zerg rush is OP in 2026. There is not a single answer to this.
>>524465408Look at that rust. Shameful.
How is it different from just shooting 50 missiles at once? That's not a new idea.A couple AA gun turrets will down these at 1 per 2 seconds each, so if they cross the combat distance in 30 seconds that's 15 bogeys per turret. It's basically just math.They already figured it maneuverability and speed improve that ratio 50 years ago.>put rocket motor on it>make it maneuver erratically during terminal run Suddenly it takes only two or three to overcome the AA.
>>524465408Be a cool battle where drones attack ships and the ships shoot lasers at them. Gonna look like an episode of GI Joe.
>>524465408Ciws is salavating just looking at that.
>>524465408Modern German flak canons can auto track and shoot down every single one of those.Also - lasers.
>>524465869>>524466007conventional CIWS and AA can't handle drone swarms, and the missiles that shoot them down cost a couple orders of magnitude more than the drones. hence the focus on DE weapons
>>524466112>Modern German flak canons can auto track and shoot down every single one of thosethen why aren't they doing so in Ukraine?
>>524465408Give me 5 sticks of dynamite and I could sink it.
>>524465773Unsat
>>524465408The answer are drones, obviously.
>>524466145They are. What's your point?Also, submarines sink ships.
>>524465869>A couple AA gun turrets will down these at 1 per 2 seconds eachCIWS has 60-90sec worth of ammo and takes a couple hours to reload
>>524466120Like I said, it depends on their numbers, speed and maneuvering.Quadcopters may well be more dangerous to a ciws than these things.>tiny targets>no real problem sending 50 at once That will absolutely defeat it.With these larger drones, while they're faster, it still takes 15 or so. Better to make them go faster, which isn't that expensive, and move erratically. Will take no more than 5.
>>524466521Yes, they are there, but they can't stop a large wave of drones like you said.
>>524465408Theres about 5,000-100,000 too few drones in that picture op
>>524465408Where do they put all of them for take off??
>>524466120They can handle the plane sized drones in OP's pic. They have trouble with dji sized drones but with EW, microwaves, and lasers those are also meaningless to ships
>>524465408if you make wings foldable then you can fit 2x the amount of drones, also they shouldn't need wheels and instead should be attached to an factory like assembly line that que for departure and sends off.
>>524466868The ramp on the right is the takeoff point.
>launches EMP over the oceannothin personel
>>524465408>zerg rushThat's a carrier you noob
>>524465773It's because everyone paints over the rust, which is even worse than allowing it to be exposed.
>>524465408who is the cheeto dust video game hot pocket that makes these threads?
>>524465408You'll put your eye out kid
>>524467315>using nukes firstretarded
Drones are gay.
>>524467516At one point in Navy history, the rust was routinely removed, then protected.
>>524465773Naval Jelly isa popular brand name for a rust-dissolving gel, primarily containing phosphoric acid, used to chemically convert rust (iron oxide) on ferrous metals (iron, steel) into a water-soluble iron phosphate, making it easy to rinse away and preparing the surface for painting or priming. It's a heavy-duty formula applied by brushing or spraying, ideal for heavily rusted items like grills, railings, and auto parts, offering a simpler alternative to sanding for deep rust
>>524468464I've used it.
>>524465869>How is it different from just shooting 50 missiles at once? That's not a new idea.New? No. But saturation missile attacks are still effective even today. AA guns are good for point defense only, have fun making sure there are AA guns at any possible target an enemy might attack. If you want longer range defense you go for anti air missiles, but those are notoriously unreliable. Israel's defense system is easily worn out by enough cheap Iranian missiles, the attacker always has the advantage.Missiles have some advantages over most drones in that they are generally much faster than sound and have bigger range, but they are expensive. The point of drone swarms is thousands, maybe tens of thousands of cheap units. There won't be enough interceptor missiles for them and as I say, unless you station AA absolutely everywhere, they will get through somewhere. And with enough drones, AA will be overwhelmed.>>524466703True. OP pic is a bad example of what a drone swarm will actually look like. But the kind that have thousands of units, all small and all acting in synced complex patterns. Those will be deadly.That being said, isn't some form of electromagnetic interferrence currently the meta in Ukraine which is why they are all using fibre optics? That's the main weakness, fucking up the control. But of course if they are shielded and entirely autonomous, this can be mitigated.
>>524467083depends on the numbers and altitude. war has a financial cost, you're running through a lot of drones before you start approaching the cost of even one phalanx reload for example, let alone ram, camm or sea sparrow. it's a whole another story for land systems, because your horizen can be attentnuated by forest or hills/landscape.from memory it's about 500k to reload the avenger on the warthog (one of the reasons the air force wants it replaced). phalanx uses du or tungsten ammunition; these cannon systems use expensive and particular ammo in order to kill armored missiles at bad angles. doesn't even matter if they kill all the drones, because now they have less payload to deal with the high end threat and are forced to increase rates of manufacturing in order to replace inventory. complex systems take time to build. and it effectively forces building larger vessels to accomodate greater magazine depth everyone has been considering this issue for a while now.
>>524465408>There is not a single answer to this.You counter zerg rush with AoE.
>>524468834yeah, you can effectively just fly a swarm over a geography to reduce air defenses before moving in with other assets. you don't even need to be careful; just fly them over and let shit happen. you can use it as recconnaisance by fire at the same time. drones are super turbo niggers. using them properly is the only issue.
>>524468834>That being said, isn't some form of electromagnetic interferrencejamming has been a thing for a long time, the main issue is the current russian army doesn't seem to have the same capabilities as the soviet union had in that respect. the soviet ability to jam was well documented due to all the snooping on soviet field exercises that happened at the time, and also encounters with soviet ships in the north sea and atlantic. a lot of the current conflict seems to have been a refunding of an army that was in dire state. a powerful enough radar will stop any data linked system from operating.on top of that, a powerful directed array is sort of an energy weapon in its own right. you can fry electronics with them, certainly something small like a drone. i think it's more making them man portable that is the issue. and then the issue is reaction time of a person when a drone pops over the tree cover. really you want them integrated into automatic defense systems on armored vehicles.
>>524465869You can make 100 drones for the cost of 1 missile. Its scale that's the difference.
>>524469116yeah the old fashioned stuff will have problems with that but HPM systems and lasers will kill swarms of ukraine style drones easily and for pennies per kill.
>>524469805>HPM systemsprobably the best idea. power generation will be an issue for land based systems.>and lasers provided it's not raining or snowing or misty or foggy. basically the conditions that exist at sea level in the north atlantic.
You defeat this by kidnapping the Captains wife and children
>>524469546It seems, from what I've seen, that the drones in use on the frontlines in Ukraine have fiberoptic cable tethers for command and control. Maybe that leads back to receiverbox somewhere nearby that has a wireless connection back to a drone pilot miles away, but they seem to be hardened against field jamming devices.On the ocean that kind of thing isn't really feasible so perhaps, given the lack of other stuff to ruin with heavy duty EW, it would work better. But on the other hand you can fly low and slow and avoid most kind of automated systems with modern drone tech.Surface is just totally fucked these days. Everything's going to be submarines after the next war.
>>524465408Oh so they turn the flightpath 90° and fly them horizontalCleverProbably even commanded by an AI hivemind
>>524470699>that the drones in use on the frontlines in Ukraine have fiberoptic cable tethersyeah. they're still sort of using them in a piecemeal and directed fashion, even if sometimes in large numbers. you could stop those with a strong enough direct illumination by frying the control circuitry, but with canopy cover there's not a lot of early warning and i don't think either side is really doing that much. both countries were absolute shitholes before the war, regardless of efforts to reform ukraines image in the last couple of years. the next step will probably be real swarms. so you're not even bothering to find individual targets, just using a probably inertial navigation system and flying a couple of thousand in formation over the enemy. think like those chinese light displays. target aquisition could be a prox fuse like the old anti-armor submunitons they used to fire from artillery tubes. not all units would even need them, because your opponent can't tell anyway. like a giant flying claymore. brutal. and still cheap enough. on the ocean it depends on how they want to develope their radar systems. there were rumours that the raptors suite would double as a microwave weapon, and who knows if it does, and was said about the new british naval systems as well. if anything drone attacks should be harder against ships because of their huge radars, jamming capabilities and electricity to spare. burkes have all the radar power in the world and the type 45 is a floating electric power plant. hpm, lasers and rail guns are much easier with ships, but navies in particular seem to suffer from the current western malaise. there seems to be a lack of will and a lack of funding, and probably pressure to keep using million dollar per shot weapon systems because military industrial complex. even with drones though, you're going to need a bigger system to get the kill shot. >Everything's going to be submarines after the next war.always has been.
>>524465408ai slop
>>524465408Standoff distance.Just stay outside of their drone swarm's range, but inside the range of your hypersonic missiles you will use to sink their ship.>But we will just increase the range of the drones!Increasing range requires making drones that are significantly larger, slower, more complex, more expensive, fewer in number, and easier to shoot down. Eventually your cloud of cheap, small, maneuverable quadcopter drones (that can only fly for a few miles/minutes) effectively just become anti-ship missiles to actually operate over the horizon. The kind of anti-ship missiles that every warship's defenses has primarily focused on for decades.
>>524465408>fucks your entire astroturfed strategy up with pic related + birdshotnothing personnel, faggot
>>524465408there is actually.you do the same thing but with kamikaze drone submarines and sink the carrier
