. But what is the point here for solving the issue? What is the outcome of investing in drone carriers? How would replicating Iranian strategy help us against China? We have have not really “won” anything since the cold war. We need to kill all Iranian surrogates and also be able to deter China effectively. What is the plan? Nice technology. What is the strategy?
And .... as soon as you do that some clever adversary come up with an ASCM capable of multiple speeds and flight profiles and active countermeasures of it's own.
But then, war tends to get things focused on what works and can easily be developed. Longer conflicts often have militaries that still issue wha they had at the beginning of the war.
PLA indeed has a culture encouraging experimentation in which incremental improvement over time often leads to significant original innovations in modern military operations. It also is fielding the "largest" military service of virtually every type. [The largest traditional air force. The largest traditional navy. The largest traditional army. The largest missile force. To that add it tends to have multiple branches in every area: as many as eight air forces, several ground combat and ground security organizations, several naval and maritime organizations, and more flying machines in military service then the rest of the world combined, by a wide margin.] It is anything but a copycat, in spite of basing much of its military technology on the Russian model. It develops original concepts, generally far more economically than its Western counterparts do.
Oh, we're still innovators, greatly enamored with our cleverness. Shipbuilding in the US, however, fails to manifest serious warships for well known reasons. We were once masters of this craft, our capabilities now shamefully degraded. CDR Sal is correct about revisiting particular biases held about the PRC...the hubris is telling and nobody will talk that shit once things go kinetic.
Once upon a time the HMS Argus too was considered some 'freak' concept and experiment. I have to give the ChiComs credit for one thing, while they blatantly rip off and reverse engineer Western Military Hardware Designs, their maritime strategy is very 'original' with lots of "outside the box" thinking compared to the West.
Not much. The United States is sovereignly imune. That, and we don't have to foul our air and water to defend the nation. It's not "either or!" One can have a strong Navy and clean air and water.
Clever imitation is not incompatible with clever innovation.
Unless you are talking suicide drones, the ability to have a forward arming/fueling capability is a real force multiplier, allowing more sorties and quicker return to the target for another attack.
Or the mere existence of a bunch of these complicates defensive planning.
Who knows what it is, or isn't? What we lack is the ability to innovate, adapt, and improvise as rapidly as we once did. Thinking that no one else can is willful deadly ignorance.
Watch and learn. While we wait for our final LCS to be delivered as a monument to our poor procurement and innovation policies.
Pentagon wanted "flying aircraft carriers"; but only using current platforms. So, we end up with "Gremlins" and "Rapid Dragon" being carried aloft by cargo airplanes. Enlarge that vision; to include much larger "drones"......launched from "drone carrier" airships.
(again, not blimps or dirigibles)
Why? same reason for normal marine carriers. move close in to launch limited range aircraft. In the case of AIRSHIP DRONE CARRIERS though......they can be made as stealthy as B-2, linger as long as subs, deploy straight from CONUS, fly at 130kts, land and lie doggo on any empty field or lagoon, close in to shore, cross any shore, fly in over the "hump" to launch.....
much less expensive than aircraft carriers; and we could field several.......in one year
Or you could use these as stepping stones to refuel drones. Fly the drones to the limit of their range - land and refuel - then relaunch. Partner with some ADA focused assets and you can significantly increase the range of the drones. Especially if you load the drones with stand off missiles themselves. Sure the drone carriers are floating targets - but if you are willing to exchange losing a few of these for the cost of the missiles to destroy them it may be cost effective. With that focus the crewing requirements would be far less than on a conventional aircraft carrier. Note - I'm ex-Army, not ex-Navy so feel free to tell me why that isn't a potential option.
I see it has utility as a reconnaissance or sustained surveillance platform. The use of FPV as loitering munitions shouldn’t be underestimated either. This may seem niche but I can see its value in sea control. Imagine trying to conduct flight ops and n CVOA4 and the IRCG deploying a vessel like this in the water space?
"While catamarans are often featured in aircraft carrier concepts because they allow a large deck area, no one has actually built one before."
Someone once said - build a little, test a little, learn alot. You make a good little hull with some built-in expansion capacity and you could end up with something like the jeep carrier USS Thetis Bay which went from being CVE-90 to CVHA-1 to LPH-6 over her two decades.
Perhaps a test bed with some combat use?
I do not know their operations concept well enough to say how the PLAN intends to operate.
Because they're stealing and copying technology developed everywhere, they are catching up on us technologically very fast. Inventiveness in design and development, and subsequent deployment, can make things very difficult for us even if we do hold an edge in the technology. Even as just a test bed will show them what parts work well, and what don't.
Quantity has a quality of its own because it allows more raining and experimentation. Earlier command opportunities. Ability to grow and cultivate the culture and knowledge.
I sketched out a very viable, inexpensive drone carrier a couple of years back. It wouldn't take much to build a fleet of 20k ton drone carriers, lofting and recovering long endurance drones that could be armed with an ASCM or LWT or two. There's a huge need for sea control ships like that, that aren't part of the battle fleet.
Exactly. My thought has been eg the Philippines should repurpose some of the countless old tankers and turn them into grounded air and naval drone carriers. Far cheaper than building and island and movable if need be. And then build 5,000 cheap drones. Rather asymmetric move against China, at entirely reasonable cost.
If you fill a tanker with closed cell foam I bet it is pretty hard to sink.
So, how many missile eaters could one launch at a CBG? If a drone wave could get there before the ASCMs,it could help ruin your day.
Precisely what we saw with Iran’s attack on Israel. Coordinated missile attacks combined with drones.
But not very successful.
Who protects the drone ships?
What is the CONOPS?
Our challenge is that we lack the guts to actually finish anything….,
Launching from a land base hours away is a lot different than launching from inside the JEZ or FEZ envelope. I guess we need a DEZ now to work with a MEZ.
Iran's leadership may be evil, but they ain't stupid.
Escalation of the conflict was not what Iran wanted. (There is evidence to support the idea that this Hamas war cooked off because of uncoordinated actions of one militia. Iran might not have wanted any of this.) A harmful attack would be escalation. It is not inconceivable that Iran tossed a bunch of antique first-generation products at Israel knowing they'd be knocked down, which allowed them to save face, while simultaneously learning the Israelis' battle order. They could have been gathering data in preparation for building fifth generation products.
And, let's be honest. Bombing an embassy is a provocative act.
I though it was very successful how much did it cost Iran to preform the attack vs how much Israel had spend to defend. How mush is it costing us to defend shipping in the red sea vs what its costing the Houthi to attack shipping even if they never hit anything. If you figuring in total system cost of the iran/houlthi attacks (cost to research, maint, platforms they are deployed from cost, personal cost, etc) compared to the US/Israel. Its even worse
This may be true. But what is the point here for solving the issue? What is the outcome of investing in drone carriers? How would replicating Iranian strategy help us against China? We have have not really “won” anything since the cold war. We need to kill all Iranian surrogates and also be able to deter China effectively. What is the plan? Nice technology. What is the strategy?
“Dance of the Vampires” redux. Have to look at radar returns and speed.
And .... as soon as you do that some clever adversary come up with an ASCM capable of multiple speeds and flight profiles and active countermeasures of it's own.
But then, war tends to get things focused on what works and can easily be developed. Longer conflicts often have militaries that still issue wha they had at the beginning of the war.
1000 percent.
I wonder what our Ukrainian Black Sea drone masters could do with this idea? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfIemXxU92c
Shit sammich. Our recognition differential will be hard to discern. Also they can and will employ decoys.
As usual, Commander Salamander is spot on!
PLA indeed has a culture encouraging experimentation in which incremental improvement over time often leads to significant original innovations in modern military operations. It also is fielding the "largest" military service of virtually every type. [The largest traditional air force. The largest traditional navy. The largest traditional army. The largest missile force. To that add it tends to have multiple branches in every area: as many as eight air forces, several ground combat and ground security organizations, several naval and maritime organizations, and more flying machines in military service then the rest of the world combined, by a wide margin.] It is anything but a copycat, in spite of basing much of its military technology on the Russian model. It develops original concepts, generally far more economically than its Western counterparts do.
Oh, we're still innovators, greatly enamored with our cleverness. Shipbuilding in the US, however, fails to manifest serious warships for well known reasons. We were once masters of this craft, our capabilities now shamefully degraded. CDR Sal is correct about revisiting particular biases held about the PRC...the hubris is telling and nobody will talk that shit once things go kinetic.
Once upon a time the HMS Argus too was considered some 'freak' concept and experiment. I have to give the ChiComs credit for one thing, while they blatantly rip off and reverse engineer Western Military Hardware Designs, their maritime strategy is very 'original' with lots of "outside the box" thinking compared to the West.
"So, What's the deal with the drone carrier"??? For some reason, I keep hearing the voice of Gomer "Surprise Surprise" Pyle in my head about now.
Think of the bright side - it could be something like the LCS program. A big waste of time and $$!
Both of which the Chinese have in abundance
'cept they seem to be building only the one as a test article for the moment.
Because they have naval folks working in naval yards. They are bending steel, not pushing paper.
Makes ya' wonder how much paper is generated to protect themselves from lawyers of various types from environmental to contract types.
Not much. The United States is sovereignly imune. That, and we don't have to foul our air and water to defend the nation. It's not "either or!" One can have a strong Navy and clean air and water.
Clever imitation is not incompatible with clever innovation.
Unless you are talking suicide drones, the ability to have a forward arming/fueling capability is a real force multiplier, allowing more sorties and quicker return to the target for another attack.
Or the mere existence of a bunch of these complicates defensive planning.
Who knows what it is, or isn't? What we lack is the ability to innovate, adapt, and improvise as rapidly as we once did. Thinking that no one else can is willful deadly ignorance.
Watch and learn. While we wait for our final LCS to be delivered as a monument to our poor procurement and innovation policies.
Pentagon wanted "flying aircraft carriers"; but only using current platforms. So, we end up with "Gremlins" and "Rapid Dragon" being carried aloft by cargo airplanes. Enlarge that vision; to include much larger "drones"......launched from "drone carrier" airships.
(again, not blimps or dirigibles)
Why? same reason for normal marine carriers. move close in to launch limited range aircraft. In the case of AIRSHIP DRONE CARRIERS though......they can be made as stealthy as B-2, linger as long as subs, deploy straight from CONUS, fly at 130kts, land and lie doggo on any empty field or lagoon, close in to shore, cross any shore, fly in over the "hump" to launch.....
much less expensive than aircraft carriers; and we could field several.......in one year
Or you could use these as stepping stones to refuel drones. Fly the drones to the limit of their range - land and refuel - then relaunch. Partner with some ADA focused assets and you can significantly increase the range of the drones. Especially if you load the drones with stand off missiles themselves. Sure the drone carriers are floating targets - but if you are willing to exchange losing a few of these for the cost of the missiles to destroy them it may be cost effective. With that focus the crewing requirements would be far less than on a conventional aircraft carrier. Note - I'm ex-Army, not ex-Navy so feel free to tell me why that isn't a potential option.
I see it has utility as a reconnaissance or sustained surveillance platform. The use of FPV as loitering munitions shouldn’t be underestimated either. This may seem niche but I can see its value in sea control. Imagine trying to conduct flight ops and n CVOA4 and the IRCG deploying a vessel like this in the water space?
I want our cranes back..
Cranes are old school. Not transformational at all.
Depends on which cranes we are talking about.
I am assuming these. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeSJRXVfU4k
No. I mean the ones from Jacksonville.
NOT please the hydraulic abortion that was the ASROC loader crane.
Commander: As I read this, I am reminded of the navy view of the IJN prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
"While catamarans are often featured in aircraft carrier concepts because they allow a large deck area, no one has actually built one before."
Someone once said - build a little, test a little, learn alot. You make a good little hull with some built-in expansion capacity and you could end up with something like the jeep carrier USS Thetis Bay which went from being CVE-90 to CVHA-1 to LPH-6 over her two decades.
"what it has it steals or copies, they are rote and predictable while we are imaginative and innovative, etc, etc."
Gosh that sounds familiar.