Think twice before arguing with Cpl. Duff

A few months back some of you dared to criticise my thoughts on modern warfare - I know, I know, I was shocked!  I pointed out that the monster US aircraft carrier currently visiting Portsmouth might turn out to be the biggest waste of money in the history of warfare.  Similarly, our two new mini-carriers currently being built at vast expense were likely to prove as useful in modern warfare as a replica of HMS Victory.  To a chorus of hoots of derision I suggested that they were likely to be attacked by swarms of mini-drones containing every sort of 'nasty' you could think of and as they would cost approximately 0.00001% of an aircraft carrier the cost effectiveness battle was already won.  Today I read this:

 

The PD-100 Black Hornet, manufactured by Prox Dynamics, is an air vehicle about the size of a man's finger. The UAV weighs 18 grams and now contains day and night-vision cameras that send still images or video back to an operator via a data-link. Designed for reconnaissance, the vehicle is incapable of attack or defense. But its size and ability to fly autonomously or semi-autonomously make it a clear precursor to the next generation of swarm robots. Welcome to the future of warfare.

At least 'over there' they are beginning to assess the huge significance of miniature warfare:

 

According to a recent report by the Center for New American

Security titled "The Coming Swarm: The Quality of Quantity," the

military is going miniature. Here's why:

 

 

 

That's problematic, according to the report, because the proliferation

among adversaries of smart munitions and increasingly accurate

weapons makes the decreasing numbers of ships and aircraft more

vulnerable than ever. Our very expensive war machines will soon

become very big strategic liabilities.

 

 

 

 

Can you see any of our admirals attempting to grapple with the implications of this new warfare?  Not a chance!  There's only one answer - call for Cpl. Duff!

 

Comments

[Penseivat]

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).

[john malpas]

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)

[jimmy glesga]

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.

[rogerh]

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?

[Uncle Mort]

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.

[Whitewall]

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

[David Duff]

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

[jimmy glesga]

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

[Hank]

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.

[David Duff]

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.

[David Duff]

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