Possible new type of Chinese military drone spotted

[caervek]

It looks kinda weird, but then again so do most military drones.
It's rumoured to be some sort of high velocity carrier killer that is armed with torpedoes.

What do you think?

It looks like a 1970s Soviet drone (yes military drones are that old), so probably based on that.

[Puri]

Well the thing comes with its own air support.. and I would assume in a wartime scenario it would be heavily escorted with ships/drones/subs and surveillance. Don't think of it as a front line unit, think of it as a forward command center.

Well, just let enough cruise missiles rain down worth half the value of the fleet and you will have a black sky and after the impact you probably won't be able to tell which metal scrap belonged to which ship. Losing the command center would be a major blow, strategically as well as morally and even economically, which makes it a prime target.

But btt, I assume the tactical part of the drone is to attack a ship with torpedoes while simultaneaously it is targeted by surface missiles. You probably won't easily get a submarine or airplanes close enough to such a fleet to be in effective range for non-easily counterable torpedoes. A flock of drones might do that job.

[Akainakali]

My guess is that if major powers like USA, China and Russia end up in a war - all aircraft carriers are at the bottom of the sea after the first day of war.

Aircraft carriers are great if you are fighting against shepherds or farmers. But not so great if the other side can actually shoot back.

You vastly underestimate how difficult it is to GET to a carrier. Subs are the major threat precisely because they are one of the few platforms that are capable of getting close and even there it's not as simple as people think.

The basic issue is that with their airborne early warning aircraft they can see stuff coming on the surface or in the air long before it gets within range of the carrier. So unless you have a way of targeting the carrier from a LONG way out, it's difficult to get missile targeting info for them and let's not forget that the carrier battle groups were designed around stopping massive missile attacks from the USSR. So it's going to take a lot of missiles to saturate their defenses and that's assuming you can even get your launch platforms close enough to launch. They have a powerful airwing which is going to be highly motivated to shoot down or blow up anything threatening their "home".

With subs, there are two issues. Carriers are fast ships, but while subs can keep up, the faster they go the noisier they are and the diesel-electric subs will drain their batteries very quickly if they're trying to catch up/overtake a carrier moving at 30 knots+. Wargames are set up to explore problems and try to figure out solutions to them, so results don't necessarily translate out to reality. You don't go to the bother of bringing in a Swedish sub, if how to deal with something like that isn't one of the things being looked at.

The big question mark when it comes to threats to carriers is the Chinese ICBM/MRBM's that are supposed to be able/designed to target carriers. Nobody else has ever tried to build one (unclassified at least) and it's likely going to suffer from the same issues of being able to get targeting information on the carrier in real time. Also it's unclear to what degree the anti-MRBM capabilities of the Aegis ships will be able to counter them, but that ability is present on most of the escorts these days.

Obviously a well prepared opponent can increase their odds of success substantially if they can get to "prepare the battlefield" and pick a location that works with their strengths and minimizes the advantages of a CVBG, but it's always a bad idea to make plans based on your opponent being stupid or walking into a trap.

[cubby]

My guess is that if major powers like USA, China and Russia end up in a war - all aircraft carriers are at the bottom of the sea after the first day of war.

Aircraft carriers are great if you are fighting against shepherds or farmers. But not so great if the other side can actually shoot back.

And don't forget it's not just the aircraft carrier, it's the entire carrier battle group. 10-15 ships, armed and equipped for both air and water defense. They are formidable.

However, I think you make a point - if I may extrapolate. While a CBG is powerful, it can't compete, toe-to-toe, with ground based forces - just because the sheer numbers would overwhelm them. But the CBG isn't designed for that kind of fight - it's designed to both project power (shepherds or farmers, lol) and deny ocean travel. Which is key.

China could sink every CBG in the world if they motored up to China's shores and waited. But if the CBG sits 2,000 miles out, and just prevents China (or anyone) access to the ocean, that's a different story.

- - - Updated - - -

You vastly underestimate how difficult it is to GET to a carrier. Subs are really the major threat precisely because they are one of the few platforms that are capable of getting close and even there it's not as simple as people think.

Plus, the United States owns submarine warfare. No one in the world matches them. The subs they are retiring are still 1-2 generations above anything else.

The only real threat is diesel/electric boats, because while on battery power, they are almost literally noiseless. But their range is shit.

[Akainakali]

Plus, the United States owns submarine warfare. No one in the world matches them. The subs they are retiring are still 1-2 generations above anything else.

That isn't going to be able to eliminate the threat before a war breaks out and given how hard it can be to find anything underwater, the threat will always be there. Since you can't ever be certain you've gotten all of them.

The only real threat is diesel/electric boats, because while on battery power, they are almost literally noiseless. But their range is shit.

In some respects they're best thought of as mobile minefields.

However, with the Air-Independent Propulsion systems that are on most modern diesel electric subs, they are far more mobile than before and can sustain much higher speeds for longer. Not a match for a nuke on that score by any stretch, but they are far more capable than older generations are.

The biggest advantage most US subs have is that they can go much faster while still being very, very quiet.

[cubby]

That isn't going to be able to eliminate the threat before a war breaks out and given how hard it can be to find anything underwater, the threat will always be there. Since you can't ever be certain you've gotten all of them.

Nothing in war is certain. However, the U.S. regularly tracks all known submarines, and not just using other submarines. The U.S. shadows all know SBBN's with an attack sub, and our own SBBN's are effectively invisible.

And keep in mind, we don't have to find them - they will come to the CBG.

In some respects they're best thought of as mobile minefields.

However, with the Air-Independent Propulsion systems that are on most modern diesel electric subs, they are far more mobile than before and can sustain much higher speeds for longer. Not a match for a nuke on that score by any stretch, but they are far more capable than older generations are.

The biggest advantage most US subs have is that they can go much faster while still being very, very quiet.

Lol, I'd heard that - sort of one swarm shot and they'll die, but it will be a hell of a shot. Definitely more capable, but then so is the U.S. Navy, compared to older generations. When the Electric Boats get better, so have the people tracking them.

[Kellhound]

You only need to put a hole or two in them and they will sink. An aircraft carrier and its escort ships need to deflect all​ missiles and torpedoes that come at the carrier. It's like Israel vs the Arab world. Israel needs to win every time or they cease to exist.

I remember the US navy leasing this diesel powered Swedish submarine for wargaming tests some years ago. A single diesel sub could sink aircraft carriers multiple times. It's very hard to defend against those...they are so stealthy.

Only one modern Super Carrier has ever been sunk, intentionally by the US. They are not easy things to sink because of their size and compartmentalization. Even on a carrier, it only takes 10-15 minutes to go from peacetime steaming to full general quarters with all watertight doors fully dogged down. It has been theorized that a Nimitz Class can have its hanger deck awash and still float. The Forrestal and Enterprise showed that carriers can sustain significant fire damage and survive.

The actual ability of the USN to counter SSKs is a carefully guarded secret, but it is generally agreed that only wake homing torpedoes are likely to defeat a carriers soft-kill ability against torpedoes, and they are being equipped with anti torpedo torpedoes for those. And remember, when launching torpedoes, a sub stops being stealthy.

- - - Updated - - -

The missiles that target aircraft carriers are not armed with conventional wareheads. Neither Russia nor China don't try to even hide it.
Aircraft carriers will have to deal with volleys or such missiles. My guess is that every single one of those things will either sink or end up useless in the first days of war. Subs are what the sea domination is all about.

And queue Ulmita's love affair with nuclear weapons.....

Russian and Chinese launch platforms have to survive to launch before they even become an issue. Then they have to be launched in sufficient numbers to overcome the fleet air defenses that were designed specifically to counter mass volleys of supersonic antiship missiles. It is not a trivial task.

- - - Updated - - -

Kelhound and Skoe are sleeping apparently.

Im on the West Coast and not a morning person.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't going to be able to eliminate the threat before a war breaks out and given how hard it can be to find anything underwater, the threat will always be there. Since you can't ever be certain you've gotten all of them.



In some respects they're best thought of as mobile minefields.

However, with the Air-Independent Propulsion systems that are on most modern diesel electric subs, they are far more mobile than before and can sustain much higher speeds for longer. Not a match for a nuke on that score by any stretch, but they are far more capable than older generations are.

The biggest advantage most US subs have is that they can go much faster while still being very, very quiet.

It is also rumored that the USN has figured out how to track AIP subs.

- - - Updated - - -

It looks like a 1970s Soviet drone (yes military drones are that old), so probably based on that.

The Firebee drone's first flight was 1955.

[Gorgodeus]

You only need to put a hole or two in them and they will sink. An aircraft carrier and its escort ships need to deflect all​ missiles and torpedoes that come at the carrier. It's like Israel vs the Arab world. Israel needs to win every time or they cease to exist.

I remember the US navy leasing this diesel powered Swedish submarine for wargaming tests some years ago. A single diesel sub could sink aircraft carriers multiple times. It's very hard to defend against those...they are so stealthy.

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are not going to sink a US large-deck carrier by "putting a hole or 2 in them".

It would pretty much take a hit from a nuclear weapon to sink one.

Taking one out would be a big achievement for America's enemies, and a big setback for America's military. However, the likelihood of any adversary actually achieving that without using nuclear weapons is pretty close to zero.

Nimitz-class carriers of the type that dominate the current fleet, like the Ford-class carriers that will replace them, are the biggest warships ever built. They have 25 decks standing 250 feet in height, and displace 100,000 tons of water. With hundreds of watertight compartments and thousands of tons of armor, no conventional torpedo or mine is likely to cause serious damage. And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult. Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...sinkable-19144

Add in all the defensive capabilities, and they are not remotely as easy to sink as you attempt to suggest.

[Puupi]

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are not going to sink a US large-deck carrier by "putting a hole or 2 in them".

It really depends on the size of the hole.

It would pretty much take a hit from a nuclear weapon to sink one.

Which is why at least Russian subs have nuclear warheads in their torpedoes.....

Taking one out would be a big achievement for America's enemies, and a big setback for America's military. However, the likelihood of any adversary actually achieving that without using nuclear weapons is pretty close to zero.

Nimitz-class carriers of the type that dominate the current fleet, like the Ford-class carriers that will replace them, are the biggest warships ever built. They have 25 decks standing 250 feet in height, and displace 100,000 tons of water. With hundreds of watertight compartments and thousands of tons of armor, no conventional torpedo or mine is likely to cause serious damage. And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult. Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...sinkable-19144

Add in all the defensive capabilities, and they are not remotely as easy to sink as you attempt to suggest.

The US have even sunk one themselves with conventional weapons. Also it being difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. And you only need to succeed once.

In addition, the US has never fought against a country that has the firepower to bring one down so it's no mystery that they all have been floating.

A war against Russia or China would be different. Now whether the countries would nuke the whole planet to shit before aircraft carrier's floating capabilities are being tested is another thing, but if they aren't doing that - they have the tools to bring one down. And as tactical nukes exist, it only takes about 10 to bring all those carriers down.

[Gorgodeus]

It really depends on the size of the hole.


Which is why at least Russian subs have nuclear warheads in their torpedoes.....


The US have even sunk one themselves with conventional weapons. Also it being difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. And you only need to succeed once.

In addition, the US has never fought against a country that has the firepower to bring one down so it's no mystery that they all have been floating.

A war against Russia or China would be different. Now whether the countries would nuke the whole planet to shit before aircraft carrier's floating capabilities are being tested is another thing, but if they aren't doing that - they have the tools to bring one down. And as tactical nukes exist, it only takes about 10 to bring all those carriers down.

A sub is not going to get close enough to do anything to a US carrier. A carrier group has fast attack subs with it just for that very reason.

The Reagan was sunk under conditions that you will never see in a real world scenario. US carriers maintain high rates of speed (35+ knots) for multiple reasons. One being they are faster than a submarine. The submarine used to sink the Reagan was nowhere near having the speed (20 knots, and only in short bursts) it would need in reality.

A US supercarrier is better protected than any other asset in the military.

[Puupi]

A sub is not going to get close enough to do anything to a US carrier. A carrier group has fast attack subs with it just for that very reason.

The wargames you've had prove otherwise.

The Reagan was sunk under conditions that you will never see in a real world scenario. US carriers maintain high rates of speed (35+ knots) for multiple reasons. One being they are faster than a submarine. The submarine used to sink the Reagan was nowhere near having the speed (20 knots, and only in short bursts) it would need in reality.

You are assuming the sub needs to follow it...

A US supercarrier is better protected than any other asset in the military.

Yes, doesn't mean it's immortal though.

[Gorgodeus]

The wargames you've had prove otherwise.


You are assuming the sub needs to follow it...


Yes, doesn't mean it's immortal though.

The "wargames" were a useless indicator of anything. When you slow the carrier down intentionally so that the sub can actually get with in range of it, it makes it useless. In a real world scenario, that sub will never get close enough. Not to mention that those type subs can only operate close to port because they are so slow at normal speeds (~7 knots) and their range is pathetic.

[Puupi]

The "wargames" were a useless indicator of anything.

Sure, whatever. That's why they probably do them.

When you slow the carrier down intentionally so that the sub can actually get with in range of it, it makes it useless. In a real world scenario, that sub will never get close enough. Not to mention that those type subs can only operate close to port because they are so slow at normal speeds (~7 knots) and their range is pathetic.

You know the sub can approach from the direction the carrier is moving towards....

The US has never fought against anyone that has modern subs, not to mention subs with nukes. That's the reality.

[Gorgodeus]

Sure, whatever. That's why they probably do them.

You know the sub can approach from the direction the carrier is moving towards....

The US has never fought against anyone that has modern subs, not to mention subs with nukes. That's the reality.

US carriers do not move in any predictable directions. "Modern" subs can't get close to a US carrier unless said carrier wants it to. They are too easy to detect. The US already "stalks" all other subs from other enemy countries with subs of their own. Stealthy diesel subs are hard to detect and track, but they are pretty irrelevant since they are unable to get into range.

[Kellhound]

It really depends on the size of the hole.


Which is why at least Russian subs have nuclear warheads in their torpedoes.....


The US have even sunk one themselves with conventional weapons. Also it being difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. And you only need to succeed once.

In addition, the US has never fought against a country that has the firepower to bring one down so it's no mystery that they all have been floating.

A war against Russia or China would be different. Now whether the countries would nuke the whole planet to shit before aircraft carrier's floating capabilities are being tested is another thing, but if they aren't doing that - they have the tools to bring one down. And as tactical nukes exist, it only takes about 10 to bring all those carriers down.

The use of nuclear weapons, even at sea, crosses a very very dangerous line that every nuclear power understands is not to be taken lightly.

Actually, the USS America was scuttled in a controlled manner, the ordnance testing was not the cause of her sinking.

It takes one surviving nuclear warhead to sink a carrier, which will generally dictate far more needing to be launched to ensure one gets past the defenses.

- - - Updated - - -

The wargames you've had prove otherwise.


You are assuming the sub needs to follow it...


Yes, doesn't mean it's immortal though.

Wargames have ROEs that can drastically change the outcome vs real life, and unless you know what they are for any given one, not much can be concluded from them.

If it is not following it, it needs to know where it will be, which is not a given.

Immortal? No. Very very hard to kill? Yes.

[Akainakali]

The US have even sunk one themselves with conventional weapons. Also it being difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. And you only need to succeed once.

Nobody thinks they're indestructible, just hard to get to and not a pushover even if you can reach one.

In addition, the US has never fought against a country that has the firepower to bring one down so it's no mystery that they all have been floating.

The experience in WWII is likely to be similar to a modern environment. Yes you can bring one down, but it is going to take a major effort or a lot of luck with being in the right place at the right time.

It's also worth noting that the US navy has a tradition of saving ships that have suffered massive amounts of damage.

A war against Russia or China would be different. Now whether the countries would nuke the whole planet to shit before aircraft carrier's floating capabilities are being tested is another thing, but if they aren't doing that - they have the tools to bring one down. And as tactical nukes exist, it only takes about 10 to bring all those carriers down.

First again, you have to get close enough to be able to target the carrier and that isn't as easy as you think it is.

Second, nukes don't cover that big of an area compared to the size of the ocean, it takes either a REALLY big bomb or more than just one to be sure of hitting it, if you're just trying to get it in the area of a carrier.

Third, using nukes against a carrier is a MAJOR escalation in a war and one that very likely might lead to a full scale exchange of weapons. Anyone who would casually order such a strike is an idiot with a very poor sense of self preservation.

You are assuming the sub needs to follow it...

Subs don't get to choose where the carrier goes and the whole point of a carrier is that you can strike from a considerable distance. CVBGs can move a shockingly large distance in a single day. You can sit there and hope you get lucky, but that's not something to count on in a war.

The US has never fought against anyone that has modern subs, not to mention subs with nukes. That's the reality.

Nobody's fought a war against modern submarines. The closest anyone has come is the Falklands war and the Argentines basically had no ASW capability and a piss poor fleet in general.

[Deleted]

Puupi is right when he says aircraft carriers are only useful against shepards. They are a fucking nightmare. Good for the people who make them tho. £££

They are the most expensive floating targets going. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. One nuclear armed missile and your surface fleet become submariners. The purpose of the Navy is not to fight but to project power, and destabilise regions. But I guess it will be nice for all the expenise highly skilled personel who are all sitting in one place to remember that they will be in the most expenisive coffins ever built if a fight ever actually breaks out.

[Akainakali]

Puupi is right when he says aircraft carriers are only useful against shepards. They are a fucking nightmare. Good for the people who make them tho. £££

They are the most expensive floating targets going. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. One nuclear armed missile and your surface fleet become submariners. The purpose of the Navy is not to fight but to project power, and destabilise regions. But I guess it will be nice for all the expenise highly skilled personel who are all sitting in one place to remember that they will be in the most expenisive coffins ever built if a fight ever actually breaks out.

You've clearly not bothered to actually educate yourself on things or even to bother to read any replies in the topic that you didn't already agree with.

Targeting a ICBM or a missile in that class on something that moves is a non-trivial problem, guiding it through the fireball of re-entry at mach 15 to such a target is again a non-trivial problem and there is good reason to doubt it has been done or how well it works. Anything less than an ICBM is a considerably easier target and while it's not an easy task to stop one, it has been done and anti-theater level missiles is one of the main tasks for Aegis equipped ships. You might be too young to remember the gulf war, but it's been more than a quarter century since that and the technology has only gotten a LOT better since then.

There's a good reason why in the past they've been designed to attack immobile objects and generally large densely packed areas like cities. It's a vastly simpler task and much easier to do precisely.

You also have a poor grasp of scale. The ocean is big and a fireball a few miles in diameter doesn't cover nearly as much territory as you seem to think it does. Ships in a battle group are typically several miles apart. Those nice tight little formations you see in pictures are just PR photo ops. They don't cluster up like that in operation, for precisely the reason that you don't want them all to get taken out in one blast.

[Kellhound]

Puupi is right when he says aircraft carriers are only useful against shepards. They are a fucking nightmare. Good for the people who make them tho. £££

They are the most expensive floating targets going. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. One nuclear armed missile and your surface fleet become submariners. The purpose of the Navy is not to fight but to project power, and destabilise regions. But I guess it will be nice for all the expenise highly skilled personel who are all sitting in one place to remember that they will be in the most expenisive coffins ever built if a fight ever actually breaks out.

Carriers were used effectively against Vietnam, Iraq.... They offer a level of tactical flexibility unmatched in littoral warfare.

The most effective ABM system in the world is based on US Burke class destroyers, you know, the very ships that make up the bulk of a carrier's battle group. You have to know where the carrier is to shoot at it with an IRBM, and where it will be when the warhead reaches the surface, not a trivial matter. The reason so much effort is put into anti-carrier weapons is because of the threat they pose in a fight, which is what power projection is, the ability to fight where you want when you want.

For reference, I served on a Nimitz Class ship.

[the game]

It looks like a penis.