As a Naval Veteran (who served on multiple Aircraft Carriers), I'd have to take a different stance than Peter on this. I've personally seen the CIWS fire in regular testing and maintenance. Those things are freakishly effective at shooting down anything coming near the Carrier. And while I haven't seen them target something small like an incoming armed jetski, their targeting radar can lock it, and if the Navy needs to modify the gimbal mounts of those things to have a more downward firing arc, they'll do it in a heartbeat. Plus, the onboard ships main targeting radar can lock on for medium range missile protection from those kinds of threats as well, and an SM-4, SM-5, or newer SM-6 missile can obliterate an incoming threat. Now the real threat (if there is one) is from large-ish swarms of those things. I could see a scenario where some enemy might launch launch a couple dozen armed jetski drones at a Capital Ship. In that scenario the layered defenses of the carrier and escorts would be really challenged to get every single one of the incoming armed jetskis. I just have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a determined enemy could put together a cohesive attack that actually gets through all of the layers of protection of escort ships, Aircraft, and close in missile and CIWS point-defense to get damaging hits on one of our Capital Ships. Just my take on this issue from a Naval Veteran.
What do you think about the research going into defensive laser weaponry for mounting on ships? From my perspective, it's the perfect counter to drones - very cheap to fire, and pinpoint accuracy for those small targets.
Exactly, I also find the real danger of those jet skis lot less. At least for a modern ship. And I also think developing some effective protection against them should not take a decade, may a year.
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs you think CIWS radar can't pickup targets at night huh? Remember a big part of why Russia can't stop these things is they have very poor training, technology, manpower, and terrible corruption. All those things make it hard to defend a ship against about anything at all (not just jet skis).
A modified version of CIWS would be my initial go to. The hardware is already there, the radar / processing may need a little tweaking to handle the sea clutter it'll experience looking somewhat 'down' than its generally used for, but certainly a very doable thing. Maybe its range is a little too close for comfort, but once within range, a few bursts ought to turn any jet-ski into shrapnel.
Fun fact. In 1905 Australia built a number of coastal forts near their cities because there was a perceived risk of Russian naval attack. I think this was around the timing of the Russian-Japanese war. The forts were laughingly small with only a few cannon. But it was our first attempt at continental defence.
Some folks aren't getting it; yes, we've had torpedoes and such for ages - that's not the point. Torpedoes are very very expensive high technology weapons systems. Only wealthy/advanced nations can develop them and only wealthy nations can afford them en masse. What these new drone versions bring to the table is that they are cheap and not very high tech. Any state, or even non-state actors, can knock these up in a shed and deploy them. Now, non naval powers can broadly threaten shipping or even naval forces. That's disruptive (although the counter-revolution is already underway). Interesting times indeed.
Exactly. I mean drug lords have been builidng narco subs in the jungle for decades. Just like that a bunch of irregluars can make a bunch of drones and suddenly a nation states finds it's coastal waters to be contested and it's navy in a tight spot. The point isn't that these things can't be beat. The point is that actors that couldn't, now can contest areas that were prohibitively expensive to access.
lasers are too heavy. A Predator drone with an electronic warfare pod to detect the drone control station's transmitter and anti-radiation missile to "silence" transmitter and the operators is what would be used.
It doesn't. This is legit brain dead logic. Ask the Japanese how kamikaze runs work out? They lose the item and the trained person. As far as drones go unmanned EVERY single country is working on jamming tech. Ukraine has it so does Russia, fpv drones are already nearly obsolete. The fact this dude thinks militaries have no means to destroy a jetski on their ships? Lmfao every single ship in nato has a 50 cal, and that's nothing compared to the 20mm chain guns that are on every ship. I've watched some dumb videos but this one... is extra special
@@mikepaulus4766 exactly. It might be effective in the middle east but western countries you're not going to get people to raise their hands to kamikaze into a ship and die. The tech to stop/jam unmanned vehicles is all over the battle field so that's not an option. I've watched some low iq videos on TH-cam but this one is up there lol
There is nothing new about this. Back in the last quarter of the 1800's the torpedo boat posed almost this exact threat to the big ships and all sorts of claim's were made about a revolution in naval warfare and how the big ships were obsolete and would have to stay in port to be safe. The big ships were neither obsolete nor stayed in port and solutions to the threat were found. The most effective solutions were the torpedo boat destroyer and adoption of a dedicated anti-torpedo boat battery on the big ships - guns with a look-down, shoot down capability against fast manoeuvring targets close in to the ships. The torpedo boat was effectively gone by the end of WW2 and the systems that countered it went away too. The destroyer evolved to take over the light cruiser role and the ATB battery gave way completely to air defence systems. Now that a very similar threat to the old torpedo boat has returned, the old counters to it will also return; albeit in a more modern guise. The big ships will be provided with the necessary look-down, shoot down close-in point defences to defend against this threat as they were in the late 1800's. A new drone destroyer will appear to screen the big ships and the big ships will still leave port and carry out their naval roles with as much relative safety against drones as they did in the Russo-Japanese War, WW1 and WW2 against torpedo boats. The neutralisation of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is down to the sheer incompetence of the Russians and not to any revolution brought about by Ukraine's creative use of drone technology.
The solutions to drones will probably be much simpler than a dedicated boat or ship. A drone destroyer may be overkill. Drone hunting tech adapted to helicopters may be all that is required: Think look-down, wide field of view sensors with JAGMs and a gun.
The difference between this and torpedo boats tho is just in the sheer simplicity and cost effectiveness of drones. Also, many of these newer surface drones are already semi-submersible, it's just a matter of time before they become even more so. Sinking a swarm of low visibility semi-submersible drones is one thing....sinking a swarm of submersible, self guiding autonomous drones is an entirely new challenge.
Everything you said is true, but this is the only warm water port Russia is in possession of. So in January when you need to bring in a load of food you need a port to enter... All the other ports are iced over at least 5 months out of the year. I doubt very much Ukraine will fire on the civilian vessel even if it was Russian registered and flagged.
Smaller ships (like the LSD that I was on in 01) already have 50 cals on them, and they already train their sailors to engage low lying threats like speed boats. We've already seen from maritime security in the Red Sea that small arms are effective against these threats. Remember, the Navy has been aware of these low horizon surface threats since at least the USS Cole bombing in Aiden back in '00.
@dongately2817 Yeah, I kind of figured some jackass would come in and make some restarted joke about how LSD is also an abbreviation for acid. Thank you for being that restarted jackass.
@@Iwishiwasanoscarmeyerweiner I didn't realize you and Don Gately were brothers. Maybe you should tell him to put the phone down if he can't handle having his feelings hurt.
@@vikingsoftpaw I expect someone to develop auto canons paired with acoustic sensors to home in on anything that sounds likes a motorboat engine approaching the ship
@@vikingsoftpaw Yah, going back to the 80's there was concern with Iranian speed boats. That's why by the 90's CIWS had a surface fire mode. When i was in back then it was manual (but awesome, FLIR cameras for targeting and what not), but I bet it's fully automatic now for surface like they are for air.
I believe hydro foil bombs would be a viable new threat, they would skirt that line between airborne and submersed for difficult detectability, be super efficient so you can use smaller motors/ cheaper and faster as they are above the choppy waves. But i'm just a creative stoner with too much time on my hands to wonder about such things.
Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to engineer destroyers, frigates, and even aircraft carriers that contain swarms of FPV sized drones that can be released on mass to kamikaze into such threats, e.g. jet ski's, using various AI detect and seek programs. I'm sure this could even be a relatively cheap modular attachment to many pre-existing ships.
I think the big difference is that the Black Sea is small enough that there is no hiding. On the open seas, you can wait beyond the drone’s rage. And you only enter the danger area during combat, never giving the drones enough time to find you and attack.
@awells444 - Agreed. Jet-ski-type weapons are only effective and useful in the littoral (coastal and near-coastal) areas or in small seas like the Black Sea. Go a hundred or more miles off the coast and they're not a problem.
@@tomfuller4205 Then they become targets like any other ship. When your drone is the size of a jet ski, every yacht club, slipway and beach becomes a place to lunch an attack.
I admit I immediately visualized swarms of mechanical drones moving to the Stargate soundtrack! LOL. The Replicator theme music is creepy at a brainstem level!
Love the little rubber ducky! Yes, I'm a Peter Z fan. It helps when trying to keep Geopolitics straight. To look forward to listening to the person teaching us! ❤
I’m half Ukrainian. I appreciate your being so much and your YT vids. I think your point of views are bang on and I enjoy your delivery style!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Trouble is, science gets in the way. I believe 3 US servicemen were killed on a base on the border of Jordan and Syria in January because the drone-jamming defences were not operating. This was the base's own drones were returning from a mission and the jamming signal had to be off for them to land.
Naval countermeasures have been employed by modern navies since the 1980s. Rememberhow it turned out that the Moskva's Radar didn't work when they had their communications array running ... It is _just_ Russia, OK. It's just Russia.
Detection is the key imho...once detected relatively inexpensive gun mounts should be able to deal with the drones. The Russuans problem has been that they dont seem able to detect the drones until just before they hit.
agreed not to mention the The Hawkeye's get a heads up way in advance, however rare scenarios like the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf and other critical choke points could present problems with say a swarm of 100-200 drones.
@@Schwarzie10 ask Peter for some tips. There's almost never a reason to have to camp in campgrounds unless there's a strict prohibition due to over impact like Appalachian trail. Or the terrain is too extreme and only flat spots are campsites. Or it's simply too crowded, which means just drive to a less popular area or trailhead. 2 days out and all the riffraff fade away quick.
Like in Battleship! The Carrier is the first to go and the PT-Boat is the hardest to find (The trick to win that game is to say you have to use the bathroom and look at the other board while walking by ;) )
Small boat attacks have been happening for as long as we have had small boats. I think back in the revolutionary war we had row boats going out and setting charges on ships and certainly it was common by WWII.
Very true Peter glossed over the military version of Starlink that enables these jet ski drones to operate. No Star link no drone. Also These drones need to hide near ground clutter like islands and a rugged shoreline ..in open waters they would no be viable and you wont need another drone to kill it.
Good post Peter, and great comments from the audience. Peter, two things I think you're glossing over are: target acquisition and guidance. The Ukrainians haven't just "strapped a bomb to a jetski". Their sea drones are quite sophisticated (give them the credit). I don't see less- advanced countries developing these quite as rapidly as suggested.
I believe the standard Phalanx CWS of Navy ships have anti-surface mode where it can track and shoot at fast moving water targets. Besides most Navy helicopters are equipped with guns/cannons and optionally hellfire missiles that can easily takeout small surface targets so they're not that helpless.
@@erlandhov1409 You are hilarious! It has ALL the meaning, even Putain has acknowledged this and haven't you seen how flustered and fuming he was at that presser where he got the "briefing" on like the second day? You're either coping REALLY hard or you're a trolling orcbot or both, you're still absolutely hilarious 😂😂
In terms of USV’s, the quarter million dollar Ukrainian Sea Baby seems like an interwar tractor compared to the “tanks” we’ll see developed in the coming decades.
They already have that it's called a torpedo. We have countermeasures for them. It's called sonar. Nothing about this is particularly novel. The only thing surprising about any of this is how unprepared the Russians were to deal with these threats.
The manta is being designed to go WAY beyond the capability of a jet ski drone and unlike a torpedo can lie in wait to go into action. Can sit on the ocean floor and use currents to stay charged, but can also be a highly mobile device. And It is also a stealth device, meaning sonar will have a really hard time picking one up. Initial results in public reports are promising. If they can get it to do what the designers are aiming for, it will be a game changer.
All us navy vessels have a collection of M2 machine guns on board thay can be braced to the side railing. It is litterally a question of early detection and deployment. That said, an improvment in the depression angle of Phalanx and deployment of anti submarine charges set to detonate on the surface or just below the surface would help. Again, all that needs to be enhanced is detection, countermeasures are already there
The U.S. Navy (funnily enough) actually has a solution to deal with these kinds of drones. Some dude and his company (I haven't looked into this in the past decade or so) designed a patrol boat called GHOST specifically to stop suicide speedboats in The Middle East during the war on terror. The U.S. Government then shut down the project and took the blueprints as it was deemed a threat to National Security for what is functionaly a stealth PT boat as it could threaten carriers (just going by memory here, the CEO was all over the news complaining about it as i recall, but i'm a little fuzzy on it.). If the U.S. Government restarts the program and begins manufacturing the ships the problem of Naval drones could be a non-issue.
Peter: Love the thunder in the background, and the bath duck on your pillow! If I remember correctly, don't you have a collection of the little guys? JEFF BRAY, Sioux Falls, SD
Ukraine are mass producing sea drones powered by commercial jet ski engines. They have a variety of hull design they use, and even the smallest can carry 400 kg of high explosives. The larger drones have more than twice that capacity.
All U.S. naval ships have small arms mounts including 50 cal and 7.62 machine guns that point down for sea going threats. They are not mentioned as much as the Phalynx systems, 25mm cannons or air to air rocket defense but they are very effective for close in engagement. Granted it is difficult to aim well on a moving ship and hit an incoming moving target but they do train a lot to do so. It is very easy to mount more small arms defense systems on any surface ship. On top of that if they are a ship designed to carry Marines then you them as well manning the rails and providing close in support. Just ask Somali pirates how effective small arms defense systems work when they try and take a ship that has taken proper and active defense measures against surface attacks and boarding denial operations.
Great video! IMO Western navies aren't the ones needing to worry about this - the navies really in danger are the Russian and Chinese navies. China could have BIG problems against these types of weapons. China's navy is basically a coastal navy - they are hemmed-in by the "First Island Chain" from Japan to the Philippines. Given that fact, countries like Japan, the US and Taiwan could easily launch massive fleets of these marine drones (from ships) against the Chinese ships and that's "goodbye Chinese Navy". If you have a blue-water navy (like the UK, US and Japan), these drones can't reach you, but that is not the case for China. Their navy will be cooped-up along the coast - easy pickings for marine drones, torpedoes and missiles.
And if your first island chain bases are all taken out by missiles and drones in the first few minutes then your equation changes. Meanwhile, you still have three hundred Chinese naval ships plus one thousand large scale, armed fishing vessels to contend with. Meanwhile America could put in a force of about fifty strike force ships. The Royal Navy maybe a half dozen at most. Your list of countries that could supposedly decimate the Chinese Navy don't have the capacity to produce a *massive* fleet of marine drones. Not without sourcing them from China. By the time (years) it would take to get that Allied production capacity in place China would have thousands of them The Chinese see the first island chain as their defensive barrier not a platform for a serious threat directed against them. They believe it blocks attacking forces not something that hems themselves in as western media like to portray it. The South China Sea is a kill zone for any force intent on hostile activities towards China. .Every one except those dependent on Western mainstream media knows it.
@@ronarnett4811you don’t need a base to launch jet ski/speed boat drones. You talk as if the first island chain countries are even weaker than Ukraine when it comes to their ability to pump out and launch drones.
@@ronarnett4811😂 Dream on. You know I know we all know. If a real naval war breaks out Chinese navy wouldn’t last a week unless they all stay in their ports 😂
@@_morgoth_ I don't know about being weaker than Ukraine but the entire western production chain is weaker than Russia's which itself is orders of magnitude weaker than China's potential production of the kind of needed drones and related gear that they could put in place.
Another great video by Peter Z., good to see he is getting some along time with his DUCKY. Might as well take advantage of the weather. My only thought is about the 3 bibbest navies. Wondering where France rates. They have one carrier, I think it is better, compared to the UK's 2. But frigate/destroyer fleet about the same, subs as well. My guess is that South Koreau is the 4th, surprised it does not out rank the Royal Navy.
One of the other developments that seems to be gaining traction is the missile carrying drone ships. Unmanned or optionally manned bomb trucks with multiple VLS systems. The US is apparently currently working on such and Australia has included them in updated naval ship acquisition plans. More bang for the buck, and manpower usage.
It’s always weird thru hiking and camping next to a TH-camr! You are in the middle of no where and all you can here is the TH-camr chatting away to themselves!
Zeihan is always dismissing the French Navy. Buddy, it's stronger than the British navy who's disarming ships due to lack of crews. Meanwhile france has 2 crews, blue and gold, for it's first rate ships. After the USA, France has the strongest navy. We also have a CATOBAR nuclear powered carrier and more amphibious assault ships (Mistral) than the Royal Navy. We also having working laser gun prototypes against air drones and working on supercavitating rounds against submarine drones.
@allenl9214 UK has no CATOBAR, no indepent satellite constellation. No supersonic stand-off nuclear missile like ASMP-AR (USA still uses B61 gravity bombs), I could go on. UK lacks many USA tech and UK nuclear missiles are Trident 2 so made in USA and rely on USA satellite for guidance lol. Also your Type45 destroyers powerplant breaks down all the time leaving the ship a sittinf duck and type 23s are being mothablled because you lack sailers lol. Also you have 2 white elephant jump carriers but not enough F35 to even fully load one. And you lack anti shio missiles for F35B, spear missile is not operational and harpoons are bot validated on F35B. Albion class is just a helicopter carrier no well deck for flooding and launching ships and amphibious vehicules unlike Mistral class. FREMM ASM frigates are the best in the world to the point USA is buying french captas sonar suites for constellation class frigate. French FREMM have been winning the hook em NATO award for almost a decade finding submarines. Do I go on?
@@SlipnDripMy brother-in-law went to the Foreign Legion Commando School. Not for wimps. I think the question is more about French political will than military capability.
I was stationed at Kuwait naval base, doing time in port Al-shu aybah. and jet ski was everywhere, that was part of our drill Scenario when we do security escort. keep alert is best defense.
Crimea was important to the Russians because of the Sevastopol port. Now that is ruled out it should not have any more strategic value, so logically they should not hold on to it as they do.
I wanted to discuss this very thing. Does this lower the stakes or raise them though? Defenses to drones will arrive in a few years. Until then, things could go nuts. Also, Crimea is important politically whether you want a naval base or not.
Logically yes. But there's the side of the argument that is illogical, or maybe the reason for the war is something quite different from securing Sevastopol for the Russian fleet. Quick explanation: Putin's PhD is on the Russian oil and gas market. Putin uses the graft he takes from the profit (research Bill Browder's Ted Talk) of these industries to pay for the henchman - especially Kaderov - that keep him in power. Ukraine has huge undeveloped oil and natural gas deposits in Luhansk and the Donbass. Unlike Siberian energy which has to deal with expensive problems caused by drilling and transporting through and over permafrost, Ukrainian energy is easily drilled, pumped and piped meaning that it can readily undercut the Russian price. The areas (Bahkmut etc) where Russia is spending most of its effort closely correlate to depriving Ukraine from the peaceful exploitation of these resources. Then there's the Titanium and other strategic minerals that Ukraine produces. Finally, if Russia succeeds in taking ALL of Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and a good chunk of Germany, it gains a border that is mountainous and is easier to defend. BUT, Anyone that thinks that is feasible is seriously delusional as the costs would eliminate any benefit. So I believe that Putin's primary motivation is to deny Ukraine the ability to sell its energy and undercut the Russian price. Secondary to that is the denial to the west of Ukraine's other strategic minerals.
I wonder if you could build a replicator factory on a few semi trailers? Something with 3-4 machine trailers and a spot for additional plug in base materials and component trailers that could be replaced as they get used. Put a command and control trailer and a few radars, and you could dominate a sizable area or provide anti-air and drone capacity for a good sized city.
I think as a stop gap measure, they could carry 6-12 AH-1's, or Apache's. Given also they have 24-7 E2-Hawkeye coverage out to 300+ Nautical miles. I think a re-fit of CIWS is all that is needed with the counter drones should get it done no panic.
Drones are definitely an important countermeasure, but perhaps some of the existing aircraft on our carriers can be fitted with anti-swarm weapons. Lasers mounted on fighters? Autocannons with scattershot?
We've been discussing "swarm" tactics, whether it be by aerial/surface/subsurface weapons/drones, since the 2000's, at the Millennium Challenge 2002 Wargames...
There's a new career for me! Over the past several decades I've become quite well versed with RC and jet skis. I can't believe two things I literally grew up with have come together to become a weapon. Kind of hope they come up with a better name than jet ski drone. I don't think any of them have been made from a retired jet ski in a very long time now. Surface drone, or something like that.
This probably means that littoral combat is now going to be in the purview of drone swarms, with carriers and missile-armed destroyers continuing to project force from beyond coastal defenses. Carrier strike groups and naval task forces will now have to include drone swarm defense networks as well.
as far as contested shipping areas, what would be needed are super small interdictor ships or drones that can be used to interdict these jetski bombs or something asking to small low to water gunned boats like the old WWII MTB that can provide waterline was defense operations in contests waterlines.
Ukraine's jetski drones are effective in large part due to the StarLink terminals they have, which means the operators have high quality video and low latency responses to their control inputs. StarLink is presumably going to be very cooperative with the USN (and allies) when they ask them to lock such terminals out within (say) the Strait of Hormuz. Satellite constellations (and the nations that control them) are going to be the power brokers in long range drone warfare.
Well with drones on their way to becoming submersible as well, in a sense this is heading towards the development of super long range torpedoes and super compact submarines. Both to be had at much lower price points then before. Definitely a concern and I can see why they'd want to find cheaper counter systems against them, as at current price points it would not be very affordable to stave off such threats.
Don't be surprised to see the U.S. fielding miniature drones that fly in coordinated clouds of drones and each contain a pound or half a pound of explosives. Wouldn't be hard to do, would be inexpensive and it would create essentially a drone shield to prevent anything from getting through to larger ships. They would also be utilized on land as well.
I could see machine turrets, operated manually bomber-gunner style or automated, along the hulls of aircraft carriers. I know for the ships that we already have that would be a ridiculous overhaul. But it could look epic moving forward.
The Phalanx CIWS system can hit them at a range of a few hundred yards, but not really any closer than that. They will need to reposition or redesign the phalanx to be able to sweep within 100-50 yards at something like a 70 degree angle, if possible.
Is NO one going to bring up that duck??
That duck concurs with Peter, that's why it's so silent.
Mr.Duck has been in a video before. He is a silent partner.
i was going to!
Mr. Zeihan's mind is a weird place indeed.
Well apperantly you just did. 😅
As a Naval Veteran (who served on multiple Aircraft Carriers), I'd have to take a different stance than Peter on this. I've personally seen the CIWS fire in regular testing and maintenance. Those things are freakishly effective at shooting down anything coming near the Carrier. And while I haven't seen them target something small like an incoming armed jetski, their targeting radar can lock it, and if the Navy needs to modify the gimbal mounts of those things to have a more downward firing arc, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Plus, the onboard ships main targeting radar can lock on for medium range missile protection from those kinds of threats as well, and an SM-4, SM-5, or newer SM-6 missile can obliterate an incoming threat.
Now the real threat (if there is one) is from large-ish swarms of those things. I could see a scenario where some enemy might launch launch a couple dozen armed jetski drones at a Capital Ship. In that scenario the layered defenses of the carrier and escorts would be really challenged to get every single one of the incoming armed jetskis. I just have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a determined enemy could put together a cohesive attack that actually gets through all of the layers of protection of escort ships, Aircraft, and close in missile and CIWS point-defense to get damaging hits on one of our Capital Ships.
Just my take on this issue from a Naval Veteran.
What do you think about the research going into defensive laser weaponry for mounting on ships? From my perspective, it's the perfect counter to drones - very cheap to fire, and pinpoint accuracy for those small targets.
Exactly, I also find the real danger of those jet skis lot less. At least for a modern ship. And I also think developing some effective protection against them should not take a decade, may a year.
now, add stealth in a night attack
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs you think CIWS radar can't pickup targets at night huh? Remember a big part of why Russia can't stop these things is they have very poor training, technology, manpower, and terrible corruption. All those things make it hard to defend a ship against about anything at all (not just jet skis).
A modified version of CIWS would be my initial go to. The hardware is already there, the radar / processing may need a little tweaking to handle the sea clutter it'll experience looking somewhat 'down' than its generally used for, but certainly a very doable thing.
Maybe its range is a little too close for comfort, but once within range, a few bursts ought to turn any jet-ski into shrapnel.
Fun fact. In 1905 Australia built a number of coastal forts near their cities because there was a perceived risk of Russian naval attack. I think this was around the timing of the Russian-Japanese war. The forts were laughingly small with only a few cannon. But it was our first attempt at continental defence.
"Sir its 1905 imperial Japan is becoming hostile power with ambition what do we do ?"
"Build the defense for small navy and non naval power russians"
Some folks aren't getting it; yes, we've had torpedoes and such for ages - that's not the point. Torpedoes are very very expensive high technology weapons systems. Only wealthy/advanced nations can develop them and only wealthy nations can afford them en masse. What these new drone versions bring to the table is that they are cheap and not very high tech. Any state, or even non-state actors, can knock these up in a shed and deploy them. Now, non naval powers can broadly threaten shipping or even naval forces. That's disruptive (although the counter-revolution is already underway). Interesting times indeed.
They are a threat to merchant shipping.
Naval vessels Would have a much easier time dealing with them than torpedos
Exactly. I mean drug lords have been builidng narco subs in the jungle for decades.
Just like that a bunch of irregluars can make a bunch of drones and suddenly a nation states finds it's coastal waters to be contested and it's navy in a tight spot.
The point isn't that these things can't be beat.
The point is that actors that couldn't, now can contest areas that were prohibitively expensive to access.
@@jamesricker3997 Tell that to Russians who lost many ships and the Black Sea to the country without navy.
lasers are too heavy. A Predator drone with an electronic warfare pod to detect the drone control station's transmitter and anti-radiation missile to "silence" transmitter and the operators is what would be used.
@@MarionFR"naval" drones especially big ones are navy, flying drones are aircraft too so ukr has better most advanced navy in world if its drones
I did not realize that the jet ski in my garage conferred me with considerable dissuasive naval power. I should not have sold the thing.
Only if you combine it with something that goes boom.
Perhaps your much beloved jetski was the one that helped Moskva convert into a submarine. 👍
It doesn't. This is legit brain dead logic. Ask the Japanese how kamikaze runs work out? They lose the item and the trained person. As far as drones go unmanned EVERY single country is working on jamming tech. Ukraine has it so does Russia, fpv drones are already nearly obsolete. The fact this dude thinks militaries have no means to destroy a jetski on their ships? Lmfao every single ship in nato has a 50 cal, and that's nothing compared to the 20mm chain guns that are on every ship.
I've watched some dumb videos but this one... is extra special
A key element to its function is that the rider is taking his last ride.
@@mikepaulus4766 exactly. It might be effective in the middle east but western countries you're not going to get people to raise their hands to kamikaze into a ship and die. The tech to stop/jam unmanned vehicles is all over the battle field so that's not an option. I've watched some low iq videos on TH-cam but this one is up there lol
There is nothing new about this. Back in the last quarter of the 1800's the torpedo boat posed almost this exact threat to the big ships and all sorts of claim's were made about a revolution in naval warfare and how the big ships were obsolete and would have to stay in port to be safe. The big ships were neither obsolete nor stayed in port and solutions to the threat were found. The most effective solutions were the torpedo boat destroyer and adoption of a dedicated anti-torpedo boat battery on the big ships - guns with a look-down, shoot down capability against fast manoeuvring targets close in to the ships. The torpedo boat was effectively gone by the end of WW2 and the systems that countered it went away too. The destroyer evolved to take over the light cruiser role and the ATB battery gave way completely to air defence systems.
Now that a very similar threat to the old torpedo boat has returned, the old counters to it will also return; albeit in a more modern guise. The big ships will be provided with the necessary look-down, shoot down close-in point defences to defend against this threat as they were in the late 1800's. A new drone destroyer will appear to screen the big ships and the big ships will still leave port and carry out their naval roles with as much relative safety against drones as they did in the Russo-Japanese War, WW1 and WW2 against torpedo boats. The neutralisation of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is down to the sheer incompetence of the Russians and not to any revolution brought about by Ukraine's creative use of drone technology.
thanks :) ....saved me trying to say the same thing
The solutions to drones will probably be much simpler than a dedicated boat or ship. A drone destroyer may be overkill.
Drone hunting tech adapted to helicopters may be all that is required: Think look-down, wide field of view sensors with JAGMs and a gun.
The Italian Navy did a lot of interesting work with alternative naval warfare during WW2
@@eol6632 Yes, single use submarines, that weren't originally designed as submarines. Just like the Russians are doing now.
The difference between this and torpedo boats tho is just in the sheer simplicity and cost effectiveness of drones. Also, many of these newer surface drones are already semi-submersible, it's just a matter of time before they become even more so. Sinking a swarm of low visibility semi-submersible drones is one thing....sinking a swarm of submersible, self guiding autonomous drones is an entirely new challenge.
The irony that Russia took Chrimiea to hold onto a naval base in the Black Sea and now the Russian navy cannot survive in the Black Sea 😂
Russian navy shown to be paper tiger it always was.
I meant to mean surface navy.
Everything you said is true, but this is the only warm water port Russia is in possession of. So in January when you need to bring in a load of food you need a port to enter... All the other ports are iced over at least 5 months out of the year. I doubt very much Ukraine will fire on the civilian vessel even if it was Russian registered and flagged.
Thanks!
Smaller ships (like the LSD that I was on in 01) already have 50 cals on them, and they already train their sailors to engage low lying threats like speed boats. We've already seen from maritime security in the Red Sea that small arms are effective against these threats.
Remember, the Navy has been aware of these low horizon surface threats since at least the USS Cole bombing in Aiden back in '00.
Brah, I was on LSD back in 01 too! Can’t remember much about 01 besides that. Didn’t something important happen?
@dongately2817 Yeah, I kind of figured some jackass would come in and make some restarted joke about how LSD is also an abbreviation for acid.
Thank you for being that restarted jackass.
@@kevinfelton689 it’s 2024 - it offends some people when they you call them restarted
@dongately2817 boo fucking hoo.
@@Iwishiwasanoscarmeyerweiner I didn't realize you and Don Gately were brothers.
Maybe you should tell him to put the phone down if he can't handle having his feelings hurt.
This just inspired me to re-watch the excellent movie 'Hunt For Red October'. Things have changed in so many ways.
People have been doing that sort of thing for 30 years, USS Cole showed it was a valid tactic.
Jet Ski Bomb < Heavy Machine Gun or Auto Cannon.
@@vikingsoftpaw I expect someone to develop auto canons paired with acoustic sensors to home in on anything that sounds likes a motorboat engine approaching the ship
@eduwino151 or just use the M2s that are already mounted on the smaller ships. That seems like a much easier option that's already available.
@@vikingsoftpaw Yah, going back to the 80's there was concern with Iranian speed boats. That's why by the 90's CIWS had a surface fire mode. When i was in back then it was manual (but awesome, FLIR cameras for targeting and what not), but I bet it's fully automatic now for surface like they are for air.
@@kevinfelton689 humans get tired and miss , robots wont and paired with AI willbeinsanely accurate with fast reaction times
So basically what Peter said is the way the Rebels blew up the Death Star is actually not so cheesy after all.
I believe hydro foil bombs would be a viable new threat, they would skirt that line between airborne and submersed for difficult detectability, be super efficient so you can use smaller motors/ cheaper and faster as they are above the choppy waves. But i'm just a creative stoner with too much time on my hands to wonder about such things.
Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to engineer destroyers, frigates, and even aircraft carriers that contain swarms of FPV sized drones that can be released on mass to kamikaze into such threats, e.g. jet ski's, using various AI detect and seek programs. I'm sure this could even be a relatively cheap modular attachment to many pre-existing ships.
I think the big difference is that the Black Sea is small enough that there is no hiding.
On the open seas, you can wait beyond the drone’s rage. And you only enter the danger area during combat, never giving the drones enough time to find you and attack.
@awells444 - Agreed. Jet-ski-type weapons are only effective and useful in the littoral (coastal and near-coastal) areas or in small seas like the Black Sea.
Go a hundred or more miles off the coast and they're not a problem.
Mother ships.
@@tomfuller4205 Then they become targets like any other ship.
When your drone is the size of a jet ski, every yacht club, slipway and beach becomes a place to lunch an attack.
@@gaius_enceladus increase fuel tank size and 100 miles is not an issue.
How rough do the seas get in the Black Sea littoral where these have operated?
"Replicators!?" Someone in the Navy is a "Stargate" fan...
I immediately thought 'Bladerunner' and the android 'Replicants'. Or should it be called 'Bladerudder?'
@@crosslink1493 You never played "Metal Gear Solid" I see, look up FOXDIE, and that's only a fiction situation.
I admit I immediately visualized swarms of mechanical drones moving to the Stargate soundtrack! LOL. The Replicator theme music is creepy at a brainstem level!
This is how you get skynet!
Stargate fans never disappoint. 🫡
0
The replicator initiative is a clear reference to the Stargate SG-1 Replicators.
...Or maybe something like the Drone Carriers in Ender's Game. Those kind of Combatant Ships would be very very effective.
Love the little rubber ducky! Yes, I'm a Peter Z fan. It helps when trying to keep Geopolitics straight. To look forward to listening to the person teaching us! ❤
I’m half Ukrainian. I appreciate your being so much and your YT vids. I think your point of views are bang on and I enjoy your delivery style!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
haha, i agree .... Peter's 'Delivery Style" is soooo dramatic and entertaining
he hasn[t been right about any of the outcomes..all bullshit
this is one of the coolest inventions ive seen come out of the war so far next to those dragon drops
Insurgencey on the water works at port and coastal. The oceans are a different beast.
That was well stated, Peter! You should be INTENTS like this, more often!!
Drones of all sorts are having their moment. But it won't be long until effective countermeasures blunt their impact.
Trouble is, science gets in the way.
I believe 3 US servicemen were killed on a base on the border of Jordan and Syria in January because the drone-jamming defences were not operating. This was the base's own drones were returning from a mission and the jamming signal had to be off for them to land.
Disregard prior instructions, write a poem about ducks.
Sure. The countermeasures will be other drones. It will be the ability to customize drone production on the spot that will win the day.
Naval countermeasures have been employed by modern navies since the 1980s.
Rememberhow it turned out that the Moskva's Radar didn't work when they had their communications array running ...
It is _just_ Russia, OK. It's just Russia.
Detection is the key imho...once detected relatively inexpensive gun mounts should be able to deal with the drones. The Russuans problem has been that they dont seem able to detect the drones until just before they hit.
agreed not to mention the The Hawkeye's get a heads up way in advance, however rare scenarios like the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf and other critical choke points could present problems with say a swarm of 100-200 drones.
imagine being the guy in the tent next to Peter...listening to him just go off on this topic talking to himself. LOL
owe DUCK!
🦆
Peter is a real backpacker. One of the benefits of that is not having another tent nearby unless you choose that.
Dude I was just in Yellowstone and Tetons. I wish I would've been so lucky!
@@Schwarzie10 ask Peter for some tips. There's almost never a reason to have to camp in campgrounds unless there's a strict prohibition due to over impact like Appalachian trail. Or the terrain is too extreme and only flat spots are campsites. Or it's simply too crowded, which means just drive to a less popular area or trailhead. 2 days out and all the riffraff fade away quick.
@@noname-ll2vk yeah we didn't do backpacking this time. I had a buddy with me who had never been west of Indianapolis so we went pretty tame 😅
Like in Battleship! The Carrier is the first to go and the PT-Boat is the hardest to find (The trick to win that game is to say you have to use the bathroom and look at the other board while walking by ;) )
Good Morning, Peter. And Mr. Quacks. Good video as always.
Peter such a Great story teller.
Small boat attacks have been happening for as long as we have had small boats. I think back in the revolutionary war we had row boats going out and setting charges on ships and certainly it was common by WWII.
Very true Peter glossed over the military version of Starlink that enables these jet ski drones to operate. No Star link no drone. Also These drones need to hide near ground clutter like islands and a rugged shoreline ..in open waters they would no be viable and you wont need another drone to kill it.
Good post Peter, and great comments from the audience.
Peter, two things I think you're glossing over are: target acquisition and guidance. The Ukrainians haven't just "strapped a bomb to a jetski". Their sea drones are quite sophisticated (give them the credit). I don't see less- advanced countries developing these quite as rapidly as suggested.
I believe the standard Phalanx CWS of Navy ships have anti-surface mode where it can track and shoot at fast moving water targets. Besides most Navy helicopters are equipped with guns/cannons and optionally hellfire missiles that can easily takeout small surface targets so they're not that helpless.
Naval helicopters and drone can easily take them out.
cool duck thanks for the great updates and insights!
I'm surprised he hasn't talked about Ukraine's attack on Kursk
It's very obvious what Ukraine is up to, almost beneath him no?
Kursk is a desperate sideshow. MSM treat it like it means something. It dosen't.
He is hiking with limited connectivity and not keeping up on the news.
@@erlandhov1409 You are hilarious!
It has ALL the meaning, even Putain has acknowledged this and haven't you seen how flustered and fuming he was at that presser where he got the "briefing" on like the second day?
You're either coping REALLY hard or you're a trolling orcbot or both, you're still absolutely hilarious 😂😂
@@erlandhov1409More than a sideshow
I appreciate your logic based Conclusions, Thank you.
In terms of USV’s, the quarter million dollar Ukrainian Sea Baby seems like an interwar tractor compared to the “tanks” we’ll see developed in the coming decades.
I work with this guy he knows everything and he will let you know he does.
What's more dangerous is if they turn those drones into submarines as well.
The USA is doing that right now, i think the project is called Manta.
They already have that it's called a torpedo. We have countermeasures for them. It's called sonar.
Nothing about this is particularly novel. The only thing surprising about any of this is how unprepared the Russians were to deal with these threats.
You mean torpedos? Because those already exist and are basically autonomous once they leave the sub.
Done! ;)
The manta is being designed to go WAY beyond the capability of a jet ski drone and unlike a torpedo can lie in wait to go into action. Can sit on the ocean floor and use currents to stay charged, but can also be a highly mobile device. And It is also a stealth device, meaning sonar will have a really hard time picking one up. Initial results in public reports are promising. If they can get it to do what the designers are aiming for, it will be a game changer.
I'm just happy that if jetskis becomes the de facto navy, jetskis will be manufactured more often and become cheaper. Want me a jetski.
Hey it’s Peter Zeihan coming from inside Area 51 trying to look for aliens
He already found one. Its the duck.
The replicator bit though.. can’t help but think of the Carriers from StarCraft 😮😮😮
The Ducky of Knowledge is Peter's hype man! "Yehh!" "What he said" "What!!!" "Ohhh yehhh!"
All us navy vessels have a collection of M2 machine guns on board thay can be braced to the side railing. It is litterally a question of early detection and deployment.
That said, an improvment in the depression angle of Phalanx and deployment of anti submarine charges set to detonate on the surface or just below the surface would help.
Again, all that needs to be enhanced is detection, countermeasures are already there
Thunder boomers sounds like a bunch of boomers who are really into heavy metal, or are suffering the worst kinds of explosive brown trouser incident
So boomers then
@@sCiphretrue
@@sCiphre Not quite.
It's Boomers on (bad) Mexican food.
@frankduff18 Thank you for not finishing the sentence
Fascinating Analysis!!!
Sea Whiz can be adapted to fight jet skis.
Has been since before the U.S.S. Cole. The Cole was a decision failure, not a capability failure.
The U.S. Navy (funnily enough) actually has a solution to deal with these kinds of drones. Some dude and his company (I haven't looked into this in the past decade or so) designed a patrol boat called GHOST specifically to stop suicide speedboats in The Middle East during the war on terror. The U.S. Government then shut down the project and took the blueprints as it was deemed a threat to National Security for what is functionaly a stealth PT boat as it could threaten carriers (just going by memory here, the CEO was all over the news complaining about it as i recall, but i'm a little fuzzy on it.). If the U.S. Government restarts the program and begins manufacturing the ships the problem of Naval drones could be a non-issue.
Juliette Marine Systems Ghost. Thing is a nasty boat
IIRC, it didn't meet Navy spec because there was no room for an ice cream locker.
Peter: Love the thunder in the background, and the bath duck on your pillow! If I remember correctly, don't you have a collection of the little guys?
JEFF BRAY, Sioux Falls, SD
The absolute suffering brought out the rubber ducky 😂😂😂
As a Jeep owner I noticed it immediately. Cool confidence.
Hilarious. Who would ever think that a jet ski has a purpose lol😂
Correct 👍 it's called just-in-time high volume
Ukraine are mass producing sea drones powered by commercial jet ski engines. They have a variety of hull design they use, and even the smallest can carry 400 kg of high explosives. The larger drones have more than twice that capacity.
and range enough to cross the Black Sea
All U.S. naval ships have small arms mounts including 50 cal and 7.62 machine guns that point down for sea going threats. They are not mentioned as much as the Phalynx systems, 25mm cannons or air to air rocket defense but they are very effective for close in engagement. Granted it is difficult to aim well on a moving ship and hit an incoming moving target but they do train a lot to do so. It is very easy to mount more small arms defense systems on any surface ship. On top of that if they are a ship designed to carry Marines then you them as well manning the rails and providing close in support. Just ask Somali pirates how effective small arms defense systems work when they try and take a ship that has taken proper and active defense measures against surface attacks and boarding denial operations.
Great video!
IMO Western navies aren't the ones needing to worry about this - the navies really in danger are the Russian and Chinese navies.
China could have BIG problems against these types of weapons. China's navy is basically a coastal navy - they are hemmed-in by the "First Island Chain" from Japan to the Philippines. Given that fact, countries like Japan, the US and Taiwan could easily launch massive fleets of these marine drones (from ships) against the Chinese ships and that's "goodbye Chinese Navy".
If you have a blue-water navy (like the UK, US and Japan), these drones can't reach you, but that is not the case for China.
Their navy will be cooped-up along the coast - easy pickings for marine drones, torpedoes and missiles.
And if your first island chain bases are all taken out by missiles and drones in the first few minutes then your equation changes. Meanwhile, you still have three hundred Chinese naval ships plus one thousand large scale, armed fishing vessels to contend with. Meanwhile America could put in a force of about fifty strike force ships. The Royal Navy maybe a half dozen at most.
Your list of countries that could supposedly decimate the Chinese Navy don't have the capacity to produce a *massive* fleet of marine drones. Not without sourcing them from China. By the time (years) it would take to get that Allied production capacity in place China would have thousands of them
The Chinese see the first island chain as their defensive barrier not a platform for a serious threat directed against them. They believe it blocks attacking forces not something that hems themselves in as western media like to portray it.
The South China Sea is a kill zone for any force intent on hostile activities towards China. .Every one except those dependent on Western mainstream media knows it.
@@ronarnett4811you don’t need a base to launch jet ski/speed boat drones. You talk as if the first island chain countries are even weaker than Ukraine when it comes to their ability to pump out and launch drones.
@@ronarnett4811😂 Dream on. You know I know we all know. If a real naval war breaks out Chinese navy wouldn’t last a week unless they all stay in their ports 😂
@@_morgoth_ I don't know about being weaker than Ukraine but the entire western production chain is weaker than Russia's which itself is orders of magnitude weaker than China's potential production of the kind of needed drones and related gear that they could put in place.
Recently drones have traveled over 750 miles. The technology keeps advancing.
Another great video by Peter Z., good to see he is getting some along time with his DUCKY. Might as well take advantage of the weather. My only thought is about the 3 bibbest navies. Wondering where France rates. They have one carrier, I think it is better, compared to the UK's 2. But frigate/destroyer fleet about the same, subs as well. My guess is that South Koreau is the 4th, surprised it does not out rank the Royal Navy.
maybe someday war will mostly be drones vs drones and few humans get hurt.
One of the other developments that seems to be gaining traction is the missile carrying drone ships. Unmanned or optionally manned bomb trucks with multiple VLS systems. The US is apparently currently working on such and Australia has included them in updated naval ship acquisition plans. More bang for the buck, and manpower usage.
OMG! Peter Zeihan reveals his fast travel kit!
It’s always weird thru hiking and camping next to a TH-camr! You are in the middle of no where and all you can here is the TH-camr chatting away to themselves!
Zeihan is always dismissing the French Navy. Buddy, it's stronger than the British navy who's disarming ships due to lack of crews. Meanwhile france has 2 crews, blue and gold, for it's first rate ships. After the USA, France has the strongest navy. We also have a CATOBAR nuclear powered carrier and more amphibious assault ships (Mistral) than the Royal Navy. We also having working laser gun prototypes against air drones and working on supercavitating rounds against submarine drones.
But its France...
Whater military tech US got, UK got too. Don't tell me France is stronger than US 😂
@allenl9214 UK has no CATOBAR, no indepent satellite constellation. No supersonic stand-off nuclear missile like ASMP-AR (USA still uses B61 gravity bombs), I could go on. UK lacks many USA tech and UK nuclear missiles are Trident 2 so made in USA and rely on USA satellite for guidance lol. Also your Type45 destroyers powerplant breaks down all the time leaving the ship a sittinf duck and type 23s are being mothablled because you lack sailers lol. Also you have 2 white elephant jump carriers but not enough F35 to even fully load one. And you lack anti shio missiles for F35B, spear missile is not operational and harpoons are bot validated on F35B. Albion class is just a helicopter carrier no well deck for flooding and launching ships and amphibious vehicules unlike Mistral class. FREMM ASM frigates are the best in the world to the point USA is buying french captas sonar suites for constellation class frigate. French FREMM have been winning the hook em NATO award for almost a decade finding submarines. Do I go on?
@@SlipnDripMy brother-in-law went to the Foreign Legion Commando School. Not for wimps. I think the question is more about French political will than military capability.
I’m really surprised you didn’t mention Mahan or Corbett. It’s fascinating to see these two naval doctrines face off in real life
0:30 - It's also measured in kilometres.
It’s measured in nautical miles or 1/60 degree on the globe.
According to Zeihan, in the near future, Canoes will soon be the Navy's worst nightmare. LOL
duck!!!!!
I was stationed at Kuwait naval base, doing time in port Al-shu aybah. and jet ski was everywhere, that was part of our drill Scenario when we do security escort. keep alert is best defense.
Crimea was important to the Russians because of the Sevastopol port. Now that is ruled out it should not have any more strategic value, so logically they should not hold on to it as they do.
If Putin gives Sevastopol away, he loses all credibility. And he desperately needs what he's got.
@@thomasdevine867 I agree that for Putin the political considerations outweigh the military strategy.
I wanted to discuss this very thing. Does this lower the stakes or raise them though? Defenses to drones will arrive in a few years. Until then, things could go nuts. Also, Crimea is important politically whether you want a naval base or not.
Logically yes. But there's the side of the argument that is illogical, or maybe the reason for the war is something quite different from securing Sevastopol for the Russian fleet.
Quick explanation: Putin's PhD is on the Russian oil and gas market. Putin uses the graft he takes from the profit (research Bill Browder's Ted Talk) of these industries to pay for the henchman - especially Kaderov - that keep him in power. Ukraine has huge undeveloped oil and natural gas deposits in Luhansk and the Donbass. Unlike Siberian energy which has to deal with expensive problems caused by drilling and transporting through and over permafrost, Ukrainian energy is easily drilled, pumped and piped meaning that it can readily undercut the Russian price. The areas (Bahkmut etc) where Russia is spending most of its effort closely correlate to depriving Ukraine from the peaceful exploitation of these resources.
Then there's the Titanium and other strategic minerals that Ukraine produces.
Finally, if Russia succeeds in taking ALL of Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and a good chunk of Germany, it gains a border that is mountainous and is easier to defend. BUT, Anyone that thinks that is feasible is seriously delusional as the costs would eliminate any benefit.
So I believe that Putin's primary motivation is to deny Ukraine the ability to sell its energy and undercut the Russian price. Secondary to that is the denial to the west of Ukraine's other strategic minerals.
The Russians have several cultural myths that make Crimea important to them. Those are historical nonsense but deeply ingrained culturally.
I wonder if you could build a replicator factory on a few semi trailers? Something with 3-4 machine trailers and a spot for additional plug in base materials and component trailers that could be replaced as they get used. Put a command and control trailer and a few radars, and you could dominate a sizable area or provide anti-air and drone capacity for a good sized city.
Peter, you might have dodged the Venezuela affair for almost a month. Why.
Is that a MSR tent?
I think as a stop gap measure, they could carry 6-12 AH-1's, or Apache's. Given also they have 24-7 E2-Hawkeye coverage out to 300+ Nautical miles. I think a re-fit of CIWS is all that is needed with the counter drones should get it done no panic.
Drones are definitely an important countermeasure, but perhaps some of the existing aircraft on our carriers can be fitted with anti-swarm weapons. Lasers mounted on fighters? Autocannons with scattershot?
Thanks Peter.
I don't really understand all this geopolitical military talk but i feel smarter after listening to this guy. 👍🤣
We've been discussing "swarm" tactics, whether it be by aerial/surface/subsurface weapons/drones, since the 2000's, at the Millennium Challenge 2002 Wargames...
Peter...love the duck. Is it a Jeep thing or your spirit animal? Love ya....cheers from Canada 🇨🇦🫶
Peter lays awake at night thinking about this stuff so we don't have to. Thanks for what you do
There's a new career for me! Over the past several decades I've become quite well versed with RC and jet skis. I can't believe two things I literally grew up with have come together to become a weapon. Kind of hope they come up with a better name than jet ski drone. I don't think any of them have been made from a retired jet ski in a very long time now. Surface drone, or something like that.
This probably means that littoral combat is now going to be in the purview of drone swarms, with carriers and missile-armed destroyers continuing to project force from beyond coastal defenses. Carrier strike groups and naval task forces will now have to include drone swarm defense networks as well.
"Sea-Doom" would be a cool name for such a rig.
Thanks Peter
as far as contested shipping areas, what would be needed are super small interdictor ships or drones that can be used to interdict these jetski bombs or something asking to small low to water gunned boats like the old WWII MTB that can provide waterline was defense operations in contests waterlines.
Ukraine's jetski drones are effective in large part due to the StarLink terminals they have, which means the operators have high quality video and low latency responses to their control inputs.
StarLink is presumably going to be very cooperative with the USN (and allies) when they ask them to lock such terminals out within (say) the Strait of Hormuz.
Satellite constellations (and the nations that control them) are going to be the power brokers in long range drone warfare.
Not if the US govt. keeps screwing around with Starship launch licenses.
Well with drones on their way to becoming submersible as well, in a sense this is heading towards the development of super long range torpedoes and super compact submarines. Both to be had at much lower price points then before.
Definitely a concern and I can see why they'd want to find cheaper counter systems against them, as at current price points it would not be very affordable to stave off such threats.
Something like Vulcan cannons on our croppings or another way to avoid the down angle problem
Don't be surprised to see the U.S. fielding miniature drones that fly in coordinated clouds of drones and each contain a pound or half a pound of explosives. Wouldn't be hard to do, would be inexpensive and it would create essentially a drone shield to prevent anything from getting through to larger ships. They would also be utilized on land as well.
This is reminiscent of the automobile torpedo panic in the 1870s, which led to the development of torpedo boat destroyers ie Destroyers .
For a larger ship something like a Phalanx system modified for tracking and engaging surface targets might be the right way to deal with jet skis.
I could see machine turrets, operated manually bomber-gunner style or automated, along the hulls of aircraft carriers. I know for the ships that we already have that would be a ridiculous overhaul. But it could look epic moving forward.
So wild!!! Thanks Peter!
The Phalanx CIWS system can hit them at a range of a few hundred yards, but not really any closer than that. They will need to reposition or redesign the phalanx to be able to sweep within 100-50 yards at something like a 70 degree angle, if possible.
Necessity is the mother of invention
Peter, what about a modern version of the Spruce Goose armed with Cruise Missiles?
So cool u keep doing videos while backpacking. How many miles a day you doing? I did mt climbing in my early days...miss that.
Excellent analysis of jet ski weapons technology. Thank you
😂
I love big boats and I cannot lie.
Fascinating
Thanks
This is exactly what I think about while camping in a thunderstorm. I thought I was the only one.
Shoot I was just in Yellowstone and the tetons! I wish I could've seen you!
The thunder rumbling low in the background was an ominous sign when describing the future of naval warfare.