this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
634 points (98.6% liked)

World News

39279 readers
2841 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Badeendje 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That the US and her defense contractors see this and are very busy developing solutions against this very potent threat against their own ships. Since the rest of the Wold als sees this.. and that includes some people/groups/countries that might want to sink some American ships. If anything this shows how dangerous Iran could make the Persian gulf for American ships.

Magura proves how vulnerable ships can be, especially against modern wolf packs.

So I hypothesize that they will come up with some form of "after market" installable Close In Weapon System (aka.. a bolt on CIWS) to deal with these kind of threats.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Most US Navy ships have had CIWS systems since the 70s and have had many upgrades to their tracking systems since then. The US Army adopted the LPWS (C-RAM) which is basically a portable CIWS for land use. (The Russian version of the CIWS is called a Kortik.)

It wouldn't surprise me if there are already CIWS-type systems for commercial ships operating in hazardous zones.

I have had the pleasure of standing next to a few CIWS systems during live fire testing and it's quite the experience.

[–] Badeendje 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, very much so. The reason I think there might be add ons is due to the nature of the threat.

Very angry, low visible, high speed, armored, unmanned surface vehicles that hunt in packs.

  • The Rim116 might not be usable because by the time you see them you might not want to / can not use a missile anymore.
  • The gun based ciws (midas/goalkeeper/phalanx et al.) might not have enough penetration. They are built for engaging unarmored targets.

We can make fun of the Russian expansion of their submarine fleet in de black sea all we want.. but if these maguras where an easy threat to deal with they would. No reason to think any NATO surface combatant would do any better when suddenly confronted with a similar threat.

[–] chalupapocalypse 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You mean like a big net that sits 50 feet off the boat to tangle the props of all these drones

[–] Badeendje 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Or just put era blocks on ships too.. lol

[–] SkyezOpen 3 points 5 months ago
[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Would probably be nothing more than a software update. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already capable of engaging boats.

[–] Badeendje 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They are.. gun based ciws can easily be used against ribs and such. I just don't know if a drone boat ban be armored enough to withstand the onslaught.

[–] SkyezOpen 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The amount of armor necessary would render it useless.

[–] Badeendje 1 points 5 months ago

I have no clue what kind of penetration a phalanx has, but Magura is armored.. there I also don't know if this is just against small arms but I'd imagine a bit more. Also a drone boat is not shaped like a normal boat. It is flat with a sloped top so even chance of glancing blows.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, Gary Brechner wrote an article about this, like 20 years ago: Basically, that the combination of expense to build, and vulnerability to specific asymmetric threats, that huge ocean-floating warships represent, means that in the long term they are doomed as a serious military platform. They should go on the shelf alongside that thing the Nazis did with trying to build small-building-sized tanks, as something that just doesn't make sense when all factors are considered.

It might seem that the submarinization of the Black Sea fleet proves him out, but as it happens, I coincidentally got to talk recently to an actual military strategy expert on the topic and this was his take:

  • Deterrence is a relevant factor. Lots of expensive military kit is pretty vulnerable. The issue is, if you do start taking steps to attack it, what's going to happen to you in response. That's at the heart of keeping a lot of big powers' naval forces safe, more so than them being invulnerable. Real no-holds-barred war is pretty rare in the modern world; most military kit goes around most of the time being used for force projection or little proxy wars, usually not full-scale war against peer enemies.
  • It may be that the big ships are becoming more vulnerable as time goes on, yes, but it's not like that's new. Once it does go past the level of "we don't want to do that / provide weapons so our proxy can do that because we're scared of the response," and proceeds to a real fuck-'em-up war, losing big battleships and carriers at a shocking rate has been part of war since around World War 2. They're hard as fuck to defend and navies tend to be super cautious with where they put them as a result, and once it comes to a real war, they start sinking yes. It's not like land warfare; it only really takes one day where something goes wrong to sink billions and billions of dollars worth of your navy irrevocably. Adding a new way that that can happen doesn't necessarily change the shape of the war because it was already happening and was already part of the calculus.

I think, as some other people have said, that most of it is bad strategy and tactics by the Russians, of putting their big naval assets within range of the weapons that can fuck them up and for some reason not reacting (until very recently) when as a result they started sinking like pebbles in a pond.

[–] Badeendje 2 points 5 months ago

That makes sense. Although a lot of navy power is smaller ships, frigates and such.

But also the emergence of the drone boat in its current form was for sure hypothesized but now that they are here, the race is on to find a solution.

And several types of ships simply have no alternatives. Carriers, helicopter carriers, amphibious transport ships, oilers.