Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nostrademons 843 days ago
I wonder if instead of disrupting U.S. shipbuilding, it would be more cost effective to figure out containerization of weaponry. Figure out how to land a drone in a shipping container and you might be able to turn any standard civilian container ship into an aircraft carrier with 1000 drones, 10x the air wing of a modern fleet carrier. You also trivialize logistics for this - the armaments, fuel, spare drones, sensors, etc. also go in containers, and resupply could be done at any container port and carried by any other container ship.

There's a long history of this in both world wars, eg. auxiliary cruisers and escort carriers, and they were fairly effective. See eg. the Battle of Samar, where 18 escort carriers and their destroyer escorts took on most of the Japanese battle fleet and won.
1 comments
nickelpro 843 days ago
Similar ideas have been tried in the past, they always end the same way. The converted civilian ship has zero survivability and is sunk by the first passing warship to the embarrassment of all the planners involved.

Today such vessels are so susceptible to anti-ship missiles and submarines that they're laughed out of any serious military planning meeting where the participants aren't already desperate for tonnage.

link
nostrademons 843 days ago
Right, but I wonder if developments in the rest of weaponry have changed the calculus around that. It's pretty likely that a fleet carrier or other purpose-built warship also has zero survivability in the face of a barrage of anti-ship cruise missiles too. That's what recent wargames have shown, and also has been born out by Russian experience in Ukraine. The strategy for survivability is "don't let hostiles get within your air defense bubble, and shoot as many missiles down with your CIWS as you can if they do."

An escort drone carrier could follow that strategy as well, and much more cheaply. The point is to make them expendable and cheap. Yes, if they get hit they're gone - that was always the case in WW2 as well - but there are now so many more options for blowing everything else out of the water that might get close.

link
nickelpro 843 days ago
> Right, but I wonder if developments in the rest of weaponry have changed the calculus around that. It's pretty likely that a fleet carrier or other purpose-built warship also has zero survivability in the face of a barrage of anti-ship cruise missiles too

This is incorrect.

> been born out by Russian experience in Ukraine

Defending your assumption with the Russian fleet is certainly a thing you are doing right now

link
What2159 843 days ago
The solution is similar to WW2. Build disposable ships faster than the enemy can sink them. This would work against most enemies except China can build them even faster
link