Thoughts about unmanned arsenal ships?
>>64472208Yes
>>64472208No
>>64472208Maybe
>>64472208What's the point of an unmanned ship? It's probably worth keeping a few guys onboard.
>>64472285it's less politically damaging if you lose metal instead of men in a war. You can also send a drone ship on an obvious suicide mission that a human crew would refuse. Note that this only works if any given system is expendable enough, even if aircraft carriers weren't hauling thousands of people around losing one would be a disaster>>64472208I see the potential in small ships carrying, say, 10-20 AShMs inside a stealthy, long endurance hull. Perhaps semi-submersible if that wouldn't drive the cost up too high. It certainly fits into the hellscape concept
>random asinine question>check >another chink shit Sad life, chink
>>64472208>unmannedRetarded>drastically reduced crewGood
>>64472208Sounds cool on paper but in a decade or two when someone gets insanely good AI it will become a huge liability as their AI will find a way to hijack it and use it against you
>>64472208>unmannedWhat happens if something breaks?
>>64472958It's nobody's problem since there's nobody on board, duh.
>>64472208Not a good idea. Either it's going to be remotely controlled, in which case that control signal can be jammed or taken over by hackers, or it's fully autonomous, in which case it can do unexpected kill-all-humans stuff.With little drone quadcopters, this isn't a big deal, because they're cheap, they don't carry much firepower, and they can only stay in the air for a few hours at most. Even if you lose control of one, it can't do much damage or cost you much in terms of lost military capacity. But with a large ship that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, can stay at sea for months or years, and carries enough firepower to flatten a small town, that's a different story.
>>64472208I don’t know
>>64472958>>64472925Optionally manned is the way to go imo.You're going to need accessways for maintenance anyway so it's not like going fully unmanned is going to make a huge difference in size or expense (at least not when it comes to full-sized naval vessels). At that point you might as well include bunks and a bridge too. Most of the time you'd want it crewed so you can have sailors doing maintenance etc but if you need to send it out into particularly risky waters then you can pull the crew off and do so.
Let's take the SSGN and make it easier to detect.What causes this retardation?
>>64472208What's to stop and couple of dudes in speed boats from boarding it and taking it over/sabotaging it/stealing your arsenal.
>>64472208>Let's take $700 million worth of missiles and put them in the middle of the ocean unattendedI know human lives are valuable, but they're not valuable enough to avoid risking a handful to keep your billion-dollar asset working as it should. Also, you need air defense to defend your expensive asset, underwater escort to avoid it getting sunk by enemy submarines, and just like that you reinvented the Arleigh-Burke class destroyer.
>>64472954That's retarded. If the enemy AI is smart enough to fool your purpose-made captain AI, it's certainly smart enough to fool a human captain too.
>>64472322An arsenal ship is by nature not an atrittable asset. If you're losing men on your capital ships, you're doing something wrong.
>some pump / machinery fails >nobody onboard, thus it can't be repaired>$100 million vessel is dead
>arsenal shipsevery "missile spam" design is rotten from the start because missiles are expensive. It's better to distribute expensive weapons widely so that they can achieve higher mobility, better redundant coverage, and are more compartmentalized in case of losses. >unmanned shipslarge ships are such maintenance hogs that they need their own metal and paint shops on board with personnel working in them seven days a week. this simply isn't an option.
We're so back, Jeune École bros
>>64472208better way would be to have a manned arsenal ship that is also a command center for unmanned corvettes
>>64473271an arsenal ship could be>a big steel box with 25 tomahawks or loitering munitions in it >a propeller with a motor>enough pool noodles to make it float>an rtx 4080TI telling it where to go/what to do>a datalink (optional)it could be very cheap
>>64472322Losing 5 guys with a billion dollar ship is nothing.People worry about losing 500 per ship right now, 5 is basically free.
It's a dumb concept because if it gets taken out then you lose a substantial part of your missile inventory. We don't live in a world where those are quick and cheap to produce.Yo' momma so ugly the ship design was originally manned but the crew said they were just going out to pick up cigarettes. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean.>>64472958Same thing they do already: fly out an absurdly expensive contractor who is legally the only one allowed to screw a new handle on the mop.
>>64474677>25 tomahawks controlled by a heavily quantized 30B modelWe're all going to die.
>>64474677and a battleship could be>a big steel box with a remote operated M249 >a propeller with a motor>enough pool noodles to make it float>an rtx 4080TI telling it where to go/what to do>a datalink (optional)it could be very cheapObviously this isn't a battleship, the same way that what you're describing would be some sort of autonomous missile boat and not an arsenal ship.
>>64472208Can you repeat the question?
>>64473090So long as EW doesn't break comms links I think optionally manned is the way to go for everything from tanks to ships and planes.
It seems difficult to automate tasks such as entering port, anchoring, and berthing, which are done by the intuition of experienced crew members and pilots.
>>64472322>it's less politically damaging if you lose metal instead of men in a warRetarded argument. As callous as it is to say, nobody actually cares about casualties. If we lost a drone arsenal ship then anti-war politicians would just start complaining about monetary cost.>You can also send a drone ship on an obvious suicide mission that a human crew would refuseNon-issue. Part of soldier's training is preparing them to die. Also, suicide missions are stupid with or without drones. Why send an arsenal ship on a suicide mission in the first place? Anyone who suggests this should be fired.
>>64472322Avoiding political damage from casualty figures is usually a high priority in unpopular proxy conflicts where there hasn't been an official declaration of war. In the case where you're facing a naval engagement so serious that your capital ships are getting sunk, avoiding casualties to preserve public support is a bit superfluous, it means you're already in an existential conflict. It's like when that German raider sunk the HMAS Sydney with all hands. Or Pearl Harbor for that matter. It didn't make the people want to surrender, they were furious.
>>64474852All of those are solved by the pilot boat putting a small crew on same as they put pilots on cargo ships.
Why is warfare so SOULLESS now? It’s just drones this, missiles that, blah blah blah satellites and precision strikes.
>>64475265Imagine 200 years in the future, life becomes so soulless and automated that we start letting people fight in wars again just to feel something
>>64472285It's becoming harder and harder to find people to fill out crews. An unmanned ship is basically an oversized torpedo.
>>64472285What's the minimum crew?
>>64472285smaller and lasts longer because it doesn't have people inisde. a ship has to re-supply for food every month or so. unmanned can work as long as there's fuel.
>thoughts?if it is Chinese, it is good. Simple as.
>>64475459>boy piss eggs GOOD>working missiles BAD
So this is just a SSGN but worse.Even the US stopped making SSGNs for narco boat style drones and Block V Virginias because SSGNs were not deemed survivable enough, imagine how much less this thing will qualify
>>64475368>unmanned can work as long as some doohickey doesn't crap itself.
>>64475348NTA but I think 2 mechanics, 2 electrcians, 2 plumbers, 2 machinists ect.
>>64472208Forgot to mention that the Chinese made this semi submersible, so that it is immune to anti ship missiles.https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/10/unusual-black-trimaran-drone-ship-spotted-in-chinese-shipyard/Shit has already been spotted via satellite but niggers don't want to release the pictures.
>>64476710>immune to anti ship missilesHeaps of AShMs carry an acoustic homing torpedo these days, they can hit subs hundreds of meters down so this thing wouldn't be safe.
>>64476710So, basically a CCA but for warships.Makes sense. The warship is the sensor node and doesnt need to use its own VLS stocks and just drags a couple of these alongside with it. By this means, even a small contingent of warships can flexibly take over missions that would require more firepower.Now, if they can make these unmanned ships hack-proof, it would work. Would suck if the enemy hacks into them and tells them to unload their missiles on their own ships lmao
>>64476610>2 guys working 12h shifts dont seem realistic.I'm not a ship fag in any way but, 20 guys 6 in maintenance 6 deck crew 8 officers Including Capt.
>>64476891I did 12 hours a day 7 days a week for 3 months, it sucks but it can be done.t. electrician
>>64476897>I did 12 hours a day 7 days a week for 3 months, it sucks but it can be done.Is that normal or one time thing? What if something shits itself, and it's a 2-man job?
>>64476918It's meant to be a one time thing, I did 3 months on 3 weeks off for 2 years before I quit.2 man jobs are either known maintaince that can be planned or an emergency where you are going to be up anyway.That said I agree it you want to keep guys you are going to need 3 of each speciality.
>>64472208Good idea for logistics, massive weakness in actual combat.
>>64476710>Semi-submersibleTerrible idea. Subs and semi-subs need to minimize freeboard in order to not capsize. Doing so with an arsenal ship means you've got waves of salt-water crashing over the deck in anything worse than sea state 2. That's fine if you're just sailing around but it's a problem if you want to open up the VLS hatches. The seawater would flood in, causing flooding and electrical shorts. >>64476610Go with 3 of each. The last thing you want is for someone to have 24 hour duties because someone dropped dead.
>>64472958Silly to worry about something that won't happen
>>64477647>Arsenal ship proceeds to explode as it leaves the shipyard.
>>64477647>Large warships consisting of multiple complex electronic and mechanical equipment would never fail or require maintenance, hence you don't need a crewPretty retarded take desu
>>64472208>Thoughts about unmanned arsenal ships?Who does damage control when it gets hit, rammed or starts listing for unknown reasons? DC is the long pole in the automation tent for ships. Compare an arsenal ship to a cargo ship with an 18 man crew. Now picture that ship under fire.
>>64477727They're going to claim you can make DC robots that can do everything automatically.
>>64477727looks about right
>>64472208Seems like something that would be very easy to rob, provided you had the hardware to perform such an operation while it was underway.
>>64477727The original concept of arsenal ships was literally putting all your eggs (missiles) in one basket like a retard. But the modern application is having lots of unmanned disposable little boats each with a few missiles.
Missiles are cheap. Radars are expensive. Data link in close proximity is safe.You do the math
>>64472208Arsenal ships are just kinda stupid because of how many missile cells are taken out of action from any hit, vs spreading those cells across multiple ships that can be in different places.
>>64472208Something about putting all your most expensive missiles on a ship with no crew around to save it if anything as much as a fire, defect or signal disruption happens seems silly. Why not split the arsenal up on two to three smaller, crewed traditional frigates?
>>64472322>it's less politically damaging if you lose metal instead of men in a war.Losing a few guys on a ship isn't that bad. Keeping a few guys on the ship can fix things and keep the mechanical bits lubed up for war is very important. Also, if the ship loses connection with a controller center having a human brain, making important decisions that might go against orders or behind orders important.>send a drone ship on an obvious suicide missionThe ship could have an escape boat for the guys to jump off while the ship does a suicide mission. > semi-submersible if that wouldn't drive the cost up too high.I love this idea... The US just needs to build enough of them for the "quantity has a quality of its own" to work.My main point for keeping a few guys on the ship is for decision making if the satellite network is destroyed with heavy amounts of jamming, preventing a drone ship from operating. AI is getting good but depending 100% on AI will be a disaster.
>>64478191smaller crews for just about everything is the way to go
>>64477580Just modify the launches to be able to handle water. Submarine vls already do it
>>64476820Nigger what? What ashm is this?
>>64479728Russian Metel, Chinese CY-1, Australian Ikara, French Malafon, Indian SMART, Italian MILAS, Japanese Type 07 vertical-launch anti-submarine rocket, South Korean Red Shark, American ASROC / VL-ASROC.
>>64472208Fun idea for videogames but when you need to simply tie it up good luck with nobody on board. Lets not even consider maintenance or refueling.
>>64479725Submarine VLS is also way more expensive than shipboard VLS. You'd lose most of the incentive to make arsenal ships.
