US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Because you need the control of the seas.
Given how USVs do not have the necessary power generation and endurance capabilities required to operate and maintain radar and sensor systems that are comparable, if not equivalent to those on CGs and DDGs on the high seas - Large surface combatants that are in the mid-to-high 1000s of tons are still very much irreplaceable in the naval warfare of the foreseeable future.
Besides, there are different classes of USVs that are more suited for different roles. For instance, small-sized ones for reconnaissance and forward/outer-ring picket duty, mid-sized ones for proper AAW, ASuW and ASW support plus communication relay, while big-sized ones will become "wingman ships" for manned surface combatants while acting as mini-arsenal ships - And perhaps MALE/HALE UAV carriers as well.
Of course, the above classification can be quite simplistic, but the general idea still stands.
Furthermore, as USV grows bigger in dimension and displacement, increasing complexity meant that larger USVs will most likely be minimally-manned (or at most, optionally-manned) instead of fully unmanned.
Last but not least, there is also always the concern with enemy EW efforts at disrupting, jamming and spoofing allied communication networks for both manned-&-unmanned and unmanned-&-unmanned units. And with fully autonomous AI capabilities for USVs still a long way off, man-in-the-loop is still very much a must today and into the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
Hahahahahahahaha
According to the CSIS war games the Eastern Theater Command has fewer ballistic missiles at its disposal than the Houthis.
Some of the missiles used are probably not build anymore...some of these ships will need modernization to accept newer missiles.
Last edited:
Lmao. 99% of OSINT has become such an insufferable pro-NATO circle-jerk, or a circle-jerk of whatever community they're from.
Much like defense-watching, the majority of economists have only one or two useful takes to contribute, and there's very few who can be objective on a broad range of topics. Whoever they have in-house for the CIA is clearly a "useful idiot".
Furthermore,
"Russia’s so-called special military operation against Ukraine has incurred major, lasting costs for Russia, failed to attain the complete subjugation of Ukraine that Putin initially sought, and rallied the West to defend against Russian aggression."
Whoever wrote that is cringe, and it's embarrassing to see an official government report read like a Twitter NAFO post.
NDAA 2024 has been passed but yes technically we are under a CR. Although it's worth pointing out, that what's actually request, what's authorized, and what's actually built and implemented, are all different things.
On a miscellaneous note, the Pentagon spokeswoman is also quite attractive.
I don't really agree. You either get that new platforms made and integrated, or you don't. Spending more money on keeping legacy weapons produced and operational is eating up the budget.
This lady?
She reminded me right away of this one -
And if you know, you would know you wouldn't want to be in the same room as her, or even catch her eye at all...
