Blog powered by Typepad

« But at least the Monster Raving Greenie Party give us a laugh | Main | Has Dallas moved to Louisana? »

Tuesday, 14 April 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This method of attack on a larger target was covered some years ago in a science fiction novel, the title and author of which escapes me. The solution was found to be electrically charged nets covering the target. However, I do agree that aircraft carriers are highly vulnerable targets, especially in these modern warfare days. Such craft are nothing more than floating airstrips which require a large number of support craft to protect them. Still, we could always use the VTOL capabilities of the Harrier jump jet. Oh, wait, we sold them off to pay for the Eurofighter which requires a land based airstrip. Such is progress. In my day, I often advised senior military staff to listen to Cpls (substantive mind you).

How would these little drones deal with bad weather?
Maybe the aircraft carriwr should have giant fans on its bow.
Or anti infantry weapons. After all soldiers are really mass drones (compared with tanks and the like)

David those large aircraft carriers have defensive measures. I am sure those tiny things have a purpose but like all warfare they have to demonstrate their capability in a real situation then tiny counter measures may be required. Like all warfare it is wait and see.

I can see how a swarm of say 100,000 each loaded with bang-stuff and the intelligence to creep into every little crevice might take down a ship. But that looks a lot like an overt inter-state conflict. There may be easier ways to do that. Perhaps a sabotage or assassin role - but I doubt the advantage would last long.

The problem to my mind is that conflict might not be of the overt head-on kind, more oblique and concerned with gradually removing one's opponent's influence and replacing with one's own. In the end an overt hot shooting war between states would be a sign of failure, slowly slowly catchee monkey. So, regrettably big expensive ships will stay if only for the willy-wagging contests. Ukraine?

By 2020 political parties will probably use them for general election canvassing. Equipped with little speakers, they will come tapping on our windows telling us all about their party manifesto and the latest silly promises.

Something to look forward to.

The most effective "non floating" way of doing modern warfare is with an all out assault on a nation's currency.

"In my day, I often advised senior military staff to listen to Cpls (substantive mind you)." Quite right, too, Penseivat!

David it is time to promote you to Sergeant (local) for the time being provided you pass your CFT by this time Sunday.

Date line April 1799

Lord Duff spoke in the House of Lords condemning the Admiralty's short sided and expensive policy of maintaining ships of the line, especially floating targets like the HMS Victory. A swarm of brigs, sloops, and schooners can make short work of the a first the rate like the Victory.

Admiral Nelson was not available to comment.

Hank, your witty flight of fancy reminds me of the debates in naval circles at the end of the 19th century with ships of all sizes and carrying guns designed to fire at short, medium and long range. It took Adm. Fisher to knock silly heads together and insist on BIG ships with just BIG guns. The French preferred a host of small ships. Fisher was right, of course - but only just.

It's worth remembering that at Jutland the British fleet of BIG ships with BIG guns was forced to turn away just as they were poised to chew up the German fleet because a host of titchy German destroyers and E-boats raced towards them and released, dare one say?, 'a swarm' of torpedoes! That, plus the threat of mines being scattered everywhere was enough to force Jellico to retreat.

Oi! Jimmy, never mind giving me three stripes, what about my Marshal's baton?

The comments to this entry are closed.