The end of the tank?
-
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
-
Who is Wall Street Silver and why should I care what he thinks about military hardware?
Looking at his Twitter feed the guy's a freaking expert on everything!
It's measure/countermeasure.
Yeah, it kind of seems like rather than abandoning tanks and aircraft carriers, some kind of anti-drone countermeasures might be in order. But what do I know?
-
Who is Wall Street Silver and why should I care what he thinks about military hardware?
Looking at his Twitter feed the guy's a freaking expert on everything!
It's measure/countermeasure.
Yeah, it kind of seems like rather than abandoning tanks and aircraft carriers, some kind of anti-drone countermeasures might be in order. But what do I know?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
@Klaus said in The end of the tank?:
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
Short answer? No.
https://www.quora.com/Can-an-aircraft-carrier-defend-1-000-kamikaze-attacked-drones
You have to understand just how silly this question is without a lot more context. Where is the carrier? Is it sitting at dock? Just offshore? 1000km offshore? In the middle of the ocean? What kind of drones (range, endurance, cruise and maximum speed, sensors, communications, warhead type and size, electronic attack hardened, etc.)? The size of the drone swarm doesn’t really matter unless the drones have the correct set of characteristics and the carrier is operating in the ideal circumstances for the use of drones to attack it.
First you have to find and track the aircraft carrier from before the drones are launched through to the point where they strike the carrier (or are close enough to have sensors that can handle the final strike). A carrier that is in theory 1000km away is in a search area measured in MILLIONS of kilometers. Navies have all sorts of means of defeating your attempt to find and track it within that search space.
Then your drones have to get to the carrier. Drones, particularly ones you can afford 1000 of, tend to be quite slow. If the drone flies at 100km/hour then it will take at least 10 hours to get to the carrier. And the carrier itself is moving (at perhaps 60km/hour) and changing direction, so it isn’t going to be anywhere near where your drones are going. Basically getting your drones to the right place to actually attempt an attack is nearly impossible. Now if the carrier is sitting at anchor offshore then finding and attacking it with 1000 drones is actually quite possible. But no aircraft carrier will do that in times of threat.
Next, an aircraft carrier and its escorts are designed to repel a saturation attack by hundreds of concurrent missiles. And I don’t mean low end things like drones, I mean supersonic (or even hypersonic) cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc. And that’s just with their missiles, which can also be used against drones. They also have guns of various types that are designed with the capability of engaging aerial targets and would be particularly useful against drones. In addition the carrier’s AEW aircraft and combat air patrol will spot the drones hundred of kilometers away and begin the process of defeating them long before they are a threat to the carrier. So even just considering kinetic weapons the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is likely able to defeat 1000 drones. But kinetic weapons are not the primary technique the CSG will use, electronic warfare is the bigger threat to the drones. A CSG brings extensive electronic attack capabilities that will render the drone’s communications systems and sensors completely useless causing them to fall into the sea or strike imaginary targets rather than the Carrier.
Then there is the question of leakers. What happens to drones that manage to find the carrier, aren’t deterred by the electronic attack, and aren’t intercepted and make it through to strike the carrier. Most such drones carry smaller warheads that would inflict minimal damage even if they strike the carrier. An aircraft carrier, and certainly a U.S. supercarrier, is designed to absorb multiple hits from large (e.g.,250–500+kg) warheads and continue to fight. So a few drones with warheads of much smaller sizes isn’t going to have much impact on carrier operations.
You can work through all of these issues by investing in more satellite and ocean patrol assets and communications for targeting, and building true military class anti-ship suicide drones. The problem is when you combine the necessary range, speed and maneuverability, electronic counter-counter measures, jam proof over the horizon communications, secure missile to missile data links, sensors for terminal guidance, heavy enough warheads to cause significant damage, etc. you are talking about a drone that cost $1 Million. So 1000 drones cost $1 Billion, and then you could have $Billions in all the targeting infrastructure. And even then, the CSG will probably survive your drone swarm attack.
Certainly navies are taking the drone threat seriously. The U.S. is already deploying ODIN, a laser that blinds the sensors on drones, on its destroyers. More powerful lasers are being developed as both anti-drone and anti-missile defenses. So it isn’t that 1000 suicide drones aren’t a potential threat to an aircraft carrier, they are. But the difficulty of employing those drones combined with the current levels of drone technology and the defenses available to the CSG make it a minimal threat in the short term and one that is being designed for in the long term.
But hey, if you want to have your aircraft carrier sitting right off shore then a swarm of 1000 pretty low-end suicide drones is going to be able to put that carrier out of commission.
-
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
@Klaus said in The end of the tank?:
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
Flying drones? I think they'd have to be bigger than anything being used in Ukraine today. Water-borne? I think so, especially something submersible with AI.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in The end of the tank?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The end of the tank?:
But what do I know?
As much as Wall Street Silver?
Probably more, due to the fact that I don't waste my spare time talking shite on Twitter, but instead take part in an extensive and intensive computer military simulation training program (Cyberpunk 2077)
-
@Klaus said in The end of the tank?:
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
Short answer? No.
https://www.quora.com/Can-an-aircraft-carrier-defend-1-000-kamikaze-attacked-drones
You have to understand just how silly this question is without a lot more context. Where is the carrier? Is it sitting at dock? Just offshore? 1000km offshore? In the middle of the ocean? What kind of drones (range, endurance, cruise and maximum speed, sensors, communications, warhead type and size, electronic attack hardened, etc.)? The size of the drone swarm doesn’t really matter unless the drones have the correct set of characteristics and the carrier is operating in the ideal circumstances for the use of drones to attack it.
First you have to find and track the aircraft carrier from before the drones are launched through to the point where they strike the carrier (or are close enough to have sensors that can handle the final strike). A carrier that is in theory 1000km away is in a search area measured in MILLIONS of kilometers. Navies have all sorts of means of defeating your attempt to find and track it within that search space.
Then your drones have to get to the carrier. Drones, particularly ones you can afford 1000 of, tend to be quite slow. If the drone flies at 100km/hour then it will take at least 10 hours to get to the carrier. And the carrier itself is moving (at perhaps 60km/hour) and changing direction, so it isn’t going to be anywhere near where your drones are going. Basically getting your drones to the right place to actually attempt an attack is nearly impossible. Now if the carrier is sitting at anchor offshore then finding and attacking it with 1000 drones is actually quite possible. But no aircraft carrier will do that in times of threat.
Next, an aircraft carrier and its escorts are designed to repel a saturation attack by hundreds of concurrent missiles. And I don’t mean low end things like drones, I mean supersonic (or even hypersonic) cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc. And that’s just with their missiles, which can also be used against drones. They also have guns of various types that are designed with the capability of engaging aerial targets and would be particularly useful against drones. In addition the carrier’s AEW aircraft and combat air patrol will spot the drones hundred of kilometers away and begin the process of defeating them long before they are a threat to the carrier. So even just considering kinetic weapons the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is likely able to defeat 1000 drones. But kinetic weapons are not the primary technique the CSG will use, electronic warfare is the bigger threat to the drones. A CSG brings extensive electronic attack capabilities that will render the drone’s communications systems and sensors completely useless causing them to fall into the sea or strike imaginary targets rather than the Carrier.
Then there is the question of leakers. What happens to drones that manage to find the carrier, aren’t deterred by the electronic attack, and aren’t intercepted and make it through to strike the carrier. Most such drones carry smaller warheads that would inflict minimal damage even if they strike the carrier. An aircraft carrier, and certainly a U.S. supercarrier, is designed to absorb multiple hits from large (e.g.,250–500+kg) warheads and continue to fight. So a few drones with warheads of much smaller sizes isn’t going to have much impact on carrier operations.
You can work through all of these issues by investing in more satellite and ocean patrol assets and communications for targeting, and building true military class anti-ship suicide drones. The problem is when you combine the necessary range, speed and maneuverability, electronic counter-counter measures, jam proof over the horizon communications, secure missile to missile data links, sensors for terminal guidance, heavy enough warheads to cause significant damage, etc. you are talking about a drone that cost $1 Million. So 1000 drones cost $1 Billion, and then you could have $Billions in all the targeting infrastructure. And even then, the CSG will probably survive your drone swarm attack.
Certainly navies are taking the drone threat seriously. The U.S. is already deploying ODIN, a laser that blinds the sensors on drones, on its destroyers. More powerful lasers are being developed as both anti-drone and anti-missile defenses. So it isn’t that 1000 suicide drones aren’t a potential threat to an aircraft carrier, they are. But the difficulty of employing those drones combined with the current levels of drone technology and the defenses available to the CSG make it a minimal threat in the short term and one that is being designed for in the long term.
But hey, if you want to have your aircraft carrier sitting right off shore then a swarm of 1000 pretty low-end suicide drones is going to be able to put that carrier out of commission.
@89th said in The end of the tank?:
@Klaus said in The end of the tank?:
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
Short answer? No.
https://www.quora.com/Can-an-aircraft-carrier-defend-1-000-kamikaze-attacked-drones
You have to understand just how silly this question is without a lot more context. Where is the carrier? Is it sitting at dock? Just offshore? 1000km offshore? In the middle of the ocean? What kind of drones (range, endurance, cruise and maximum speed, sensors, communications, warhead type and size, electronic attack hardened, etc.)? The size of the drone swarm doesn’t really matter unless the drones have the correct set of characteristics and the carrier is operating in the ideal circumstances for the use of drones to attack it.
First you have to find and track the aircraft carrier from before the drones are launched through to the point where they strike the carrier (or are close enough to have sensors that can handle the final strike). A carrier that is in theory 1000km away is in a search area measured in MILLIONS of kilometers. Navies have all sorts of means of defeating your attempt to find and track it within that search space.
Then your drones have to get to the carrier. Drones, particularly ones you can afford 1000 of, tend to be quite slow. If the drone flies at 100km/hour then it will take at least 10 hours to get to the carrier. And the carrier itself is moving (at perhaps 60km/hour) and changing direction, so it isn’t going to be anywhere near where your drones are going. Basically getting your drones to the right place to actually attempt an attack is nearly impossible. Now if the carrier is sitting at anchor offshore then finding and attacking it with 1000 drones is actually quite possible. But no aircraft carrier will do that in times of threat.
Next, an aircraft carrier and its escorts are designed to repel a saturation attack by hundreds of concurrent missiles. And I don’t mean low end things like drones, I mean supersonic (or even hypersonic) cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc. And that’s just with their missiles, which can also be used against drones. They also have guns of various types that are designed with the capability of engaging aerial targets and would be particularly useful against drones. In addition the carrier’s AEW aircraft and combat air patrol will spot the drones hundred of kilometers away and begin the process of defeating them long before they are a threat to the carrier. So even just considering kinetic weapons the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is likely able to defeat 1000 drones. But kinetic weapons are not the primary technique the CSG will use, electronic warfare is the bigger threat to the drones. A CSG brings extensive electronic attack capabilities that will render the drone’s communications systems and sensors completely useless causing them to fall into the sea or strike imaginary targets rather than the Carrier.
Then there is the question of leakers. What happens to drones that manage to find the carrier, aren’t deterred by the electronic attack, and aren’t intercepted and make it through to strike the carrier. Most such drones carry smaller warheads that would inflict minimal damage even if they strike the carrier. An aircraft carrier, and certainly a U.S. supercarrier, is designed to absorb multiple hits from large (e.g.,250–500+kg) warheads and continue to fight. So a few drones with warheads of much smaller sizes isn’t going to have much impact on carrier operations.
You can work through all of these issues by investing in more satellite and ocean patrol assets and communications for targeting, and building true military class anti-ship suicide drones. The problem is when you combine the necessary range, speed and maneuverability, electronic counter-counter measures, jam proof over the horizon communications, secure missile to missile data links, sensors for terminal guidance, heavy enough warheads to cause significant damage, etc. you are talking about a drone that cost $1 Million. So 1000 drones cost $1 Billion, and then you could have $Billions in all the targeting infrastructure. And even then, the CSG will probably survive your drone swarm attack.
Certainly navies are taking the drone threat seriously. The U.S. is already deploying ODIN, a laser that blinds the sensors on drones, on its destroyers. More powerful lasers are being developed as both anti-drone and anti-missile defenses. So it isn’t that 1000 suicide drones aren’t a potential threat to an aircraft carrier, they are. But the difficulty of employing those drones combined with the current levels of drone technology and the defenses available to the CSG make it a minimal threat in the short term and one that is being designed for in the long term.
But hey, if you want to have your aircraft carrier sitting right off shore then a swarm of 1000 pretty low-end suicide drones is going to be able to put that carrier out of commission.
Widen your thinking. You're worried about sinking the carrier. You don't have to sink the carrier. All you have to do is render the flight deck inoperable for an extended period of time.
Do some research on British and American carrier flight decks of WW2. I think you'll find it interesting.
-
From my extensive research I'm pretty sure a single British secret service agent with fetching female accomplice can disable an aircraft carrier.
-
From my extensive research I'm pretty sure a single British secret service agent with fetching female accomplice can disable an aircraft carrier.
-
As for carriers, I would think it is a bit like how the infamous Death Star was taken out. One could aim the drones at planes on deck each of which costs a small fortune, radar, command/control areas, catapult functions, elevator mechanism, etc.
-
According to an Eon Productions documentary drama called No Time to Die I watched a year or so ago, he was killed while fulfilling a mission that saved the world as we know it.
@Renauda said in The end of the tank?:
According to an Eon Productions documentary drama called No Time to Die I watched a year or so ago, he was killed while fulfilling a mission that saved the world as we know it.
Please, that was clearly a deep fake to cover for the operations and recovery time. Give it 2 years and the agent will be back as their true self, a black lesbian with a slightly Kenyan accent.
The Brad
-
As for carriers, I would think it is a bit like how the infamous Death Star was taken out. One could aim the drones at planes on deck each of which costs a small fortune, radar, command/control areas, catapult functions, elevator mechanism, etc.
@kluurs said in The end of the tank?:
As for carriers, I would think it is a bit like how the infamous Death Star was taken out.
Kluurs I see you share my level of expertise, presumably gained from spending thousands of hours reviewing science documentaries such as this one.
-
@Klaus said in The end of the tank?:
How can 1000 drones take out an aircraft carrier? They'd need to carry explosives that are powerful enough to damage a carrier. Is that possible?
Flying drones? I think they'd have to be bigger than anything being used in Ukraine today. Water-borne? I think so, especially something submersible with AI.
@Jolly said in The end of the tank?:
Water-borne? I think so, especially something submersible with AI.
Good thinking and I think you are correct.
-
@Renauda said in The end of the tank?:
According to an Eon Productions documentary drama called No Time to Die I watched a year or so ago, he was killed while fulfilling a mission that saved the world as we know it.
Please, that was clearly a deep fake to cover for the operations and recovery time. Give it 2 years and the agent will be back as their true self, a black lesbian with a slightly Kenyan accent.
@LuFins-Dad said in The end of the tank?:
@Renauda said in The end of the tank?:
According to an Eon Productions documentary drama called No Time to Die I watched a year or so ago, he was killed while fulfilling a mission that saved the world as we know it.
Please, that was clearly a deep fake to cover for the operations and recovery time. Give it 2 years and the agent will be back as their true self, a black lesbian with a slightly Kenyan accent.
The hell you say.
-
Don’t even ask about that guy with the blue police box.
-
He’s on First.
