One must also thou ,note for the defense against torpedoes, and hence the defence against "drones that park themselves on the bottom" has never been greater in terms of defense.
ASW capable surface warships in the more technology advanced nations stream behind their ships towed arrays that are not only effective in detecting submarines, but also more effective at detecting torpedoes (and ergo underwater drones). I dare say more effective vs torpedoes and underwater drones - as those drone devices need to move fast to intercept.
This means the drones cavitate more, massively increasing the probability of their detection by warships. And the more technology advanced warships now have either dedicated launchers (or even use existing launchers such as MASS) that fire devices into the water in front of the torpedo/drone path to proximity detect said drone/torpedo and explode by such (or simply explode automatically upon water entry), disrupting/stopping the torpedo/underwater done attack. In other cases, such MASS fired devices, upon water entry, just jam the sonar of the underwater decoy/torpdoes.
Further, modern arrays towed behind warships can also jam/deceive detected cavitating drones/torpedos.
So just as there are new attack methods, so are there new defense systems. Systems which can be effective, but obviously require training, skill, and good maintenance to be effective.
As to whether such defensive systems will succeed? That is difficult to tell.
What does recent history tell us about drones/missiles in naval conflict?
Ukraine War: Everyone knows of the Russian loss of the Moskva due to a Ukrainian Neptune missile. However what was noted from that was the Moskva had major deficiencies and probably should not have been at sea..
- her CIWS guns had maintenance issues (and not functional)
- at least one of her short range SAM systems had issues
- her ESM system antiquated (likely manual tuned as opposed to automatic scan for threats)
- her radar system did not function well when her satcom operating
- her crew was inexperienced in all aspects, from operating the equipment to conducing basic firefighting. Further, my recollection from readings is the Russian philosophy is to carry a small number of dedicated firefighters and not train the entire crew in firefighting, where the western philosophy is train the entire crew
- Russian intelligence purportedly did not know the Neptune missile could be used so Moskva was not expecting that threat.
- Moskva had no frigate escorts. Western philosophy is to deploy frigates with larger class of warships to bolster AAW and ASW
- there were no Russian AWACs flying to aid Moskva in air detection.
now look at Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
For MONTHS western naval ships have been under day after day after day of attack by air drones and by sea skimming missiles and ballistic missiles. None of these warships have been hit.
Why ?
The west has training, procedures, resources, and higher maintenance on their equipment. The western forces have:
- satellite detection of short range ballistic missile launch
- carrier based AWACS coverage detecting sea skimming missiles and likely drones
- high maintenance and higher training
- multiple frigates protecting each other
- capable sensors, capable long range anti-air missiles, medium-range missiles, short range-missiles, medium calibre guns, and CIWS, all with anti-air functionality
- jammers in some cases that jammed the drone control.
- decoys to counter (chaff/IR ) .. .Nulka
So while your point made is VERY valid - and your point that drones are a REAL threat, and they must be countered, I argue that some effective defensive measures are already in place and more under development (which I won't mention in this already long post)
Last edited:
