>>64878002Indians are cheaper and they operate pretty much like they are unmanned anyway.
>>64878002Pretty sure the Liberty class is already a thing before this name stealer.
>>64878002female only?
>>64878006AI actually has safety measures. Indians will crash these into bridges like they do regular boats.
>>64878012floating shitboxes don't count
>>64878002Anyone who has ever owned a boat, let alone sailed on a ship, knows why these will never happen. Nothing in this world is as maintenance intensive as a saltwater craft, especially as they age.
>>64878070it is, but i could see ASW/AA pickets being augmented by semi-autonomous craft. if it's just got one or two jobs, redundancy in the onboard systems can create a lot of reliability. it's not like they'll be on extended patrols by themselves, and can easily be recalled to port or the manned ships to routine maintenance/shipkeeping.
>>64878002What happens when something breaks?
>>64878002Fleet of unmanned ships? Doubt it. I can see a mixture of manned and unmanned ships with the outer ring being made of mostly unmanned ships
>>64878002How are warships supposed to be unmanned when the entire reason they have massive crews is for damage control and maintenance?
>>64878085It doesn't need to be an extended patrol to need maintenance. Anything that can possibly break on a boat will break. Frequently.
>>64878095send another
>>64878116manpower has been an issue for the navy for a long time now. automation has already eliminated a large portion of jobs on a boat, and DARPA is actively working towards autonomous or semi autonomous vessels to carry out certain tasks. yeah, things will break. i own a boat, something always breaks. it's a problem for sure but the benefits may outweigh the costs when it's fully fleshed out. but like everything else these days it'll probably be mired with problems from the top down and become a canceled boondoggle.
>>64878095They keep 1 flip on board
>>64878002If they happen in serious numbers then they're likely to be smaller surface/subsurface drones operated by a larger tender vessel, or used as 'add ons' for other, less specialised, boats. No matter how good the autonomous tech gets militaries are going to want to keep a man in the loop - that's not going to change any time soon.
>>64878151What if he breaks?
>>64878200Then you put him in a skirt and touch his soft skin
>>64878200He fixes himself
>>64878147They'll never work. Maintenance is too constant a need.
>>64878063You just called the things that won WW2 floating shitboxes. You're mental.
>>64878200You explode the vessel.
>>64878107But then again, you only need the damage control and maintenance because you can't afford to lose the crew. It's a chicken-egg problem which unmanned systems designed with affordability and expendability in mind solve.This goes back to the so called Streetfighter debate in the US Navy during the design&development of the Littoral Combat Ship, which was such a failure because neither side could convince the other, making the ship class such a shitty compromise.
>>64878062Funnily enough, modern autonomous systems have Indians with remote controls as backups for corner cases
>>64878070>>64878085>>64878095I think the aim isn't just to make the ship a giant robot, but to staff it with robots for maintenance as well.
>>64880010the nice thing is you don't even really need to let the robots do the work on their own, you can just have a remote pilot control them and have them do skilled repairs without the danger of them actually being on the boat.
>>64880006AI really just means Absent Indian.
>>64880006>Company claims their product is "AI powered">Its revealed it's actually Indians doing all of the work
>>64878002absolutely not because noone will take the blame if something fails. The freighting company will push the blame to the ship yard who programmed the vessel. The ship yard will push the blame to the insurance company. The insurance company will deny the claim.Also the AI ca not do maintencance work and transporting 4x 40 foot containers on one vessel is so laughingly inefficient it would be cheaper to fly your cargo to its desination
>>64880072see >>64880024
>>64878002nothey'd just get boarded and sunk/stolen. i do however think the crew sizes of navies will be greatly minimized in the future. and you'll have things like small drone boats dragging sonar arrays in front of a sailing fleet
>>64880097you severely underestimate how harsh the sea is on ships in general. anything that can rust or corrode will, even the remote control robots.
>>64878006indians do jack shit for maintenance and would let the boat rot out from beneath their feet. you're better off with a completely autonomous vessel at that point
Ukies have made this thread
>>64880266???i think it's more likely a dutch person made this, considering it's a dutch shipbuilder that's working on it.
>>64878002a lot of peace time navy is putting your boats where someone else doesn't want them, then saying>do something about it, faggotand watching them bitch outwith no human lives on board these boats would just get sunk and would have no justification defending themselves from manned shipsonly real use I see is having them accompany a strike force, which can maintain them, to help project power and to sacrifice themselves by getting between an enemy and a carrier
>>64878002Lol no, they will be used for high risk short term missions like logistics in contested water but a ship that isn't full of mechanics, plumbers, electricians and engineers isn't going to be running long.
>>64880283the joke is that ukrainians make everything crewless due to their focus on drones
>>64881456Fixed:the joke is that ukrainians make everything crewless due to their focus on dying
>>64878002>Are Unmanned Ship Fleets The Future? ASome things to considerlegally.U can sink unnamed ship without any repressions and war declarations.Legally unmanned ships are floating garbage.
>>64881466What if there's one person on board to fix things?
>>64881466>Legally unmanned ships are floating garbagethey aren't, you don't need crew for something to be a ship.>but there's no one sailing it it doesn't matter if it's crewed or not but if you are controlling and navigating the shipt-lawfag
>>64878062that boat crashed into the bridge because the company that owned it made ill-conceived modifications to the fuel system that prevented backups from kicking in automatically. It had nothing to do the the Indians or the Harbor Pilot who was actually guiding the craft at the time.
>>64881466A cop car with no one inside is technically an "unmanned vehicle" but you'll still get in trouble if you molotov it.
>>64881459their focus *dyeing the soil with zigger blood, correct assessment, my brown fren.
>>64881466>there are still retards posting smug putin pictures in 2026 writing shitty hint hint implication implication fanficsyou realize he got unmasked as a gambling moron in 2022 right? he's a scared old man shitting himself in his little bunker while the literal clown that unmasked him goes on trips to the front to inspire.i mean, do i even have to add anything to that? it's embarrassing man.
>>64881475>it doesn't matter if it's crewed or not but if you are controlling and navigating the ship>t-lawfagI will just ram your unmanned ship with my manned ship after jamming the control channel then blame you for creating navigational hazards.
>>64881612Anglos will just sink your rustbucket fleet for touching their bote. That's the law of the high seas. By the way, say thank you right now for the prosperity that Anglo-protection of free navigation of the seas has brought you, and do it right now.
>>64881612great, what proof will you bring to court? the autonomous ship's got camera's all over it and will have caught you intentionally trying to ram the ship.
>>64881689>great, what proof will you bring to court? the autonomous ship's got camera's all over it and will have caught you intentionally trying to ram the ship.I will kill your satellite uplink with my jammer when I get close. Then I crush your ship. Or I send my own unmanned boat, outfitted with a pump and an oil tank, and spray your unmanned ship with burning oil. Then my unmanned boat scuttles itself, and your ship burns down. Too bad, so sad. BUT THE POWERPOINT SAID THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE!
>>64881716Why can't you do all of that to a manned ship?
>>64881731>Why can't you do all of that to a manned ship?Because people would get hurt. But an unmanned ship is just a bot, something like a robot lawn mover.
And oh yeah, there is one universal antidote against unmanned ships and that is their coast guard showing up and dropping people on the deck of your unmanned ship, which they promptly take over and tow to port.
>>64881742You think anything other then a warship is going to resist getting boarded anyway, retard?
>DamenOh no
>>64881736Why does that matter? You just listed off a bunch of ways to not get caught. So you kill some people from a country you didn't like anyway, why is that a problem?
>>64878002>Autonomous ship>Remote controlled by jeets over starlinkKEK
>>64881716>i will use magic and y-you won't recover any of the camera footage that shows me sperging out magically as well.very cute, but no, you're going to jail nigger.
>>64881572two more weeks my heckin' inspired zelensky brony.
>>64878002>Are Unmanned Ship Fleets The Future?Yes Mr. President, automating your navy and in fact as much as your military as possible is an excellent idea.
>>64879937Qrd?
>>64881466>Legally unmanned ships are floating garbage.Legally unmanned ships are russian navy?! How come?
>>64878116They can surely design it so it can make at least one cargo trip without breaking 99% of the time. That’s good enough for war.
>>64884552>this is the best the zigger could come up with after a full day of seethingi'm sorry your daddy got unmasked, you have to find a different parental figure now, little zigger.>t-two more weeksself-own, you know exactly why, so i don't have to explain it.
>hacks your shipnow what?
>>64878095no refunds
>>64884632Ships are too expensive and slow to build to be considered a one time use
>>64880010What happens if the robots break
>>64881466>legally U can sink unnamed ship without any repressionsNo, legally you can SALVAGE an uncrewed ship. Sinking it would be a breach of maritime law.This is why we have seen both China and the US "salvage" each others unmanned drones in the south china sea.
>>64881541Are you retarded? A cop car with none inside is an unoccupied car not an unmanned car. Also domestic law is much different than the laws of international waters.
>>64878002Naval Historian here (i am a shithead who has read 20 books on naval warfare)Never going to happen. A big part of the deterrent of sending forces to naval blockade a port is the safety of the sailors aboard the ship. If you do something to the ship that causes a sailor to skin his knee. You have the tripwire for a causus belli. Without sailors aboard. You have less justification to retaliate against a strike to your expensive multi million dollar ship. Impressment of American sailors by the UK was a huge factor that lead to the war of 1812 for example.
>>64881612>just do xa) can you do xb) can you do x reliablyc) can you do x without it being proven it was youd) the correct response to a navigational hazard isn't to ram itif you ram it it's your fucking fault, you have to go where you are going.when you are sailing a warship with all the sensors you have on one of those "it was a bit foggy" isn't going to cut ityou have now admitted you rammed an other countries military ship, their property and floating bit of sovereignty>>64886285lawfag here, there not being crew onboard doesn't make it any less an act of war.you explanation makes no legal sense, imposing a blockade is an act of war. when you impose that blockade you are declaring war.at that point using your blockade to fish for an act of war against your own ships is redundant.>impressmentfirst of all imperssment wasn't even the main reason for the war of 1812t secondly there wasn't any impressment done against a US navy ship but merchant ships those aren't sovereign. it has nor relevance in this discussion.thirdly is at it's basis a dispute about nationality. British merchant marine sailors could be impressed. acquiring American citizenship doesn't end you British citizenship. ergo you could still be impressed regadless of aquiring American citizenship. the US complained but the Brits didn't recognize them so it's a non entity telling you they take offense at you impressing you own citizens because they have become citizens of said non entity.
>>64878002>UnmannedFake. You just know there is a little midget inside steering.
>>64884582Hot.
>>64886330>there not being crew onboard doesn't make it any less an act of war.Your missing the point. You dont need a legal reason to go to war. You just do it. Often times without a formal congressional declaration. The Spanish American War would not have happened if the USS Maine had no sailors on it and was just an autonomous ship. The entire point of naval interdiction is to bring the trade of your enemy to a halt, while forcing them to surrender or escelate. You cant easily justify escelation if no one was harmed in the enemy's transgressions.
>>64886393>hey you make a legal argument>but I don't care about legalitythen why respond to my post in the first place?>You just do it. Often times without a formal congressional declarationyea than you don't need a reason, you just do it. just bomb them and be done with it if you don't care about the legality of your actions. again imposing a blockade is and act of war.if you are willing to impose a blockade in order to get your men killed. why aren't you willing to just go full on kinetic in the first place.heck imposing the blockade and maintaining it is going to cost you more political capital than just getting it over with.>Spanish American War that war was started by the yellow press in the US. you don't need a manned ship for them to work their magic.the only good argument you have for having manned vessels is when you are imposing a blockade and need to carry out searches.you unmanned boat can't board a merchant ship, check it's cargo and destination in order to seize it.but then you care about the legality of what you are doing and re thus abiding by international and national law. so the legality does matter.like how in WWI the British blockading squadrons always had a few French officers on a re-flagged ship because their prize taking laws where a lot more lax. you might be staring out the central powers while at war. but by Jove we aren't going to be breaking British law while doing so.
>>64886456I am sorry. Do you not understand what a causis belli is? I thought they taught you those latin terms in lawschool. Your cause needs to be justified to the people. You need martyrs. And your Yellow Press has a much much easier time to sell your war with dead sailors. And yes search and seizure is of course half the reason to have a navy. And if you are boarding a ship with no flag, you can search it even wirmthout justification.
>>64886470>you need causis belli>you are imposing a blockade>a blockade is an act of war>you are at waryou are past needing a causis belli at that point>but that's law stuff and I don't care about itthen don't bring up a legal term to justify your argument
>>64886393>while forcing them to surrender or escelateI will fore your mom to surrender and escalate my dingus erectus on her.
>>64886330NTA but>the lawvs>the masses feelings Are not a 1-to-1 relationship, and having blood pay for blood is way easier than materiele
>>64886565that's absolutely truebut if you have the public backing to impose a blockade. you've got the public backing to do a lot more things. most of those things being far more likely to get the response that you want.also not including unmanned ships in your navy just because you can't cause a blood for blood for blood reaction is just plain dumb.
>>64886496Last i checked we are blockading Venezuela rn without a declaration of war or approval by congress
>>64878002No, but low manned vessels are.
>>64881466>People think nations would go to war over an unmanned vessel getting sunkRetards
>>64886587>not including unmanned ships in your navy just because you can't cause a blood for blood for blood reaction is just plain dumb.Unmanned ships are a massive liability. You want to have a 500 to 900 million dollar ship floating around with next gen technology with not even a night watchmen on board? China will just EMP the ship, raid it, collect intel, then leave alone. And you will be left looking weak with no recourse.
>>64880010who is going to maintain the robots?
>>64886602let's go back to the original claim being made and explain how your post debunks itthe claim being that you need manned ships so they can get shot at and have crewmen killed so you can then get congress to declare war.if the US is currently blockading Venezuela without approval by congress. then the US can carry out acts of war without approval by congress. hence you don't need to put men in harms way to get approval by congress in order to carry out acts of war, fight a war. you don't even need approval by congress to go into said country, bomb military installations and kidnap/ arrest it's sitting civilian leader and his wife.the US isn't blockading Venezuela, it's enforcing sanctions against Venezuela. you can get on a ship and sail to and from Venezuela without any issue. provided you aren't carrying any sanctioned (or illegal) cargo.now sanctions enforcement is a whole other can of worms and would take us very off topic.
>>64886616>just EMP it browith what? and how are you going to board it, sack it and get away with it without being noticedbecause doing so would cross several thresholds for a kinetic response. if the chinks think you won't do shit if they EMP your ships what to stop them from simply EMPing you manned ships? is the crew going to manually acquire, lock, track and engage aerial or naval targets targetswill they send out distress calls and send out evidence that they are being attacked by the chinese by shouting it very, very loudly?
>>64886616Wouldn't most electronic systems on a ship be resistant or immune to EMP on account of the ship's metal hull effectively forming a faraday cage?
>>64886826Why are you entertaining the retardation of a brown ESL who unironically thinks EMPs are a thing and that having a crew is the difference in stopping hostile action or not?
