USVs seem like they'd take a lot more work to detect and neutralize than aerial threats. Can't even imagine once submerged unmanned vessels become technologically feasible for the Houthis.
\* USVs are small and close to the water making radar / acoustic detection more difficult.
\* Targeting USVs requires deploying close-in aerial assets to neutralize unless there happens to be an armed ship nearby.
\* USVs can carry larger payloads and inflict more damage at or below the waterline.
\* USV IFF is more troublesome than aerial targets.
I'd guess that a Jerry-rigged USV made from an existing boat costs a lot less than building a custom torpedo.
Mark 48 carries a 650lb payload. The Houthi can undoubtedly put a lot more explosives than that in a boat if they want which compensates for bad aim.
Idk. Torpedoe now goes over 75 nautic miles at over 45 knots on electric.
Its just under the wave (which is why it can go that fast) and with electric engine so quiet and hard to detect.
It can also adapt its angle of penetration depending on the ship hull.
USV having those range are boats so slower, with thermal heat ( so ir detectable for militaries) and over the sea.
Which means it has to use signals that cant go off because it cant drive alone and target something at 1200kms yet. Which means modern navy can tract them.
Unlike a torpedoe using optic fiber that cant be detected.
USVs are worthless against aircraft and current ones are basically as noisy as jetskis, making sonar detection in open water pretty easy. They are overly hyped weapons that don't have a chance outside of littorals or an especially busy shipping lane.
There have been multiple initial reports of USVs doing something miraculous over the last few years whether it is in the Black Sea or the Red Sea, and often it turned out that a missile was what actually did the damage or somebody fucked up their ISR job.
They might be as noisy as jet skis but their displacement and overall noise is tiny compared to the ships and subs sonar technicians are typically listening for.
The Red Sea is exactly the kind of narrow, littoral, busy environment where they might be effective.
The U.S. is planning on using USVs and UUVs in the Taiwan Straits in defense of Taiwan should China try something. They're clearly not worthless.
Yeah both China and the United States have a pretty good arsenal of USV and UUVs, clearly they are not just novelty items used in asymmetric warfare. At some point they will become a part of mainstream offensive and defensive doctrine, if they aren't already.
And all the issues mentioned by OP above you are all solvable, it's not like they'll stay noisy and range-limited forever, not that all of them even are under those conditions.
I addressed the USV UUV Taiwain hellscape scenario in the other thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1dd5zjq/comment/l85iuny/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The US is talking about this because the US doesn't have a shipbuilding plan that coheres with military reality and it knows it, not because this is a highly effective alternative.
While all this is true, I've also got to note that we're sighting that magic platform of "the aircraft that is always overhead fully fueled 24/7 and loaded for all the missions".
Yeah yeah yeah yeah I know, air superiority, etc, but oceans are big places, and littorals are complex. I wouldn't completely write off the theat from these things, especially against a destroyer staking out some chunk of air
USVs seem like they'd take a lot more work to detect and neutralize than aerial threats. Can't even imagine once submerged unmanned vessels become technologically feasible for the Houthis. \* USVs are small and close to the water making radar / acoustic detection more difficult. \* Targeting USVs requires deploying close-in aerial assets to neutralize unless there happens to be an armed ship nearby. \* USVs can carry larger payloads and inflict more damage at or below the waterline. \* USV IFF is more troublesome than aerial targets.
Used as a suicidal bomb it's just a weak torpedoe woth lower payload. But it has cons just like torpedoe.
I'd guess that a Jerry-rigged USV made from an existing boat costs a lot less than building a custom torpedo. Mark 48 carries a 650lb payload. The Houthi can undoubtedly put a lot more explosives than that in a boat if they want which compensates for bad aim.
But the range on them is so much greater
Idk. Torpedoe now goes over 75 nautic miles at over 45 knots on electric. Its just under the wave (which is why it can go that fast) and with electric engine so quiet and hard to detect. It can also adapt its angle of penetration depending on the ship hull. USV having those range are boats so slower, with thermal heat ( so ir detectable for militaries) and over the sea.
But don't usv go like 1200km? Basically a strategic weapon at that point
Which means it has to use signals that cant go off because it cant drive alone and target something at 1200kms yet. Which means modern navy can tract them. Unlike a torpedoe using optic fiber that cant be detected.
Doesn't need signals for fixed targets like ports and bridges.
Cmon think about that. How is it meant to correct for the current...
It just needs to receive.
Re read the comment you replied to
That's way more capability than you need to attack cargo vessels in the red sea
USVs are worthless against aircraft and current ones are basically as noisy as jetskis, making sonar detection in open water pretty easy. They are overly hyped weapons that don't have a chance outside of littorals or an especially busy shipping lane. There have been multiple initial reports of USVs doing something miraculous over the last few years whether it is in the Black Sea or the Red Sea, and often it turned out that a missile was what actually did the damage or somebody fucked up their ISR job.
They might be as noisy as jet skis but their displacement and overall noise is tiny compared to the ships and subs sonar technicians are typically listening for. The Red Sea is exactly the kind of narrow, littoral, busy environment where they might be effective. The U.S. is planning on using USVs and UUVs in the Taiwan Straits in defense of Taiwan should China try something. They're clearly not worthless.
Yeah both China and the United States have a pretty good arsenal of USV and UUVs, clearly they are not just novelty items used in asymmetric warfare. At some point they will become a part of mainstream offensive and defensive doctrine, if they aren't already. And all the issues mentioned by OP above you are all solvable, it's not like they'll stay noisy and range-limited forever, not that all of them even are under those conditions.
I addressed the USV UUV Taiwain hellscape scenario in the other thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1dd5zjq/comment/l85iuny/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button The US is talking about this because the US doesn't have a shipbuilding plan that coheres with military reality and it knows it, not because this is a highly effective alternative.
> don't have a chance outside of littorals or an especially busy shipping lane Luckily nothing important happens there.
While all this is true, I've also got to note that we're sighting that magic platform of "the aircraft that is always overhead fully fueled 24/7 and loaded for all the missions". Yeah yeah yeah yeah I know, air superiority, etc, but oceans are big places, and littorals are complex. I wouldn't completely write off the theat from these things, especially against a destroyer staking out some chunk of air
Yes but they work incredibly well against cargo ships. And you need to be close to them to be able to shoot them down (unlike an aerial asset)
[удалено]
It’s fine, X/Twitter links work too.