• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I was listening to Drachinifel the other day and he speculated that with the rise of drones, we would see a return to gun systems - roughly 40mm to 76 mm - added to warships. Any thoughts?

Not sure it is really a 'return' as much as possibly adding a few more.

Nah. Laser beams.

As one of several systems to be used, not as a be all to end all as they have some serious limitations. A mix of guns, cheaper SAMs and EW systems will go a long way to mitigating the threat of OWA UAV's.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
The pin-point accuracy of a laser is impressive.
The question will be how effective against multiple fast moving targets.

Video link:

iu

portlandlaser.jpg
Yup, impressive stuff. The laser just needs to auto-aim by AI, traverse more rapidly (quicker target acquisition), become smaller (more lasers per defended area), and become more powerful (less time focused on each target needed for the beam to destory it).

I wonder how the laser does against mirrors, though, and whether enemy UAVs/drones will adopt mirror shielding.
 

PhrogPhlyer

Two heads are better than one.
pilot
None
Some information of the Iron Beam, which it the only currently fielded system.
After acquisition costs, ~$3.50 per shot.


 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
I was listening to Drachinifel the other day and he speculated that with the rise of drones, we would see a return to gun systems - roughly 40mm to 76 mm - added to warships. Any thoughts?
What Flash said. All of it together.

Lasers would be ideal but the technology has still really struggled to mature despite the money thrown at it. There’s power storage and generation issues, waste hear, and then just getting laser “efficiency” up which there is more to than just making it emit more powerful beams.

They are kind of ideal for things like this though, because current OWA drones are so slow. But also true they’re vulnerable to adding countermeasures like mirrored surfaces or even survivability maneuvers.

Some type of SAMs will remain preferred because everybody wants to fight them as far out as possible. That’ll be something in the Roadrunner/Coyote flavor, but while cheaper than the big missiles, it’s still pretty expensive compared to the OWA drones.

Guns, I’m not as sure about the lower end. Higher end, 76mm, yes and going up also, possibly more “smart” rounds. The Navy canceled a HVP round program for its 5” guns a few years before all this kicked off….which we probably were regretting somewhat. It’s been brought back on line last year.

I actually also think even a drone “interceptor” with something like a 20mm or even 50cal might be worth looking at…maybe a drone v drone DCA?
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I actually also think even a drone “interceptor” with something like a 20mm or even 50cal might be worth looking at…maybe a drone v drone DCA?
Not a bad idea. Some of these racing drones can reach 200mph and are quite cheap compared to an SM-2/6. Maybe an AI-piloted kamikaze racing drone interceptor that launches from the ship/base and detonates itself at impact on/near the enemy OWA UAV at ranges of ~500m.
 

sevenhelmet

Quaint ideas from yesteryear
pilot
I actually also think even a drone “interceptor” with something like a 20mm or even 50cal might be worth looking at…maybe a drone v drone DCA?

That's complicated and expensive, considering you have to lift the gun, ammo, and targeting system, and a drone is also vulnerable to contested airspace and comms failure. At the end of the day, it doesn't save much over a manned platform with similar kinematics, like a helicopter or turboprop.

A surface-based gun with a good targeting system is cheaper on a cost-per-engagement basis. I like the laser and non-kinetic suppression ideas too- no material expenditure, and you can get a broad area effect if an effective EA band can be found. Can also be aircraft OR surface mounted using existing platforms.

As for Hegseth- damn... that was athletic rationalization to a spectacular (and criminal) degree. I'd argue the USG has a case against him. Whether they choose to pursue it is another matter, but the case looks pretty clear to me. Success or failure of the operation is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
As for Hegseth- damn... that was athletic rationalization to a spectacular (and criminal) degree. I'd argue the USG has a case against him. Whether they choose to pursue it is another matter, but the case looks pretty clear to me.
As long as Seth’s party remains in the minority there will be no action. If they win the House this might be revisited.
 

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
My YT feed is blowing up with those now... nice to see Congress has a spine, even if I have low confidence in actual change being brought about by this.
When asked about classified markings, he asked for clarification about 'classified mark times?' It's what someone who is out of his depth would say...he did a lot of bs hand talking but looked like a child when questioned by other veterans.
 

sevenhelmet

Quaint ideas from yesteryear
pilot
It felt like Pete was about to have a Col Jessup moment.

There's another video with him reacting to a Congressman telling him "This isn't Fox News!"

The look of bemusement on Hegseth's face is absolutely priceless.

When asked about classified markings, he asked for clarification about 'classified mark times?' It's what someone who is out of his depth would say...he did a lot of bs hand talking but looked like a child when questioned by other veterans.

100%. There's a chance he was deliberately obfuscating, but even so- it demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of what to the rest of us is annual required GMT. That's... one example of leadership, I suppose...
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None

On a program by program basis, the biggest standout is an estimated $75 million for the F/A-XX program. Compared to the $1 billion R&D funding the program once projected, the FY26 request is unlikely to be enough to meaningfully progress the sixth-generation strike fighter towards a contract as industry has hoped would soon come, and could functionally cancel the program.
Hawkeyes Forever!

Looks like the Navy still got theirs - budget proposes killing USAF AWACS and having “expeditionary” joint E2Ds fill the gap. 😂
 
Top