Suez Watch

[BritDownUnder]

Two problems there. Their main customers, India and China are also big on adding value to petroleum products at home. And two, a refinery might make a nice big target for some country that doesn't like Iran stopping their essential energy imports. While I am at it I am surprised no-one has tried to crack the containment vessel at the Bushehr Nuclear Power plant yet. Perhaps revenge is a dish best served cold, that'll be it.

[Default0ptions]

I have no doubt that the US carrier group is advanced enough to shoot down any drone attack, all the time they've got enough ammunition. The problem will come when they start to run low. Drones are cheap, a country like Iran can afford thousands of them.

I believe the us ships have to return to port to even reload their 2 million dollar a shot missiles and can’t do so at sea.

“SeaRAM is a MK 15 CIWS variant which integrates two Fleet proven weapon systems: The Block 1B Phalanx CIWS and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System. SeaRAM combines the Phalanx CIWS Block 1B search-and-track radar and Electro Optic sensor, along with its inherent threat evaluation and weapon designation capability, with a RAM 11-round launcher guide assembly on a single mount. The SeaRAM CIWS is a complete combat weapon system that automatically detects, evaluates, tracks, engages, and performs kill assessment against ASM and high speed aircraft threats in an extended self-defense battle space envelope around the ship. SeaRAM can also be integrated into ship combat control systems to provide additional sensor and fire-control support to other installed ship weapon systems.”

“ WASHINGTON — In early October, the U.S. Navy reloaded a destroyer’s missile tubes using a crane on an auxiliary ship pulled alongside the destroyer, rather than a crane on an established pier.
Reloading a vertical launching system, or VLS, is a challenging maneuver, given the crane must hold missile canisters vertically, while slowly lowering the explosives into the system’s small opening in the ship deck.
It’s also a maneuver the Navy cannot yet do at sea.”

[Default0ptions]

“Biden weighs up direct military strikes against Houthi sites in Yemen to avoid the $2million cost per shot of bringing down the rebel group's attack drones in bid to protect trade routes through the Red Sea”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... d-sea.html

‘Direct military strikes against Houthi sites in Yemen’ won’t really solve the disparity of million dollar munitions against 2k drones.

This is going to be very interesting to watch.

I now think that I got it wrong with my post:

“it's not obvious that aircraft carriers could protect themselves from that kind of barrage either if in range.”

“Yep. They’re extremely vulnerable targets and sunk in short order in any serious war.“

It looks like they just can’t afford the costs of engaging at all for any length of time and are just simply irrelevant.

Just your jealousy about the aircraft carriers again. America has been using destroyers to defend some British owned shipping in the Red Sea lately and the Brits have only 1 destroyer to contribute? Maybe Limey carriers are still being fueled to be able to sail that far? Or maybe the owners are just scared to sending them to the Med? Those brave US carriers....having not been damaged sitting in the middle of a hotspot...again.....and like they've been doing for 60+ years now....while the jealous whine. Tell the King to grow some cajones and send them into the Med! Is specializing in cowardice the best the Empire can do nowadays? 8)

“In a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Readiness on Wednesday, the Pentagon's top testing official testified that the U.S. Navy has not fully evaluated the performance of its anti-ship missile defense systems in a live-fire environment. The ability of these mission-critical systems to protect high-value Navy assets is not known; with potential adversaries like China and Russia rapidly advancing the capability of their anti-ship missile systems, this vulnerability is potentially significant.”

[adam2]

I would be very surprised if the US navy runs short of missiles or other munitions. I presume that large stocks are held aboard other ships and on land.
I would also expect that the USA have the capacity to manufacture more, at short notice.

The high price of the missiles used to destroy relatively low value targets is IMHO a red herring. The important thing is destruction of the enemy, with the cost of so doing being of little importance.

[BritDownUnder]

Maybe they have such munitions reloading facilities at Diego Garcia?

I would be very surprised if the US navy runs short of missiles or other munitions. I presume that large stocks are held aboard other ships and on land.
I would also expect that the USA have the capacity to manufacture more, at short notice.

The high price of the missiles used to destroy relatively low value targets is IMHO a red herring. The important thing is destruction of the enemy, with the cost of so doing being of little importance.

Depends on the duration of the war. Russia and possibly Iran are going for the long war and to inflict financial losses on the West. One might take into account the $2m missile destroying the $20,000 drone only but the other costs of damage to the ship and costs of diversion of shipping elsewhere could also appear on the balance sheet.

I am surprised that anti-drone drones have not yet been invented that come up along side drones and either disrupt their propeller or blow their control system/surfaces to bits with some kind of net or shotgun.

[Default0ptions]

I would be very surprised if the US navy runs short of missiles or other munitions. I presume that large stocks are held aboard other ships and on land.
I would also expect that the USA have the capacity to manufacture more, at short notice.

The high price of the missiles used to destroy relatively low value targets is IMHO a red herring. The important thing is destruction of the enemy, with the cost of so doing being of little importance.

There are some doubts about this adam:

“ The Dangerous Depletion of U.S. Weapon Arsenals”

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... n-arsenals

I think the most dangerous thing for the west is an inability to realise that the world has been changing and not all of our old certainties hold. We are already familiar with the fact that asymmetrical warfare has made something of a mockery of our assumptions that our technological superiority can win in wars of attrition against far cheaper and more basic weapons and tactics.

I’m really not sure our interference has actually improved anything for the people of the countries that we’ve interfered with recently.

We can’t afford it, and we can no longer enforce it.

A classic example of this is Afghanistan. We could almost literally ‘nuke them from orbit”… (Ripley in Aliens) … but we got kicked out / had our arses handed us on a plate / just couldn’t afford it any longer.

So we left. Lost. Left billions of military equipment.

It hasn’t really done our reputation much good either

[clv101]

I am surprised that anti-drone drones have not yet been invented that come up along side drones and either disrupt their propeller or blow their control system/surfaces to bits with some kind of net or shotgun.

This is a good point. It is not sustainable to be destroying thousand dollar drones with million dollar missiles. It's no longer good enough to simply be confident of destroying the threat, the threat needs to be destroyed at an affordable cost. Now, the US military is clear far better resourced than Iran etc. but *not* several orders of magnitude better. They/we need better value solutions.

[BritDownUnder]

I am surprised that anti-drone drones have not yet been invented that come up along side drones and either disrupt their propeller or blow their control system/surfaces to bits with some kind of net or shotgun.

This is a good point. It is not sustainable to be destroying thousand dollar drones with million dollar missiles. It's no longer good enough to simply be confident of destroying the threat, the threat needs to be destroyed at an affordable cost. Now, the US military is clear far better resourced than Iran etc. but *not* several orders of magnitude better. They/we need better value solutions.

Drone killers will need to be reusable. A single use drone killer just does not make financial sense. Any drone killer will have to rise up from the US Navy ship, take out drones and then return to the ship somehow and be refuelled and reloaded. I would image that the Shaheed drones as they are propeller driven will travel about 400 km/h so will travel about 6 km per minute. A drone killer will need to have a suitable intercept speed. How they will kill the Shaheed I am not sure. It may be as simple as putting something into the propeller like putting a stick in a bicycle wheel to destroy the propeller or blasting off the ailerons or control system. Maybe they could even be tipped over into an uncontrollable dive like the V1 'doodlebugs' were in WW2.

[Mark]

This is precisely why it's called the 'arms race'.....
It must have all started with throwing stones...., to be superseded by the catapult...., and then the shield...

The current 'hot' technology is the drone, especially as they're so cheap to produce compared to multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers....
The Russian Black Sea Fleet is now mostly confined to port to avoid Ukrainian (Western) drones.....
I wouldn't be 100% confident sitting on a US Aircraft Carrier right now - these things can work both ways....
The Houthi (Iranian) drones only need to be successful once....

I'm sure that every defence contractor in the world is busy working on bigger/better drones....., and/or drone defence systems...
They must be licking their lips at all those new contracts.....

Until the next technology comes along....

[Catweazle]

I don't imagine that domestic drones could do life threatening damage to something the size of a US warship, but a lucky hit or two onto the radar domes could render one myopic and unable to intercept missiles. I believe the Ukrainians deployed a swarm of drones to distract Russian missile defence systems and allow a couple of ship killing missiles through.

[BritDownUnder]

One would assume that a drone could not cause significant damage to almost any ship unless the bridge of a merchant ship was hit which might be possible. No idea how an aircraft carrier could be taken out as a drone would not be travelling at a high enough speed or could carry enough explosives to sink it. Only a lucky hit on the radar as mentioned earlier or a lucky hit of the ammunition bunker or fuel bunker might be enough to stop one.

British carriers in WW2 were pretty much kamikaze-proof.

[Mark]

British carriers in WW2 were pretty much kamikaze-proof.

List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aze_attack

From that long list, 47 were sunk including 3 escort carriers - USS St. Lo, USS Ommaney Bay, and USS Bismarck Sea

[BritDownUnder]

Not too many HMS ships on that list as the British carriers had armoured flight decks and the kamikaze wreckage was simply 'swept' over the side of the ship after it had cooled.

An attack on the belt armoured HMS Sussex resulted in a plane shaped imprint on the side and a few popped rivets no doubt.

[Default0ptions]

A crisis of credibility for the US Navy in general and Operation Prosperity Guardian in particular?

Commercial shipping seems to be ‘voting with its feet (maybe it’s rudders?)’ and under no illusion about the US Navy’s ability to ensure freedom of navigation.

“MAP OF THE DAY: Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

“Container ships heading toward Europe and/or North America, with almost all avoiding the Red Sea (red).

“More than two weeks after the launch of US-led 'Prosperity Guardian', the Houthis still rule in the Red Sea.”


https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1 ... 5836475775

[Mark]

Not too many HMS ships on that list as the British carriers had armoured flight decks and the kamikaze wreckage was simply 'swept' over the side of the ship after it had cooled.

An attack on the belt armoured HMS Sussex resulted in a plane shaped imprint on the side and a few popped rivets no doubt.

Interesting pic, but it doesn't really prove anything....
Most of the ships facing the Japanese were from the US Navy, so they were bound to take most of the losses...
It was a very crude but effective form of attack, to be able to sink so many naval ships, inc. the 3 US Carriers, which I'm sure were very robust....
As we know, any adversary willing to put 'zero' value on their own life is extremely difficult to stop....

For the time being, the Houthis seem to have scared off most commercial shipping, which is a victory in itself...
If they could land a blow on the US Navy, then shipping probably wouldn't return for years...

Agree with one of your previous points, that we should be more self-reliant in the UK, and look to re-establish our manufacturing capabilities...
Problem being, we're starting from an extremely low base.... Since Maggie started the process of either closing it, or selling it off...., very little of what we have left is actually UK owned....