Are unmanned and potentially autonomous systems the future of naval warfare? Or is it just downright retarded and these guys should have gone for the missile boat like everyone else.
>>64440465Yes. This actually seems pretty good.While these systems seem promising, many of them are in the very early stages of development and haven't really seen any action yet, so it's a bit to early to say for sure if they're as good as they seem to be.
>>64440473But why drones over F-35? Why bother buying F-35 if you arent going to use them. Also drone ships and subs? The fuck can those do?
>>64440465>asw mothership >lots of various drones>no mention of the crewbet they all live inside of the chain locker
>>64440511It literally says right there. Its unmanned. Shits a large drone carrying other drones.
>>64440522unless they somehow developed a completely autonomous lars system im gonna press x and y and z to doubt
>>64440502Drones are versatile, cheap, expendable, easier to operate, less prone to human error, have smaller radar/sonar signatures, can target weak points and can operate in swarms. Some can be made to be impossible to jam, or can self guide to a target using inertial guidance incase of jamming.
>>64440540A missile can do the same
>>64440613There's some overlap but both have different niches.
>>64440613A missile will generally be more expensive, faster, non-recoverable and lower endurance than a drone. It's better for striking time sensitive and hardened targets, compared to drones that can loiter around the ship, provide ISR and be recovered and recharged. One is offensive, the other defensive in the context of naval warfare
>>64441137Yeah but I dont think drones can sink ships the way a missile can.
>>64440522There's crew, less than a hundred but they're still there
>8500 tons displacement >32 VLS cells>Les than 100 crewShoot more than two ASMs at it at a time and it'll be overwhelmed. Crew has zero chance of conducting damage control.Why don't they make it bigger if it's going to be a mothership?
>>64440502>But why drones over F-35?Are you retarded? While STOVL aircraft might be able to take off vertically, those do so with basically useless payload. Essentially its airshow trick. To operate F-35 with any efficiency you need a flat deck helicopter carrier at minimum.
>>64444646>To operate F-35 with any efficiency you need a flat deck helicopter carrier at minimumOr aerial refueling capablities.
>>64440465You need to think of drones as guided missiles. It's not "missiles or drones?" it's "missiles or better missiles?"
>>64445881If you need aerial refueling for you totally not a frigate based F-35 Why not operate that F-35 from airbase your tanker or tanker drone operates from? Vertical take off limitations of F-35 allows about 30min endurance without any weaponry, add pair of sidewinders, its 20min. Unironically, if F-35 ever makes emergency landing on a destroyer or a frigate, they are going to port to get it off helicopter landing pad with crane or move it with heavy lift helicopter if they have to do it while underway. In case they really do vertical take off, they will ditch all armament it was carrying overboard and then destroyer involved will spend month or so undergoing repairs at the dock because afterburner just melt their landing pad. If it happened during war, they would just ditch F-35 overboard and be happy because they saved the pilot. Having destroyer with ASW helicopter is probably more valuable asset than a fighter.>>64445896I'm going to say its more of a case of missiles or cheaper missiles when it comes to loitering munitions and one way attack drones. Drones can be used for lot of other things, like sensors platforms.
>>64444516>Why don't they make it bigger if it's going to be a mothership?then it would be a step-mothership
