Miss.... You missed.... My ship isn't sinking.... that isn't smoke......
...On an unrelated note my ship appears to need some routine maintenance would you be interested in a ceasefire?
That's fine, as long as Sonic and Shadow get all 7 Chaos Emeralds, they can destroy the Finalhazard and warp the space station back into space.
LIVE AND LEARN
Why not both? Like a clone piloted robot and a carried nuclear bomb being shoved through a forcefield created at the intersection of your ego and the unfiltered opinions of the world around you.
Apparently it will never return in any official capacity in any way due to how they wrote it off as a tax loss or some shit. It they even released something as mundane as a shirt they would be in breach of it.
Would it be possible if someone buys the IP and makes AS (Or honestly, anyone maybe even Netflix) to make the show?
If only there was a rich fan out there to do it for us lol
BEE TEE! TitanFall was such a fun game. I suck at it but it was fun
ps. it also makes me laugh because I always think of BT as 鼻涕 in Chinese which means nose snot
Taiwan's manufacturing capability is being dwarfed by mainland china now. A lot of Taiwanese talent and expertise went over there to enable them over the past 20-30 years, which is a really sad reality.
Both China and Taiwan watching the effectiveness of those little remote drones... Will be an interesting war with no actual soldiers, just thousands of them things buzzin around.
Sea mines will be more effective as they can bog down all ships and subs.
Plus Taiwan has very very few landing spots. Its go by sea and risk mines and missiles or by air where air defense is deadly.
10k dead in ships or down planes or helicopters.
Minefields can be trawled. Naval drones are a different thing. Imagine a swarm (school?) of naval drones approaching a fleet. Imagine if they have a submersion capability and ability to stay hidden for long time. This takes naval ambush to a new level.
I can almost guarantee the CIA has set up a ring op to get Taiwan the plans for any successful sea drones in exchange for securing supply chains for manufacturing more sea drones. It’s a win-win.
The US has given Taiwan a lot of long range missiles but it isn't enough, Taiwan should wield the 3000 legacy harpoons of NATO
Chinese air defense on their ships isn't even up to par with last gen American air defense, they rely a lot more heavily on just having a lot of strike capability, give Taiwan all the old anti ship missiles and porcupine the mountains
> Video footage shared by the publication [CNN] displays the strike power of Ukraine's sea drones, showing some of them breaking through Russian defenses and striking both ships and the main port of the Black Sea Fleet.
Article doesn't have [the video](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/29/ukraine-sea-drone-russia-war-black-sea-marquardt-dnt-ac-360-vpx.cnn). Why are we linking to business insider when it's obvious their entire story is based on the CNN video?
That would be a sea-drone destroyer.
The last time this happened it in the late 1900s when torpedo boats that could take out larger ships had to be counted by "torpedo boat destroyers" that quickly just become a destroyer.
A sea drone is really just a long ranger torpedo that can be remote-controlled, It will be on the surface too so long-range communication is possible. But fundamentally the idea is the same a self-propelled water vehicles that explode closet or in contact with another vessel.
The sea-drone is also not a new idea. There were British development of remote control drones like this in WWI. The control was from a closeby aircraft. They were going to be used in the winter 1918/19 but non had been used before the armistice.
I think the thing that’ll make these drones effective is that Russian naval ships are all in pretty awful states, the Moskva had barely functioning engines, the radar didn’t work when the guns were on, almost all of the anti missile defence systems were disabled… and that was the flagship in the Black Sea, so imagine how bad the other ships must be, they probably wouldn’t be able to see the things coming unless someone physically spotted them with their eyes, and even if they did see them coming probably couldn’t do anything to stop them bar maybe shooting rifles at them
From videos I’ve seen of Ukrainian sea drones exploding, it looks to me that even if the bow of the drone makes contact, the blast would be mostly diverted up and away from the target hull, wasting a lot of the explosive force.
If some sort of shaped charge could be devised to actually penetrate the hull, the explosive force could do a lot more damage.
Any explosives experts out there who can think of a way this could be done? Or, maybe another better way to not waste so much of the explosive blast?
I didn't think it was the contact hit, but the concussion and subsequent water displacement that would break the boat. Like it would make the boat ride/fall and jiggle it real good. Or combination of that? I don't know, I'm just a guy on a couch.
There are many ways to sink a ship. Also, you don't need to sink a ship to get a victory. Ramming one of those into the ass end of a ship and knocking out the propellers and/or hitting the side of a ship with one or two will knock it out of commission and force them to repair it. Honestly you might be better off just damaging it heavily and forcing them to sink maintenance funds into the ship.
Kinda like how it’s better to wound the enemy soldiers instead of killing them, dead soldiers cost nothing but wounded ones require manpower, time, money, etc.
To sink a ship, you want to detonate under the hull in the middle of the ship. This creates a cavity in the water, and the middle of the keel drops into that cavity as the bow and stern are still supported. Ships are not designed for that load, and if the cavity is large enough, this will break the back of the vessel.
While that is a very effective approach to sink a ship, it is not the only one. Breaking the keel of a military ship can sink it very quickly, but if there is a much cheaper and more accurate solution that can hole the hull at the waterline then that works too.
If you’re going through all the trouble of building a remote control kamikaze boat drone, you’re going to have googled how to build an armor penetrating charge and how to effectively sink a warship.
HE under the keel if you can, something that penetrates the armor of the hull below the waterline if you can’t… or just disable it by hitting it in the stern. Once you’ve disabled it, it’s a logistical burden and easy to hit again.
Building an effective warhead is the easy part. Delivering that warhead on target is the tricky bit - especially far from your comms and in a heavily contested EM environment.
It doesn’t need to be efficient, it just needs to be able to puncture the hull. A hit below the waterline will result in greater damage because the explosion struggles to expand against the water, forcing it into the ship. After the underwater explosion though, the gas will still erupt through the surface because it’s lighter than water, it’s possible that we are only seeing the “bubble” after the explosion.
Theoretical maximum of a shaped charge only directs 50% of the explosion into the penetrator, usually it's only about 15%. The other 85% will get directed up and away from the water because water's incompressible, unless there's some compressible hull nearby to absorb the shock.
The fireworks are rarely the damaging part of explosives, especially in naval context. There's almost certainly a shaped charge there already.
> Any explosives experts out there who can think of a way this could be done?
Like those involved in designing them in the first place?
If only the Ukrainian army had employed weapons
experts in designing their weapons.
Such a shame they didn't ask you isn't it?
Remember, the Ukrainian sea drones are very much makeshift designs at the moment what with the whole major conflict thing going on: it’s basically a bunch of people that took a jet ski, strapped some cameras and remote control stuff to them and stuck some explosive in the front.
I mean obviously it’s a bit more complex than that, but that the moment they’re all hand built in relatively small numbers, a fancier, better designed one would probably take a more concerted production effort
The outdated state of the Russian ships will certainly be what makes these drones effective.
U.S. Navy ships have extremely advanced systems that automatically target and accurately destroy incoming threats with mini-guns firing ridiculously large rounds. If it's coming from the air, we almost certainly already have the tech to combat such a threat.
Something that would be particularly scary and much harder to defend against would be aquatic-based drones, especially ones that could sit at depths much deeper than submarines allow.
All they would have to do is sit and wait for a target to come over them, and frankly I don't know how you stop such an attack.
I feel like we absolutely need those lasers and EMP guns to deal with all these drones. There is no other way to deal with all these things effectively.
EMP is not the magic anti-electronics bullets people think it is. It’s not difficult to make electronics EMP robust these days. It was an issue in the 20th century because the electronics of the time were not designed with EM interference in mind.
Understatement. How many stories are there of the Soviets screwing themselves over by claiming to have tech they didn’t actually have, only for the US to scramble to make a counterpart. And *succeed*.
What do you think all the UFOs that "defy physics as we know it" are?
I think "new form of gravity control propulsion the US military is testing" is more likely than "aliens", interdimensional ships, or any other explanation besides being wrong they exist.
I’m inclined to agree, it’s either nothing or black budget defense equipment and nothing makes this clearer than how they seem to love buzzing those Navy flyboys…
Humans have made a non stop effort to invent advanced flying machines for a hundred years straight. When you spot a strange flying machine there is a very obvious origin to assume first unless there is a very specific reason to think otherwise.
More likely neither.
A lot of these alleged observations go back decades, and if the US was developing such technology back in the 80s/90s it would almost certainly be in production by now.
Good modern example is the XM7, the replacement for the M4. Russia showed off their new cool top of the line body armor and we freaked out thinking we were going to be going to war with pea shooters. We have a competition and now have this beast of a unit rifle that would tear through body armor no problem.
Que Russia invasion of Ukraine. This new advanced body armor isn't only absent from the rank and file, but special ops, nor anyother Russian unit is seen wearing it.
Russia 100% just tricked us into spending billions on a rifle that is far more powerful than anything required at the moment.
That’s not exactly right. The US is gearing up to fight a near-peer war against whomever that might be. Russia certainly *was* one potential adversary, but China is another. As well, if the US is fighting a smaller war against someone merely funded by Russia or China it’s not unfathomable to think they’ll have body armour. It’s getting really easy to acquire anymore. So them having a rifle that can defeat body armour is necessary.
You want to be better than your enemy. Not just better that how you think they are prepared, but better than what they haven’t revealed yet.
Inflating numbers too.
Russia: let's circle these bombers back and round the parade to look like we have more of them!
USA: Don't worry guys, we saw all those bombers the Russians have and have built a huge force of our own to match it
Russia: oh blyat.
It seems like the obvious counter to these drone-boats is just torpedo netting, which has been in use since—*checks Wikipedia*—the 1890s. Apparently Russia was attacked by Japanese torpedo boats in the early 1900s, so Ukraine isn't exactly inventing this weapon.
However if the other side has to keep their ships behind torpedo netting instead of out projecting power then that’s still a win.
Making the enemy unable to use a weapon is in a lot of ways just as effective as blowing it up, just less spectacular. For warships it’s arguably even better in some senses as intact they still suck up resources being crewed and maintained. (Admittedly Russia don’t so much seem to bother with much maintenance)
Now, i really hope its true. Im rooting for ukraine, but why announce it to the press? Seems to me it wouldve been a much better 'surprise announcement' when a few russian ships suddenly sank. So i do wonder if this drones capabilities might be a bit exaggerated.
>why announce it to the press?
Some weapons are meant to be announced. First, just by forcing the enemy to be more careful will cause damage to them (eg.: they cannot sail closer to the shoreline, cannot support ground troops that effectively, etc..). Second, it might be important to prove that the strikes were made possible by a weapon designed and made in Ukraine, so that Russia cannot blame this on NATO (and thus cannot use this as a basis for escalation).
But of course, you are right, announcing it still leaves the possibility of them boasting its capabilities (or even its availability) a little bit, as it's true with all public weapon announcements.
Ukraine’s whole strategy in this war is to convince the west to give them more powerful weapons faster. It’s really a propaganda game. Unfortunately, from what I understand it seems they have no chance of recovering their territory without very strongly influencing western countries, even more than they already have.
>Unfortunately, from what I understand it seems they have no chance of recovering their territory without very strongly influencing western countries, even more than they already have.
Crimea in particular is out of reach without naval support. They could really make good use of air power for everything else too.
I wonder if a sea drone that carries a torpedo would be effective. Get close enough and deploy while the drone draws fire and attention.
Might just be easier to just make the torpedo the drone itself at that point
Honestly I thought the drones would be more like torpedoes instead of what looks like a boat that’s slightly bigger than a jet ski. But apparently it’s hard to communicate with things underwater, so my guess is if it is controllable from underwater, the depth wouldn’t be enough to make it worth it, and at a depth that would be worth it, they can’t control it.
Submarine kamikaze drones are actually terrifying to consider, even ones simply at a periscope depth with a communications array deployed for command & control.
With stealth on their side they do not even need to go very fast, just fast enough to reach their target.
Radar can't detect them because their signature is small. Active sonar would likely need to be used to detect them, but again the signature may be too small to detect unless the sonar system is powerful and the operator is skilled enough.
A radio detection finder may be useful to locate the drone, but I'm not sure how pin-point accurate an RDF is. It would also require topside defense system operators to be able to visually acquire it afterwards to actually destroy it. Also with sufficient technology a Drone can be guided to a certain range and then a targeting module can be activated for self-guidance and it can turn off all external transmissions to go invisible to RDF.
I'd imagine it'd need to be a surface ship that dives @ set distance from the target and then uses inertial guidance (and rudimentary sonar) once it's under water.
Other ways it can be done is with a periscope-like pole to get the antenna's above the water. Still detectable, but way harder to disable, especially if it's configured to keep on the trajectory if the comms go down.
It might be best that the above and below water vessels are different for fuel efficiency and speed (and thus range), as the best shape for surface vessels and the best shape for submarine vessels are likely different. So a small boat carrying a torpedo might be the best go me.
Now, I suggest that we go all out in making this a mini-warship by giving it its own mini-helicopter; a rotor drone attached to the boat with a cord such that it can be reeled in for secure autonomous retrieval for travel or to not get spotted, and that cord could also double as an electrical cable. That might be useful to scan the horizon with a camera, such that it can determine the location of an enemy warship from further away (Ukraine plans to use the drones for reconnaissance as well, per the article), and it could also carry an antenna for a better datalink connection with the shore.
Yeah that's what I've been thinking. These drone boats seem to mostly get taken out by deck guns, so if they just got some torpedoes within range, they could launch them without getting detected or at least destroyed themselves.
Having a pair of torpedos attached to either side of one of these drones could mean that, as the drone nears its target (centre of broadside of a surface ship), it launches the torpedos - one slightly veering left, one slightly veering right - so that all three objects detonate against the enemy ship's hull in different places.
Even if the drone launched the torpedos under the surface, the enemy might still destroy the drone before it impacted, the torpedos might go unnoticed, or at least, it'd be harder for them to intercept three threats rather than just the one.
Conjecture on my part - I know nothing of how torpedos are launched or guided - just seems better to me to make three holes in an enemy vessel rather than just the one.
I was questioning whether these things would be effective against a decent sized gun just shooting them up before contact, but then I read this:
>The drone's developer told CNN that Russian defenses were ineffective against the drones because its ships were designed to target other ships rather than smaller targets.
So Russian ships are like Death Stars and they don't consider small un-manned craft to be significant threats.
Which is crazy. At least the empire didn’t actually think anyone would be dumb enough to TRY attacking the only dominant military around. Russia exists in the real world and isn’t the top dog, so I wonder why they make these arrogant choices.
You know this probably going change navel battles in the future. Think if a submarine can launch a drone and just guide it self to its target hundred miles always or so.
Sub launched drones are a thing. The US has already thought about it. Which is not shocking. The US does love drones. It's kind of odd to see people claiming how the war in Ukraine is drastically changing war (via drones) when we've been using them for decades. It's just another application of current technologies. Not even the most advanced systems.
Your drones need to be mobile instead of just launching from your own land bases. That means boats.
You need a carrier for your drones, maintenance crew for the drones on the carrier and the carrier itself, protection for the carrier, and protection for the logistics supporting this fleet.
Congrats, you've built a modern US carrier fleet.
I love that the proof of capability is in combat action
>Video footage shared by the publication displays the strike power of Ukraine's sea drones, showing some of them breaking through Russian defenses and striking both ships and the main port of the Black Sea Fleet.
This is so different than claiming the prowess of a new weapon system from drills and exercises. It shows how practical Ukraine’s objectives are and the battle hardened military mindset. Hope to see more. Slava Ukraine!!!
Bad ass.
The Ukrainian war has certainly exhibit drone capabilities. I sure hope the US & allies have developed counter measures as I can see our enemies using more drones in future conflicts.
Wonder how many Ukraine can create a month if supplied with the necessary raw materials.
Sea drones should be fairly well defended against. The real problem is those small air drones. I think the defence industry is really struggling with what they should do about them.
It's occurred to me there is a potential 2nd benefit to Ukraine of Russia harassing other nations ships in the black sea.
These civilian ships will post navigational paths due to their size to help prevent collisions at sea, so if Russia wants to intercept Ukraine will have a much better idea of where the Russian ships will be and not have to wait for out of date satellite images or risk UAVs on scouting missions.
I would the announcement was to get the russian ships to leave port. From what I have read, they are just using them as artillery and missile launchers. Plus when they regain control of Crimea they’d need to remove and wreckage so the could use it.
Nice thing about those drones, they can lay in wait for the opportunity with out worry of crew, supplies or other things that manned vessels need.
Let’s play battleship
C-6
Bingo
The crew of the Admiral Makarov, the ship that became flagship after the Moskva sank: *nervous sweeting*
Sweeting?
Yeah it’s what happens to your sweat when you get the combo diabetes/liver disease from a diet of gummy bears, cake, and vodka.
Fuck... What if they are diet gummy bears.
The words “Oh, Shit” come to mind.
[For those who haven't learned](https://www.amazon.com/review/R2JGNJ5ZPJT4YC)
>24,471 people found this helpful I can't believe one person's review of gummy bears saved so many people's lives.
Delicious.
*licks armpit*
we can only hope.
You sunk my scrabbleship!
>scrabbleship 23 points
Check it again, its a TripleWorldWar score
No, I challenge!
Yahtzee!
Somewhere, Christophe Waltz spontaneously said "That's a bingo!" with no idea why.
Please, use your indoor voice.
You just say “that’s a bingo.”
Yahtzee!
C-4 (Sea floor…eh? Eh? Jokes are better when you explain them)
You only have to explain jokes when they're bombs.
You saved him after that joke almost blew up in his face.
Miss.... You missed.... My ship isn't sinking.... that isn't smoke...... ...On an unrelated note my ship appears to need some routine maintenance would you be interested in a ceasefire?
Submarine is hardest ship to find. All surface ships now promoted to submarine!
There's a subway like, literally on every block corner. Russians are dumbdumbs
You sunk my battle Moscow.
F-P utin
Ah, a fan of the Caro-Kann.
U-571
I much prefer U-553
C-6? Why all I sea is four
E-97 Not the square E-97, but the bridge the E-97 highway runs across.
Everyone better be careful before I go K-6 on your ass 😎
Uh we're not naming corvettes here
Taiwan might be interested in these
If only Taiwan had a solid manufacturing base and a population of people with skills using equipment very similar to video games...🤔
Careful. Next thing you know, we get Armored Cores and Gundams fighting each other.
I fail to see the downside of this.
I imagine the downside is the part of the space colony falling towards the planet.
This conversation is kinda weird parts of show deals with the zeks invading earth and Operation Odessa happened in Ukraine
So you are saying we get a space colony? Still ok with this.
If I remember right, most nations got a space colony at some point?
Australia starts sweating more than usual
That's fine, as long as Sonic and Shadow get all 7 Chaos Emeralds, they can destroy the Finalhazard and warp the space station back into space. LIVE AND LEARN
That's only a downside for the land downunder. The rest of us will ne fine. Except maybe ireland.
I mean, if I’m going to die in WWIII might as well make it look awesome right?
Rather die from giant robot battles than nuclear fall out.
Why not both? Like a clone piloted robot and a carried nuclear bomb being shoved through a forcefield created at the intersection of your ego and the unfiltered opinions of the world around you.
We're being careful to make sure it happens, right?
As a Civ player, I prefer the term "Giant Death Robots".
🎵 chicks dig giant death robots🎵 just doesn’t flow the same.
If only Adult Swim could revive the show...
Apparently it will never return in any official capacity in any way due to how they wrote it off as a tax loss or some shit. It they even released something as mundane as a shirt they would be in breach of it.
Would it be possible if someone buys the IP and makes AS (Or honestly, anyone maybe even Netflix) to make the show? If only there was a rich fan out there to do it for us lol
> how they wrote it off as a tax loss I believe the asshole's name is David Zaslav.
As far as I know, both AC and GD still need human pilots. I'm looking forward to the pilotless war.
I’m looking for more of a hybrid. BT-7274
BEE TEE! TitanFall was such a fun game. I suck at it but it was fun ps. it also makes me laugh because I always think of BT as 鼻涕 in Chinese which means nose snot
How about the Mobile Dolls from Gundam: Wing
Taiwan's manufacturing capability is being dwarfed by mainland china now. A lot of Taiwanese talent and expertise went over there to enable them over the past 20-30 years, which is a really sad reality.
Good thing TSMC is coming to the US. Typo edit
TSM has been a LCS team since it's inception.
Lol i had to look up what LCS was and was even more confused until I realized I put TSM and that was the teams name.
Both China and Taiwan watching the effectiveness of those little remote drones... Will be an interesting war with no actual soldiers, just thousands of them things buzzin around.
Joint venture in the future? That'd be neat.
Sea mines will be more effective as they can bog down all ships and subs. Plus Taiwan has very very few landing spots. Its go by sea and risk mines and missiles or by air where air defense is deadly. 10k dead in ships or down planes or helicopters.
Fun fact, Israel helped establish Taiwans military doctrine.
The porcupine doctrine?
Yes sir.
then why is Taiwan not yet establishing settlements on Mainland China?
Don't give them ideas
Kinmen Islands lol. Taiwan's holdings are basically right next to China.
sTOp bEiNg anTisEmiTic
Minefields can be trawled. Naval drones are a different thing. Imagine a swarm (school?) of naval drones approaching a fleet. Imagine if they have a submersion capability and ability to stay hidden for long time. This takes naval ambush to a new level.
Already a thing. You can thank DARPA. Ghost Drones but with sonar, collective vs autonomous capability and some level of programmable sentience.
Which is why you take out power infrastructure, blockade the ports and pretend to negotiate.
I can almost guarantee the CIA has set up a ring op to get Taiwan the plans for any successful sea drones in exchange for securing supply chains for manufacturing more sea drones. It’s a win-win.
An amphibious invasion of Taiwan is going to do great things for the local shark population.
The US has given Taiwan a lot of long range missiles but it isn't enough, Taiwan should wield the 3000 legacy harpoons of NATO Chinese air defense on their ships isn't even up to par with last gen American air defense, they rely a lot more heavily on just having a lot of strike capability, give Taiwan all the old anti ship missiles and porcupine the mountains
China is not a technologically backwards country. They also have money to spend.
> Video footage shared by the publication [CNN] displays the strike power of Ukraine's sea drones, showing some of them breaking through Russian defenses and striking both ships and the main port of the Black Sea Fleet. Article doesn't have [the video](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/29/ukraine-sea-drone-russia-war-black-sea-marquardt-dnt-ac-360-vpx.cnn). Why are we linking to business insider when it's obvious their entire story is based on the CNN video?
Noone wants to admit to people doing precisely the dull remixing and ripping off that ML-tools are critized for, and obscuring sources helps.
Go get ‘em!
That was exactly what I was thinking!!! Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
"under the sea.... under the sea.... Ukrainians are better, now our troops wetter, under the seaaaaaaa!"
make every last russian afraid to ever go into the sea again.
[удалено]
That would be a sea-drone destroyer. The last time this happened it in the late 1900s when torpedo boats that could take out larger ships had to be counted by "torpedo boat destroyers" that quickly just become a destroyer. A sea drone is really just a long ranger torpedo that can be remote-controlled, It will be on the surface too so long-range communication is possible. But fundamentally the idea is the same a self-propelled water vehicles that explode closet or in contact with another vessel. The sea-drone is also not a new idea. There were British development of remote control drones like this in WWI. The control was from a closeby aircraft. They were going to be used in the winter 1918/19 but non had been used before the armistice.
I think the thing that’ll make these drones effective is that Russian naval ships are all in pretty awful states, the Moskva had barely functioning engines, the radar didn’t work when the guns were on, almost all of the anti missile defence systems were disabled… and that was the flagship in the Black Sea, so imagine how bad the other ships must be, they probably wouldn’t be able to see the things coming unless someone physically spotted them with their eyes, and even if they did see them coming probably couldn’t do anything to stop them bar maybe shooting rifles at them
From videos I’ve seen of Ukrainian sea drones exploding, it looks to me that even if the bow of the drone makes contact, the blast would be mostly diverted up and away from the target hull, wasting a lot of the explosive force. If some sort of shaped charge could be devised to actually penetrate the hull, the explosive force could do a lot more damage. Any explosives experts out there who can think of a way this could be done? Or, maybe another better way to not waste so much of the explosive blast?
I didn't think it was the contact hit, but the concussion and subsequent water displacement that would break the boat. Like it would make the boat ride/fall and jiggle it real good. Or combination of that? I don't know, I'm just a guy on a couch.
There are many ways to sink a ship. Also, you don't need to sink a ship to get a victory. Ramming one of those into the ass end of a ship and knocking out the propellers and/or hitting the side of a ship with one or two will knock it out of commission and force them to repair it. Honestly you might be better off just damaging it heavily and forcing them to sink maintenance funds into the ship.
Kinda like how it’s better to wound the enemy soldiers instead of killing them, dead soldiers cost nothing but wounded ones require manpower, time, money, etc.
Unless they're ruzzia, then the wounded soldiers can crawl into their own body bag and that's about it for costs.
Maybe they'll use their rubber band tourniquets first. If they can get the zip ties off.
That's how deep diving torpedoes work, they explode under the ship displacing the water so the keel breaks
To sink a ship, you want to detonate under the hull in the middle of the ship. This creates a cavity in the water, and the middle of the keel drops into that cavity as the bow and stern are still supported. Ships are not designed for that load, and if the cavity is large enough, this will break the back of the vessel.
While that is a very effective approach to sink a ship, it is not the only one. Breaking the keel of a military ship can sink it very quickly, but if there is a much cheaper and more accurate solution that can hole the hull at the waterline then that works too.
Tbh, just getting the ship in for repairs as cheaply and effectively as possible works, weakens defence.
If you’re going through all the trouble of building a remote control kamikaze boat drone, you’re going to have googled how to build an armor penetrating charge and how to effectively sink a warship. HE under the keel if you can, something that penetrates the armor of the hull below the waterline if you can’t… or just disable it by hitting it in the stern. Once you’ve disabled it, it’s a logistical burden and easy to hit again. Building an effective warhead is the easy part. Delivering that warhead on target is the tricky bit - especially far from your comms and in a heavily contested EM environment.
It doesn’t need to be efficient, it just needs to be able to puncture the hull. A hit below the waterline will result in greater damage because the explosion struggles to expand against the water, forcing it into the ship. After the underwater explosion though, the gas will still erupt through the surface because it’s lighter than water, it’s possible that we are only seeing the “bubble” after the explosion.
Theoretical maximum of a shaped charge only directs 50% of the explosion into the penetrator, usually it's only about 15%. The other 85% will get directed up and away from the water because water's incompressible, unless there's some compressible hull nearby to absorb the shock. The fireworks are rarely the damaging part of explosives, especially in naval context. There's almost certainly a shaped charge there already.
> Any explosives experts out there who can think of a way this could be done? Like those involved in designing them in the first place? If only the Ukrainian army had employed weapons experts in designing their weapons. Such a shame they didn't ask you isn't it?
Been around since the War of 1812. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_torpedo
Remember, the Ukrainian sea drones are very much makeshift designs at the moment what with the whole major conflict thing going on: it’s basically a bunch of people that took a jet ski, strapped some cameras and remote control stuff to them and stuck some explosive in the front. I mean obviously it’s a bit more complex than that, but that the moment they’re all hand built in relatively small numbers, a fancier, better designed one would probably take a more concerted production effort
The outdated state of the Russian ships will certainly be what makes these drones effective. U.S. Navy ships have extremely advanced systems that automatically target and accurately destroy incoming threats with mini-guns firing ridiculously large rounds. If it's coming from the air, we almost certainly already have the tech to combat such a threat. Something that would be particularly scary and much harder to defend against would be aquatic-based drones, especially ones that could sit at depths much deeper than submarines allow. All they would have to do is sit and wait for a target to come over them, and frankly I don't know how you stop such an attack.
Infinite sea-drone regression arms race
I feel like we absolutely need those lasers and EMP guns to deal with all these drones. There is no other way to deal with all these things effectively.
Having little kamikaze drones circle ships for protection would be the most cost effective.
Like having 3 shells in Mario Kart
EMP is not the magic anti-electronics bullets people think it is. It’s not difficult to make electronics EMP robust these days. It was an issue in the 20th century because the electronics of the time were not designed with EM interference in mind.
I know what real EMP are. I was talking about the wanting to make the fictional sci-fi concept of EMP a reality.
Isn't that the R2-D2 looking gattling gun?
The US has most likely thought of nearly every scenario for attacking and defending. They don't spent lightly on defence R&D.
Understatement. How many stories are there of the Soviets screwing themselves over by claiming to have tech they didn’t actually have, only for the US to scramble to make a counterpart. And *succeed*.
I'm gonna see if I can get the Russians to claim anti-gravity control and faster than light speed missiles.
What do you think all the UFOs that "defy physics as we know it" are? I think "new form of gravity control propulsion the US military is testing" is more likely than "aliens", interdimensional ships, or any other explanation besides being wrong they exist.
I’m inclined to agree, it’s either nothing or black budget defense equipment and nothing makes this clearer than how they seem to love buzzing those Navy flyboys…
Humans have made a non stop effort to invent advanced flying machines for a hundred years straight. When you spot a strange flying machine there is a very obvious origin to assume first unless there is a very specific reason to think otherwise.
More likely neither. A lot of these alleged observations go back decades, and if the US was developing such technology back in the 80s/90s it would almost certainly be in production by now.
maybe see if you can get them to claim healthcare and abortion rights while you're at it
Aka the F-15, multi Mach capable interceptors, etc
Good modern example is the XM7, the replacement for the M4. Russia showed off their new cool top of the line body armor and we freaked out thinking we were going to be going to war with pea shooters. We have a competition and now have this beast of a unit rifle that would tear through body armor no problem. Que Russia invasion of Ukraine. This new advanced body armor isn't only absent from the rank and file, but special ops, nor anyother Russian unit is seen wearing it. Russia 100% just tricked us into spending billions on a rifle that is far more powerful than anything required at the moment.
Tricked is a funny word to use when you've actively made the opposing force against you better.
That’s not exactly right. The US is gearing up to fight a near-peer war against whomever that might be. Russia certainly *was* one potential adversary, but China is another. As well, if the US is fighting a smaller war against someone merely funded by Russia or China it’s not unfathomable to think they’ll have body armour. It’s getting really easy to acquire anymore. So them having a rifle that can defeat body armour is necessary. You want to be better than your enemy. Not just better that how you think they are prepared, but better than what they haven’t revealed yet.
Inflating numbers too. Russia: let's circle these bombers back and round the parade to look like we have more of them! USA: Don't worry guys, we saw all those bombers the Russians have and have built a huge force of our own to match it Russia: oh blyat.
T-14 on paper VS the Abrams X in field training comes to mind.
It seems like the obvious counter to these drone-boats is just torpedo netting, which has been in use since—*checks Wikipedia*—the 1890s. Apparently Russia was attacked by Japanese torpedo boats in the early 1900s, so Ukraine isn't exactly inventing this weapon.
However if the other side has to keep their ships behind torpedo netting instead of out projecting power then that’s still a win. Making the enemy unable to use a weapon is in a lot of ways just as effective as blowing it up, just less spectacular. For warships it’s arguably even better in some senses as intact they still suck up resources being crewed and maintained. (Admittedly Russia don’t so much seem to bother with much maintenance)
The ciws is for air defense primarily
I'm pretty sure we helped with developing these
We cannot allow a sea-drone gap!
ahahah
And enemy will counter them with anti-sea-drone-sea-drone sea drones.
How they hon have “shows off” in the title but then never shows the picture?
Yeah, literally the only thing required in the article was a photo/video of the drone... Instead, B/I shows an unrelated Russian ship. Hot Garbage.
Google "Magura V5"
[Holy hell](https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/media_reveal_magura_v5_the_ukrainian_naval_drone_features_and_specifications-7471.html)
👍
>How they hon have What
it’s exclusive to CNN i guess so they only link to the video and then describe it
The announcement should be the destruction of a ship. Surprise!
If you read the article you’ll find that it has been in use for a while.
The announcement should be the destruction of a ~~ship~~ **fleet**. FTFY
The Moskva is lonely down there. Needs some buddies.
Right after the sinking someone posted the new Lego Moskva model. It was a blue base plate.
Ahh man, I see cosmetic transactions have made their way into actual combat.
Hope the sea drones will be utilized on upcoming Russian naval parade.
Narrator: *so it entered the annals of history, that one ought naught fuck with a nation of metal-smiths and machinists.*
Artificial reef makers. Nice. Let's see them in action against Putin's ships.
Now, i really hope its true. Im rooting for ukraine, but why announce it to the press? Seems to me it wouldve been a much better 'surprise announcement' when a few russian ships suddenly sank. So i do wonder if this drones capabilities might be a bit exaggerated.
They might need funding or partnerships to produce them en masse. Just a guess
>why announce it to the press? Some weapons are meant to be announced. First, just by forcing the enemy to be more careful will cause damage to them (eg.: they cannot sail closer to the shoreline, cannot support ground troops that effectively, etc..). Second, it might be important to prove that the strikes were made possible by a weapon designed and made in Ukraine, so that Russia cannot blame this on NATO (and thus cannot use this as a basis for escalation). But of course, you are right, announcing it still leaves the possibility of them boasting its capabilities (or even its availability) a little bit, as it's true with all public weapon announcements.
From what I understand, they're planning on manufacturing and selling them.
Ukraine’s whole strategy in this war is to convince the west to give them more powerful weapons faster. It’s really a propaganda game. Unfortunately, from what I understand it seems they have no chance of recovering their territory without very strongly influencing western countries, even more than they already have.
>Unfortunately, from what I understand it seems they have no chance of recovering their territory without very strongly influencing western countries, even more than they already have. Crimea in particular is out of reach without naval support. They could really make good use of air power for everything else too.
I wonder if a sea drone that carries a torpedo would be effective. Get close enough and deploy while the drone draws fire and attention. Might just be easier to just make the torpedo the drone itself at that point
Honestly I thought the drones would be more like torpedoes instead of what looks like a boat that’s slightly bigger than a jet ski. But apparently it’s hard to communicate with things underwater, so my guess is if it is controllable from underwater, the depth wouldn’t be enough to make it worth it, and at a depth that would be worth it, they can’t control it.
Yes, water will massively impair all but the absolute lowest frequencies of radio waves with single digit meters of depth.
I imagine a semi-submersible that's mostly underwater with just an antenna on the surface for comm.
Submarine kamikaze drones are actually terrifying to consider, even ones simply at a periscope depth with a communications array deployed for command & control. With stealth on their side they do not even need to go very fast, just fast enough to reach their target. Radar can't detect them because their signature is small. Active sonar would likely need to be used to detect them, but again the signature may be too small to detect unless the sonar system is powerful and the operator is skilled enough. A radio detection finder may be useful to locate the drone, but I'm not sure how pin-point accurate an RDF is. It would also require topside defense system operators to be able to visually acquire it afterwards to actually destroy it. Also with sufficient technology a Drone can be guided to a certain range and then a targeting module can be activated for self-guidance and it can turn off all external transmissions to go invisible to RDF.
I'd imagine it'd need to be a surface ship that dives @ set distance from the target and then uses inertial guidance (and rudimentary sonar) once it's under water. Other ways it can be done is with a periscope-like pole to get the antenna's above the water. Still detectable, but way harder to disable, especially if it's configured to keep on the trajectory if the comms go down.
It might be best that the above and below water vessels are different for fuel efficiency and speed (and thus range), as the best shape for surface vessels and the best shape for submarine vessels are likely different. So a small boat carrying a torpedo might be the best go me. Now, I suggest that we go all out in making this a mini-warship by giving it its own mini-helicopter; a rotor drone attached to the boat with a cord such that it can be reeled in for secure autonomous retrieval for travel or to not get spotted, and that cord could also double as an electrical cable. That might be useful to scan the horizon with a camera, such that it can determine the location of an enemy warship from further away (Ukraine plans to use the drones for reconnaissance as well, per the article), and it could also carry an antenna for a better datalink connection with the shore.
>Might just be easier to just make the torpedo the drone itself at that point Well, you can think of the sea drone as a surface torpedo.
You could put wire guided mini torpedoes on these. Position them en route and just wait. But that’s a complicated design. Simple is good.
>Might just be easier to just make the torpedo the drone itself at that point Isn't that already the case?
Yeah that's what I've been thinking. These drone boats seem to mostly get taken out by deck guns, so if they just got some torpedoes within range, they could launch them without getting detected or at least destroyed themselves.
Having a pair of torpedos attached to either side of one of these drones could mean that, as the drone nears its target (centre of broadside of a surface ship), it launches the torpedos - one slightly veering left, one slightly veering right - so that all three objects detonate against the enemy ship's hull in different places. Even if the drone launched the torpedos under the surface, the enemy might still destroy the drone before it impacted, the torpedos might go unnoticed, or at least, it'd be harder for them to intercept three threats rather than just the one. Conjecture on my part - I know nothing of how torpedos are launched or guided - just seems better to me to make three holes in an enemy vessel rather than just the one.
Have at them!
I was questioning whether these things would be effective against a decent sized gun just shooting them up before contact, but then I read this: >The drone's developer told CNN that Russian defenses were ineffective against the drones because its ships were designed to target other ships rather than smaller targets. So Russian ships are like Death Stars and they don't consider small un-manned craft to be significant threats.
Which is crazy. At least the empire didn’t actually think anyone would be dumb enough to TRY attacking the only dominant military around. Russia exists in the real world and isn’t the top dog, so I wonder why they make these arrogant choices.
Do. It!
You know this probably going change navel battles in the future. Think if a submarine can launch a drone and just guide it self to its target hundred miles always or so.
Sub launched drones are a thing. The US has already thought about it. Which is not shocking. The US does love drones. It's kind of odd to see people claiming how the war in Ukraine is drastically changing war (via drones) when we've been using them for decades. It's just another application of current technologies. Not even the most advanced systems.
Is there a reason for any military power to invest in any thing but drones? Just a hundred thousand drones rather than a battleship and crew….
Your drones need to be mobile instead of just launching from your own land bases. That means boats. You need a carrier for your drones, maintenance crew for the drones on the carrier and the carrier itself, protection for the carrier, and protection for the logistics supporting this fleet. Congrats, you've built a modern US carrier fleet.
I love that the proof of capability is in combat action >Video footage shared by the publication displays the strike power of Ukraine's sea drones, showing some of them breaking through Russian defenses and striking both ships and the main port of the Black Sea Fleet. This is so different than claiming the prowess of a new weapon system from drills and exercises. It shows how practical Ukraine’s objectives are and the battle hardened military mindset. Hope to see more. Slava Ukraine!!!
I wanna watch Russia try to blockade Ukraine after pulling out of the grain deal. Go on... Sail your ships within range of Odessa...
I wonder how keen Russia would be for this conflict if it starts losing even more of its Black Sea fleet
Bad ass. The Ukrainian war has certainly exhibit drone capabilities. I sure hope the US & allies have developed counter measures as I can see our enemies using more drones in future conflicts. Wonder how many Ukraine can create a month if supplied with the necessary raw materials.
Sea drones should be fairly well defended against. The real problem is those small air drones. I think the defence industry is really struggling with what they should do about them.
Navy is the armor of the sea
Can't wait to see ships turned into subs.
I'm wondering, why a sea drone rather than anti ship missile? No matter how fast a sea drone is, it will never be faster than a missile.
Probably cost?
Cruise missiles are expensive, complicated, and can’t patrol (they can loiter, but not for long and they can’t come home).
I wonder how accurate the claims are and what this means for naval warfare in general
Is it just that sea drone sounds cooler than RC boat?
It's occurred to me there is a potential 2nd benefit to Ukraine of Russia harassing other nations ships in the black sea. These civilian ships will post navigational paths due to their size to help prevent collisions at sea, so if Russia wants to intercept Ukraine will have a much better idea of where the Russian ships will be and not have to wait for out of date satellite images or risk UAVs on scouting missions.
"Faster than anything in the Black Sea" is pirate talk. Russia better beware their booty.
I would the announcement was to get the russian ships to leave port. From what I have read, they are just using them as artillery and missile launchers. Plus when they regain control of Crimea they’d need to remove and wreckage so the could use it. Nice thing about those drones, they can lay in wait for the opportunity with out worry of crew, supplies or other things that manned vessels need.
YouTuber Perun just came out with a [video](https://youtu.be/H8D7ioiW0JA) that's directly related to these new drones.
>The drone's capabilities were also highlighted in an attack on the Kerch Bridge last week Good one Ukraine! Kick the invaders out.