What is the range of Drones?

[Kaktus29]

i read many times what is the endurance (the time spent in the combat zone before they return to base to refuel, maintenance etc..) .. so endurance is measured in hours, 10 hours, 24 hours, even more etc..

 

now the speed at which the drone flies is what.. i mean cruises? obviously not supersonic and obviously faster than a glider.. so lets say 500 km/h.. so if the drones can fly and ENDURE to fly in the air for 24 hours or 36 hours what does that mean about their range.. ferry range for instance.. this must be 36 hours X (times) 500 km/h = 18.000 km ))) WTF )) .. so they can fly half way around the earth.. and they are not even designed for strategic bombing missions that usually require big range..

 

 

so, my question is, is the time of Navies truly over? Big aircraft carriers that in our modern day and age with satelites that are tracking almost all capital ships and range of planes that can strike all naval assets safely away from the mainland obsolete? are navies as such obsolete?

 

except submarine forces that still have advantage of stealth to a degree and endurance (since they really don't need to refuel for the duration of the mission as other ships must (even CVNs since aircraft flying means fuel is spending thus resupplying the crap of the carriers is a must)..

 

with drones in the future that will have dramatically bigger range (lets say endurance of 60 hours for starters) would make UK be able to patrol the Atlantic ocean faster, cheaper, better than any Navy could..

 

i think we are coming to a point of WW2 moment when realization hit that navy capital ships particularly battleships are obsolete compared to CVs with their planes and advantages that they offer..

 

So, do you think Drone control of Sea lanes is a better, cheaper, more efficient way?..

 

 

article i found that elaborated on many questions i had..

 

http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html

[GGTharos]

I spoke with a bunch of people and such things were sort of mentioned, not in the terms you are considering but, basically, the idea that naval ships can't hide is premature.

 

Also, drones can't 'hold ground'. It would be like claiming the MBT is obsolete because you have attack helicopters and fixed wing aircraft (... or drones).

[Sharpe_95]

It really depends on the drone type, it's role and it's profile.

 

MQ19 Reaper has something like a 14 hour loaded endurance with a 170 knt endurance (maybe 350 kmph) and a suggested operational range of about 1000nm (2000k).

 

MQ/RQ4 Global Hawk (an ISTAR asset so no ordnance) has a suggested endurance of 28 hours with a cruise speed of about 310knts (570kph) so has a dramatically enhanced capability in terms of range (7500nm).

 

However, first recognise that the global hawk is a strategic ISTAR asset and is designed long endurance flights and/or transitions whereas Reaper is anot operational assest with a blend of ISTAR and strike capability. There are trade offs in cost and capability (mission types as well as technical capability) that are reflected in price. Also, bear in mind that there are fundamental differences between the way these two aircraft perform their tasks and the required infrastructure for them to do so - but I am not sure how much of this I can go into in a public forum. Suffice to say it also effects their range and how they are used.

 

-Cost/Benefit trade off effects every military capability and is much more complex than a 'top trump' of vehicle specs and goes more to politics, budget, capability gaps and mission support/other assets. But it a comes down to a balancing act.

 

I believe there is already a lot of interest in the use of drones at sea but it's a question of launch/recovery atm. Let us not forget the Americans have already performed a touch and go on a carrier with an autonomous drone. I think what it comes down to atm is the current generation of ships and aircraft are being built. As far as I know the next (6th) generation aircraft are barely on the drawing boards in the US let alone Europe. I suspect the type of capability you are talking about will have to wait for the 7th or maybe 8th generation of aircraft and the ships that fit into that era.

 

also bear in mind that much of the world has very tight controls on where drones can and can't fly. The world is coming closer to a resolution but that too may be a way off in the future.

 

But it is interesting to note the current case study of drones in high threat piracy areas. Really tho its a question of survivability. Subs are excellent at that - in 1981 a British sub took out an Argentinian cruiser then hid UNDER one of its escorting destroyers for a few hours before it slipped off. That was more than 30 years ago - but that kind of capability and survivability comes at a price. Back in the days of Arquela and Rondfeld the idea of 'swarming' lots of cheap, networked units (including drones) was the hight of military interest. I suspect (as I have said above) we will need to see a few more cycles of aircraft to allow the tech to evolve and become cheaper and more reliable before politicians have the confidence to sign off on them for the kind of role you have on mind.

 

There are other alternatives as to why a nation needs a navy but I won't go into that as Tharos has already touched on it and my wrist hurts from typing all this on my phone :-S

 

Time will tell but it makes for an interesting future.

 

-Sharpe

Edited December 15, 2013 by Sharpe_95

[Kaktus29]

of course, ships "holding ground" are needed, but if by holding ground they are susceptible to saturation attacks from the "mainlands" of the enemy than whats the point..re-arming and re-launching new attacks is easier if your forces are on mainland then if your force is a ship..

 

100 years ago or even more so ships were ideal, there was no other way of controlling sea lanes and monitoring trade routes.. but now with this new drone army that IS cheaper than the actual fighter planes and bombers.. makes it (i didn't calculate but i have a strong feeling its much much cheaper than a carrier battle group) much affordable..

 

about bases, US has many bases from where drones could land, resupply, and assault any ship that comes close..since world is really SHRUNK by new ever expending ranges of planes and drones in particular the ability to monitor the sea lanes and HOLD the AIR of those lanes 24/7 is becoming REAL and CHEAPER than a big ass ship with a nuclear reactor.. which still needs many supply ships and escort ships to protect it..

 

i'm not talking about US, US has enough money to deploy BOTH, even though Carrier groups would in my scenario be just over-crowding the tactical space of the "new navy-drone doctrine).. but other nations like Japan, UK, France, Russia, etc.. i think building carriers would be quite foolish.. i think Drones are definitely the way to go..

 

with just 200 hundred drones one could control Atlantic.. 24/7 and be able to respond to threats in minutes not days.. by a fraction of the cost that is the CVN battle carrier groups.. plus it makes it much more survivable since spotting big capital ships will always be more easy than spotting slim stealth drone high up in the air.. as GG usually says, stealth and RCS of objects do play a role in determining who gets the first shot..and i agree.. which means only thing holding Drone Naval Doctrine back is Range or should i say Endurance..

 

once we go into 100 hours endurance i think this will be the breaking point.. Navy will become airborne and i can't see logic in deploying boats on sea anymore.. as the carriers SUNK battleships forever i feel drones will do for navy ships this time around..

[GGTharos]

Depending on what you are trying to achieve, saturation attacks from the mainland is not necessarily an issue. Also, most surface vessels today are:

 

Carrier

Tender

Guided Missile Destroyer/Air Defense

Anti-sub.

 

of course, ships "holding ground" are needed, but if by holding ground they are susceptible to saturation attacks from the "mainlands" of the enemy than whats the point..re-arming and re-launching new attacks is easier if your forces are on mainland then if your force is a ship.

[javelina1]

as for any Kamikaze drones...

 

http://www.janes.com/article/11811/navy-league-2013-usn-to-deploy-solid-state-laser-weapon-on-board-uss-ponce-in-2014

[Cali]

When I was in Guam they had Global Hawks there and heard that a base back in mainland US would actually fly the missions once they got airborne. I'm not sure where they went every time they took off, but I do know a few places they went.....but can't repeat it. Look where Guam is on the map and see how close places of interest are.

[javelina1]

When I was in Guam they had Global Hawks there and heard that a base back in mainland US would actually fly the missions once they got airborne. I'm not sure where they went every time they took off, but I do know a few places they went.....but can't repeat it. Look where Guam is on the map and see how close places of interest are.

 

Oui, I can think of 2 or 3 different places... :music_whistling: :)

[Vampyre]

 

so, my question is, is the time of Navies truly over? Big aircraft carriers that in our modern day and age with satelites that are tracking almost all capital ships and range of planes that can strike all naval assets safely away from the mainland obsolete? are navies as such obsolete?

 

except submarine forces that still have advantage of stealth to a degree and endurance (since they really don't need to refuel for the duration of the mission as other ships must (even CVNs since aircraft flying means fuel is spending thus resupplying the crap of the carriers is a must)..

 

with drones in the future that will have dramatically bigger range (lets say endurance of 60 hours for starters) would make UK be able to patrol the Atlantic ocean faster, cheaper, better than any Navy could..

 

i think we are coming to a point of WW2 moment when realization hit that navy capital ships particularly battleships are obsolete compared to CVs with their planes and advantages that they offer..

 

So, do you think Drone control of Sea lanes is a better, cheaper, more efficient way?..

 

 

article i found that elaborated on many questions i had..

 

http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html

 

Ask yourself this then, How does the Green Machine get to the fight? The answer is by sea. There is no way to build up the force necessary without massive transport ships that require escort from surface, subsurface and airborne threats. Yes, ships can be seen by drones and targeted by aircraft submarines, ships and new ballistic missiles being developed by our potential enemies. The ballistic missile threat is the reason we have such a high priority on the development of the RIM-161D and the upgrade of the SPY-1 system. So, until we create the Star Trek transporter that can move entire Divisions of Army troops in an instant there will be a need for a Navy with ships as its centerpiece.

The Navies missions are more than just going "toe to toe" with a similarly powerful foe. When a crisis occurs, The president doesn't ask where the army or the air force is. He asks where the carriers are. Ships are required to perform blockades, maritime security, anti-piracy, humanitarian and a host of other missions. Aircraft do not offer the persistence or utility of a naval task force. Aircraft, particularly drone aircraft offer great potential for surveillance and attack missions in permissive environments and will have a much greater use in the future. As for the article cited, it sounds like the author just has an axe to grind as all of his arguments are based on speculation and quite a few of his "facts" are skewed by omissions of important information.

[Kaktus29]

@vampyre .. i'm not convinced by your argument to be frank.. you say navy is the one that responds to crisis.. like what? Afghanistan? a land locked country? or CAR in Africa where Drones operating from GERMANY air base were launched and were conducting missions deep in central Africa?.. what navy?.. today forces count in the thousands not hundred of thousands of soldiers..

 

the complexities of combat are huge and destruction delivered even more so, .. the force needed in war in terms of soldiers today count in 10's of thousands of soldiers ..not 100's, or 1 million etc.. because again, we come to logic conclusion-drones.. radars, spying equipment.. all of that makes any BIG HUGE assembly of force an easy target.. destroying 200.000 enemy troops is today much easier than it was 60 years ago.. droning supply lines and trucks that deliver food, water, ammo and those 200.000 troops disintegrate and surrender in a humiliating demoralized way.. which is why all armies in the world are cutting their soldiers and rather upgrading their technological levels and doctrines than just increasing the numbers of soldiers that mean nothing in our "Intel" war conducting world..

 

 

Navies and their job was needed because no other asset could be deployed to the smallest world corner.. today this is changing.. Drones have that ability and they will do it cheaper.. about that "laser" thingie.. yeah, this is meant for slow CLOSE drone flying targets.. not for hypersonic anti-ship missiles send in saturation attack on a ship..

 

 

 

problem is distance between planes and carriers has dramatically closed, i mean ability to reach from mainland a naval battle group has increased to such a degree it makes a carrier only useful in open ocean like PAcific ocean or Atlantic.. and in the middle of it .. as soon as carrier approaches the mainland of any moderately modern and powerful country the danger of saturation attack is there.. so what's the point in having a carrier 2000 miles away from the coast?

 

 

analysis already prove that those ships in piracy infested waters have much bigger chance of Drones assisting them then ships.. calling for help if you are a tanker near Somalia waters will be heard by a Naval asset (destroyer, cruiser etc).. which will deploy helicopter, plane to its rescue.. NOT itself.. since the ship is just too slow to respond ..

 

i feel US will not be the one to take the revolutionary change in this course since they are carrier leaders in number and planes fielded on them..it would be unthinkable if US would scrap carriers EVEN as Drone technology supersedes carriers.. history shows us that implementing NEW doctrines and technologies is always because of a MUST, a NEED that arises from scarcity.. Japanese navy didn't have enough steel to create a big battleship flotilla.. so implementing the new promising weapon-carriers was forced on them.. it was a gamble of sorts that proved right.. while US at a time and USSR, UK, Germany still competed who will build biggest Battleship.. its a mindset that carries a big momentum that is hard to stop..

 

So, my prediction is US will keep the carrier doctrine until defeated like Germany by UK with the "new" weapon-doctrine..

 

 

one has to put in perspective this, 1 carrier (12 billion dollars), 6 support ships (each 500 million), 3-5-supply/secondary ships (each 100-200 million dollars) = over 15 billion dollars.. for a force that moves 30 miles per hour.. and can be seen from space!..

 

a drone= let's say the futuristic drone (in 4-6 years time) costs more than today drones but still.. about 150 million dollars.. how many drones can one buy for this.. 1000 drones.. this represents 1 carrier group.. now this drones can patrol whole of Atlantic ocean and PAcific ocean and still have some force remaining for contingencies .. and this is the job of 3 carrier groups today.. so you can cover same space as 3 carrier groups more cheaply, efficienty, FASTER, and much more dynamically. and this is if drone costs so much which price would drop if build in the thousands (most probably the price would be 50-70 million) meaning you would have 3000 drones for the cost of 1 carrier group..

 

with 12 carrier groups USN has this would amount to 12.000 (or considering lower price of drone-36.000) drones capable of patroling world oceans and maintaining EYE-contact with most of the SEA-surface.. and flying much faster than ships can move, much stealthier than ships are, and can relocate to other strategic places much easily..

 

on supply notice, much easier on the budget and eyes, the mere fact that this doctrine replaces (carrier group consist of what about 7000 sailors) a huge amount of personnel that increases cost, training, etc.. with a force that requires maybe 200 pilots, majors, generals...

 

about those saying but look at all the fancy weapons put on a ship.. yes, but still thats like saying lets put lasers on Mig-31.. so what..its still a big plane with big RCS that is visible for all to see.. now what?.. you can't tip the balance by saying lets arm it more, make it more dangerous, etc.. it is what it is.. a ship is bigger target than a drone.. today we have a problem that most drones still don't have the endurance needed for what i'm proposing..but to an extend they already do.. depending on what you want to accomplish..

 

for a country like France, UK, India, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Brazil the choice is obvious.. more drones, stealth drones, coupled with cruise missile-changing into hypersonic missile in end game.. and there you are..

 

USN feels threatened by coast now a days.. imagine USN in Black sea.. or the Med.. or Indonesia-Vietnam, Baltic?.. easy target .. big target, no where to hide or run.. so what's the point..

 

about those saying Navy is only one that can support major invasions by sea.. the guy in the analysis was right.. no such thing.. if anybody is under an illusion that USN which is a superpower in itself can perform a successful landing invasion from sea on a medium power house successfully is crazy.. we had landing in normandy supported by absolute superiority in everything and even that was VERY close to the mainland (which acted as UK) .. to think US doing this from Washington and landing lets say in Brazil is beyond reason.. and you would land what? 2000 marines.. this is it.. 2K )) and then what? fight 100.000 enemies.. launching everything they have on that spot on beach you decided to die in.. to support your landing force your ships need to be 100 miles from coast -which implies they will all be sunk by coast-fire..

 

same goes for any nation, landing invasions is a thing of the past.. wars will be fought in much more clever ways.. if you control the sea you won.. no need to land anything anywhere.. with control you force opponent to declare defeat or bankruptcy.. whatever comes first..

[docfu]

I'm still waiting for either:

 

1. A drone-only aircraft carrier.

 

2. Drone-carrying submarine.

 

The day those come out...well...yeah...

[Vampyre]

@vampyre .. i'm not convinced by your argument to be frank.. you say navy is the one that responds to crisis.. like what? Afghanistan? a land locked country? or CAR in Africa where Drones operating from GERMANY air base were launched and were conducting missions deep in central Africa?.. what navy?.. today forces count in the thousands not hundred of thousands of soldiers..

 

Yes, Afghanistan is a good example. We used TLAM's launched from ships in the first strike of what was to become OEF and the Navy was the first to provide tactical airpower to support Special Forces and CIA agents in country. More recent examples are Syria, Libya, and relief efforts in Japan. About 90% of the Navy's mission involves peacetime operations that cannot be done by an unmanned craft. A navy is more than just a war fighting organization.

 

 

the complexities of combat are huge and destruction delivered even more so, .. the force needed in war in terms of soldiers today count in 10's of thousands of soldiers ..not 100's, or 1 million etc.. because again, we come to logic conclusion-drones.. radars, spying equipment.. all of that makes any BIG HUGE assembly of force an easy target.. destroying 200.000 enemy troops is today much easier than it was 60 years ago.. droning supply lines and trucks that deliver food, water, ammo and those 200.000 troops disintegrate and surrender in a humiliating demoralized way.. which is why all armies in the world are cutting their soldiers and rather upgrading their technological levels and doctrines than just increasing the numbers of soldiers that mean nothing in our "Intel" war conducting world..

 

All of the technology still needs a concentrated force to be effective. People are still required to maintain drones and bases are needed to service and maintain them. That is the weak point of the drones as well as ships.

 

Navies and their job was needed because no other asset could be deployed to the smallest world corner.. today this is changing.. Drones have that ability and they will do it cheaper.. about that "laser" thingie.. yeah, this is meant for slow CLOSE drone flying targets.. not for hypersonic anti-ship missiles send in saturation attack on a ship..

 

Directed Energy weapons are the best way to defeat a hypersonic missile and a ship, particularly a nuclear powered ship, would be the best surface platform for these types of weapons. Our technology is only getting better in the area of directed energy weapons. If you were referring to the RIM-161D... that was for ballistic missile defense.

 

problem is distance between planes and carriers has dramatically closed, i mean ability to reach from mainland a naval battle group has increased to such a degree it makes a carrier only useful in open ocean like PAcific ocean or Atlantic.. and in the middle of it .. as soon as carrier approaches the mainland of any moderately modern and powerful country the danger of saturation attack is there.. so what's the point in having a carrier 2000 miles away from the coast?

 

That was the case even in the cold war. The proper tactic is to attrite the enemies long range forces to an extent where the environment becomes permissive to move ships closer.

 

 

analysis already prove that those ships in piracy infested waters have much bigger chance of Drones assisting them then ships.. calling for help if you are a tanker near Somalia waters will be heard by a Naval asset (destroyer, cruiser etc).. which will deploy helicopter, plane to its rescue.. NOT itself.. since the ship is just too slow to respond ..

 

The piracy/drone argument is weak mainly because the ship is a vastly superior platform for investigating and prosecuting suspected piracy. A drone can only look and kill. It can simply take a video clip of the action taking place. It cannot apprehend, interrogate and deliver for prosecution. A ships aircraft are a part of its weapon systems, not independent entities that happen to be launched from it although they are capable of independent action if required.

 

i feel US will not be the one to take the revolutionary change in this course since they are carrier leaders in number and planes fielded on them..it would be unthinkable if US would scrap carriers EVEN as Drone technology supersedes carriers.. history shows us that implementing NEW doctrines and technologies is always because of a MUST, a NEED that arises from scarcity.. Japanese navy didn't have enough steel to create a big battleship flotilla.. so implementing the new promising weapon-carriers was forced on them.. it was a gamble of sorts that proved right.. while US at a time and USSR, UK, Germany still competed who will build biggest Battleship.. its a mindset that carries a big momentum that is hard to stop..

 

Drones are evolutionary, not revolutionary. The only thing that changed is aircraft now have a longer endurance.

 

So, my prediction is US will keep the carrier doctrine until defeated like Germany by UK with the "new" weapon-doctrine..

 

Only time will tell if your opinion is correct or not.

 

one has to put in perspective this, 1 carrier (12 billion dollars), 6 support ships (each 500 million), 3-5-supply/secondary ships (each 100-200 million dollars) = over 15 billion dollars.. for a force that moves 30 miles per hour.. and can be seen from space!..

 

That's the point. It moves. The drones you are talking of will require fixed bases and lots of infrastructure which provides a perfect target as well. Guess what? Bases can be seen from space too... and they don't move.

 

a drone= let's say the futuristic drone (in 4-6 years time) costs more than today drones but still.. about 150 million dollars.. how many drones can one buy for this.. 1000 drones.. this represents 1 carrier group.. now this drones can patrol whole of Atlantic ocean and PAcific ocean and still have some force remaining for contingencies .. and this is the job of 3 carrier groups today.. so you can cover same space as 3 carrier groups more cheaply, efficienty, FASTER, and much more dynamically. and this is if drone costs so much which price would drop if build in the thousands (most probably the price would be 50-70 million) meaning you would have 3000 drones for the cost of 1 carrier group..

 

You are underestimating the timeframe and costs of the drone you want. I'd bump that timeframe to closer to 15 to 20 years for a capable drone aircraft of the type is needed to attack a carrier. I'd also bump the price of your drones up as well if you are talking stealthy supersonic long ranged attack drones. If the B-2 Spirit is any indication, the price of the drone envisioned will be well above what one of those costs. If all that is wanted is a simple stealthy reconnaissance drone it will be a lot cheaper but they will also be killed in larger numbers through both kinetic and directed energy weapons.

 

with 12 carrier groups USN has this would amount to 12.000 (or considering lower price of drone-36.000) drones capable of patroling world oceans and maintaining EYE-contact with most of the SEA-surface.. and flying much faster than ships can move, much stealthier than ships are, and can relocate to other strategic places much easily..

 

Which is why we are acquiring the P-8A Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton.

 

on supply notice, much easier on the budget and eyes, the mere fact that this doctrine replaces (carrier group consist of what about 7000 sailors) a huge amount of personnel that increases cost, training, etc.. with a force that requires maybe 200 pilots, majors, generals...

 

3000 drones will require a minimum of 10 personnel to maintain and operate it...30,000 personnel, plus, the drones are a single purpose force and very inflexible in the overall scheme of things.

 

about those saying but look at all the fancy weapons put on a ship.. yes, but still thats like saying lets put lasers on Mig-31.. so what..its still a big plane with big RCS that is visible for all to see.. now what?.. you can't tip the balance by saying lets arm it more, make it more dangerous, etc.. it is what it is.. a ship is bigger target than a drone.. today we have a problem that most drones still don't have the endurance needed for what i'm proposing..but to an extend they already do.. depending on what you want to accomplish..

 

Still, there is no argument to stop building ships just because they can be seen and maybe sometime in the future the technology will be available for robots to conquer our current fleet. The navy is constantly improving its warships and designing new systems to stay relevant. Imagine this... Drones on ships. We already have them in service and operating from our Destroyers and Cruisers.

 

for a country like France, UK, India, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Brazil the choice is obvious.. more drones, stealth drones, coupled with cruise missile-changing into hypersonic missile in end game.. and there you are..

 

If I were a less than top tier country with a far more limited budget, I'd choose the cheap rout as well.

 

USN feels threatened by coast now a days.. imagine USN in Black sea.. or the Med.. or Indonesia-Vietnam, Baltic?.. easy target .. big target, no where to hide or run.. so what's the point..

 

The US Navy is primarily a blue water Navy and is less effective in enclosed waters such as the Black or Baltic seas. If a war were to start large warships will not enter confined waters until the environment is permissive enough to allow operations with a lower risk. The Med and Oceana are a different story due to the size of the areas.

 

about those saying Navy is only one that can support major invasions by sea.. the guy in the analysis was right.. no such thing.. if anybody is under an illusion that USN which is a superpower in itself can perform a successful landing invasion from sea on a medium power house successfully is crazy.. we had landing in normandy supported by absolute superiority in everything and even that was VERY close to the mainland (which acted as UK) .. to think US doing this from Washington and landing lets say in Brazil is beyond reason.. and you would land what? 2000 marines.. this is it.. 2K )) and then what? fight 100.000 enemies.. launching everything they have on that spot on beach you decided to die in.. to support your landing force your ships need to be 100 miles from coast -which implies they will all be sunk by coast-fire..

 

An amphibious landing is the riskiest of military operations. It should only be undertaken in the most opportune of times or when the need is greatest. The simple presence of Marine Amphibious forces in the 1991 Gulf War tied down a large number of Iraqi troops that would have been more useful on the Saudi border.

The Marines mission has not changed but its methods have. No longer will you see landing craft going ashore in the traditional amphibious landings. The current method involves the use of fast long ranged troop transport aircraft launched by ship. Think of them as a shock force. They are there to kick the door in and take a key infrastructure such as ports and airfields for follow on forces (such as the Army) to exploit.

 

same goes for any nation, landing invasions is a thing of the past.. wars will be fought in much more clever ways.. if you control the sea you won.. no need to land anything anywhere.. with control you force opponent to declare defeat or bankruptcy.. whatever comes first..

 

Seriously? No matter how clever the tactics and strategies are, the transportation of troops and supplies to the battle is of critical importance. Drones cannot do this mission and they cannot protect the convoys of transport ships a major war requires from every threat they face. As long as we continue to transport by ship the requirement for naval ships to escort and enforce maritime freedoms is still there.

[Invader ZIM]

2. Drone-carrying submarine.

 

The day those come out...well...yeah...

 

Wow, one of your wishes has been granted.

 

http://www.gizmag.com/submarine-uav-launch/30027/

 

http://gbcghana.com/?id=1.1630216

 

The U.S. Navy has successfully launched an unmanned aerial drone from a submerged submarine for the first time - signaling a significant escalation in the military's UAV capabilities.

 

Six-years in the planning, the all electric drone is fired from the submarine's torpedo tube in a specially customized Tomahawk cruise missile casing dubbed a 'Sea Robin'.

 

Once the Sea Robin reaches the surface, it bobs on the surface resembling a buoy - only to spring open to allow the UAV to be electrically ejected skywards and extend its folded wings outwards and take flight.

 

Launched from the Los-Angeles class nuclear powered attack submarine USS Providence, the Sea Robin drone system is able to be deployed to any submarine or surface ship in the navy with cruise missile capability without modifications to the boats.

 

The XFC contains a fuel cell that allows it stay in the sky for more than six hours and flies at low altitude and is designed for reconnaissance and surveillance missions - but armed versions are only a matter of time.

 

During the first test flight, after the Sea Robin opened, the XFC successfully flew and beamed back video feed to USS Providence for hours before it returned to the Naval Sea Systems Command Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC), on Andros Island in the Bahamas.

 

Someone's listening to you lol. Wish for something else that's cool now!! :lol:

Edited December 16, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Kaktus29]

@vampyre afganistan is a clear example that navy had nothing to do with it.. you say they provided cruise missile attack etc.. yes,but they overflew Pakistan--which means they had access to pakistan which means this goes under the "LAND" route not navy route..

 

it was Air force and Army doing the job not navy..

 

 

- maintaining the drones, yes, having a base that is visible on the map, yes.. BUT, can you approach the base ? if you have drones patrolling the surroundings of the base like 1000 miles away.. i would say this base is more protected than carrier.. again, ..land bases are easier to stuff with lasers and anti-missile defense than ships are.. i thought this is no brainer here..

 

- you say navy stays away until safe to approach nearer.. well in that case they are useless altogether.. its like saying i will punch you in the face but only when you are on your knees.. and how exactly are you going to get on your knees? by whom if not by the warring party which is afraid to approach you.. If carrier is so far away that it cannot get involved with the mainland than its useless from the get-go.. If USN can't approach lets say China under 1000nm for all practical reasons we can safely say Naval assets are useless.. of course this is not true today, but in a major nation like China or Germany, Russia armed with drones with superior range, endurance, stealth coupled with land-based cruise missiles, submarines (that act like real naval assets) can launch devastating attack on enemy navy IF they dare come close to their shore(this distance is getting only bigger as time goes by not shorter..

 

-you are saying drones are evolutionary not revolutionary.. same thing was said for planes onboard battleships in WW1-WW2.. but they are in fact revolutionary that ended the reign of battleships.. drones i think will bury idea of standing navies altogether .. those building carriers in this age and time are just drawing a big circle on themselves..

 

-again you emphasize the need for sea lanes in order to supply troops, and bring troops.. forgeting the air component.. US send its soldiers to Vietnam mainly with passenger planes.. there was no marine amphibious invasion to secure the beaches and then expanding on that part.. as you simply cannot sustain logistics of such a move..it would be akin for me to travel to US and box 1 round with you, then going back across atlantic ocean to drink some fresh water and going back for round 2.. while you would drink 5 feet away from the ring.. in normandy the distance was measly 200-300 km.. in Vietnam it would be 8000 km.. landing on small islands that matter nothing in grand scale of things is one thing-since small islands can't station huge number of troops you can take them if you have naval superiority and small island cannot defend itself against incoming naval armada -even armed with anti-ship missiles sooner or later they would run out of ammo and would need to re-supply but naval lines would be blocked by enemy navy so there you go.. but trying to pull that on a MAINLAND its not the same.. its akin to destroying the whole nation simultaneously as you try to disembark and do Normandy 2.0..

 

-which is why i say wars will not be fought CLOSE to mainlands since with ever increasing and smart weapons with extending ranges, and drones "shadowing" all kind of naval assets the position of ships will be known, and decision to sink them will be able to implement easier than what this navy can implement to do damage to enemy mainland.. when cruise missiles increase ranges up to 4000-6000 miles we are in situation where navies can be sunk in their harbours.. they don't even need to get out of the harbout in the open ocean to be sunk..

 

who can spot such cruise missiles? ships?who are/will be main targets of drones? or OTHER drones that will patrol the skies, sea with almost laser precision.. you keep imagining the drones as today drones where they are flown by container pilots.. i think they will ride of this concept quite soon.. it will be more like 1 pilot/manager having control of 20 drones covering something like half of pacific ocean.. drones will detect threats on the ground, air automatically as Patriot or S-300 system does.. all you will do is be alerted to this situation and act on it by sending accordingly right orders to the many drones under your command..

 

 

--couple this with REFUEL able drone that will be able to automatically connect and refuel on its own as they can land on their own.. and we are close to a FORCE that resides in the skies 24/7 and moves ALL the time with speeds up to 500km/h. compare this with a navy and a picture shows you carriers are old relics indeed.. but as i said..it is much harder to sell this to USN which will i think stick to it on the basis of national pride if anything else.. which is kinda ironic since US is the only one as close to implementing what i'm describing ..

 

 

-going the drone way is not only the cheap route but the best route.. remember, old cruisers armed with couple of catapult bi-planes were cheaper than modern battleships of WW1-WW2 era..but it proved them to be deadlier than battleships while being much cheaper.. US is mistaking cheapness as something less able..which is i think a historic mistake.. now what IS a laugh riot is India, China, Russia and UK, France still playing the carrier game )LOL..

[Vampyre]

The carrier is the current top tier capital ship in the world today and has been the top target of any foe we have since World War II or likely will face for the next 70 years.

 

A Carrier Task Force, Surface Action Group and Amphibious Task Force are highly flexible tool's we use to project force and respond to crises when and where needed. All great powers have one thing in common, they dominate the sea, regulate trade across it, and project power from it. The reason countries develop, build and maintain them is to assert dominance on their neighbors.

 

Today the world ships about 8 billion tons of cargo (Oil, Bulk, and Dry Cargo) a year. That figure is projected to increase to about 23 billion tons by 2060. That means more, larger merchant ships plying the waves which, in time of war, will be sitting ducks without armed escorts. You cannot move Heavy Divisions without the use of these vessels. Airliners can put all the troops on the ground you want but without the heavy equipment needed to win they are just a bunch of guys with M-16's and whatever ammo they can carry. Wars are won and lost by logistics, not the latest whiz bang gadgets. Gadgets are how battles are won and lost. We have all the whiz bang gadgets and, I speculate, a few you don't know about. Warships will always be needed as long as we use the sea as our primary means of logistics.

 

No matter how inconvenient it is for the drone argument, drones are only evolutionary. They are still only airplanes and that revolution happened in the early 20th century. A true revolution will involve something more profound than an airplane that can fly for a long time. Think Orbital bombardment with directed energy or kinetic weapons. The true revolutionary game changer will be in earth's orbit. Ask yourself what the X-37 has been doing in space for the past year... It's fun to speculate huh?

 

You will not see operational drones of the type you envision in regular service for at least another 20 years minimum... and it will be the US that has them first. The plan to make drones the primary force against all comers is foolhardy. Drones are not invulnerable. They are susceptible to all forms of attack that all other aircraft are susceptible to plus they are highly susceptible to electronic attack and the base operating stations can be targeted and destroyed. They have inherent weaknesses as well as the strengths your argument is based on.

 

Afghanistan: I was there in 2001 and have done many OEF deployments since then. When the word to go was sent, a Navy S-3B Viking was the first aircraft in country (due in a large part to its superior ESM). They were followed by F-14 Tomcats and Air Force Strategic Bombers in that order. There were no nearby bases to operate from. To get tactical aircraft to the fight the Air Force had to fly F-15E's from Al Dahfra UAE, around Iran and through Paki airspace to get to the same AO that we just had to fly through Paki airspace for.. You are either ignorant of that fact or being intentionally misleading for the purpose of your argument.

 

Ok, I feel I'm wasting my time here that could be better spent flying my Huey. After typing this up and re-reading the older posts I have concluded that you have made up your mind and your opinion will not be swayed on this subject regardless of the facts spelled out for you. I'm just glad you don't call the shots for the mightiest armed forces currently on planet earth. As for the Sitting Ducks article... The author is probably just mad that Navy beat Army... Again! 34-7

[Agiel7]

as for any Kamikaze drones...

 

 

Kamikaze drones? I thought we already had a name for those: Missiles :megalol:

[Kaktus29]

@vampyre.. you again claim who will protect those merchant ships in the middle of the oceans.. i told you.. DRONES.. when a drone will have 60 hour endurance and will be able to refuel from another drone than yes, that merchant ship will have a REAL drone above them protecting them. .. i don't see the problem here.. and if needed other drones can converge to ANY POINT in the map to assist with a threat no matter the size.. do you see the advantage now?..

 

other navy ships will be right away swarmed by them.. and drones WILL see the ship before ships see them.. meaning the ability for first fire will be with the drone operators.. the strike can come from subs, drones, or mainland cruise missiles.. so your navy ships will be more or less safe only close to their shores.. meaning useless scrap of metal they become..

[GGTharos]

Kaktus you're making things up. This stuff doesn't work the way you want it to work. Drones aren't cheap, they can easily cost as much as F-35's. Slow drones can have endurance, but they aren't terribly defensible and can be taken out at significant ranges.

 

Swarming drones just aren't going to happen. You'll just see anti-satellite warfare start up to cut those things off if nothing else, not to mention, again, they are expensive.

[Kaktus29]

GG i'm not trying to say drones will be used as japanese kamikaze, that would truly be useless tactic since as you said they're not really inexpensive..

 

but, a stealthy drone coupled with satellite, sub detection nets will guide the particular drones to a healthy 200-400 miles range from which to fire anti-ship cruise missiles.. now the biggest advantage i was going for was that if you have "global" drones its easier to converge them to this threat you are dealing with (1 carrier group, or 2 or whatever) than calling your ships from other side of planet and that takes 2 weeks to reach your theater of operations.. its takes just soo long..

 

in every combat speed matter, speed determines if you dance around your enemy or enemy does to you..

 

i will give you the weakest link of them all-satellite link-ups and possibility to jamm it, destroy the satellite or any combination of that..

 

but it depends on drone development or should i say AI development.. if AI improves to a point where drone can make rudimentary choices (attack, defend, observe and report, observe and await orders, ) ..so no constant link-up to direct the drone would be required than drones suddenly become much more resiliant and in its automatic response even more fast to the slow ships below..

 

no matter how we flip it, in the end, its network centric approach that will be determined with high computational speed and AI that works and decides on milisecond decisions on what to do and where... the thing is, drones will still be faster than ships.. and this is advantage that ships can never replace.. just as battleships couldn't when fighting carriers..

 

if our planet would be the size of jupiter with gigantic oceans so no drone could operate from mainland to strike ships at sea, then of course, aircraft carriers or drone carriers would be number 1 still.. but as soon the drones acquire the range that almost surpasses what carrier provides then it becomes useless..

 

would you agree that 200 fighter jets (same class, same tech, etc) from the mainland going after 70 fighters from carriers in a battle..do you believe that the latter would loose because outnumbered? .if so, what to do here? ..carrier move further away from coast.. obviously.. but since mainland planes endure more and more time in the air(drones) this space from coast becomes bigger and bigger to the point where floating airfields loose any advantage to your regular normal air base.. US navy will do whatever missions they want straight from Hawai, of Japan, or San Francisco.. so why bother putting a massive target practice ship in the ocean?..

 

of course, much of my hypothesis lays on further drone development that will mostly assist in autonomy of the drone and networking ability with other drones to manufacture a sensible assault plan in choice is made to attack certain target + be able to work in situation where satellites/support are/is knocked off..