Why haven’t the Ukrainians tried mounting Neptune or harpoon anti-ship missiles to any of their drone boats? As far as we can tell Russian ships have not proven to be very adept at shooting down incoming missiles.
Is it a matter of cost, or they just don’t have any drone boats big and stable enough to launch a Neptune/Harpoon from?
>"Why not put missile on missile?"
...why?
50% more missile per missile
If they could properly maintain any of their stuff then that could maybe kinda sorta be the case, but even that's a big maybe.
>Phalanx also has a real operational history
It's had one operational intercept, and that was this year, if memory serves, and that was against Iranian made missiles.
By operational history I'm really referring to the land based version that was extensively used to protect US bases from mortar and rocket fire in Afghanistan and Iraq. The system has definitely seen more use in that version than at sea.
Basically what
said. AEGIS is a multi sensor, multi-ship capable networked coordination system that can fire a wide variety of missiles to intercept different targets at different ranges.
Fun fact: the US took possession of a fully operational Tarantul class Corvette from Germany after the collapse of the USSR and the reintegration of East Germany. It mounted two AK-630s. The entire ship was studied extensively and used on maneuvers, then was used as a museum piece and eventually scrapped.
100% actually.
Why not?
Van Ritter, go to sleep
I'm more curious why haven't they mounted GRAD, TOCHKA or something similar to fire at targets before encountering shore defenses or at coastal targets, like air bases, anti-air batteries, ammo depots near military ports etc.
OTOH Crimea was quite a fortress with entire submarine tunnels inside the cliffs. So i imagine anything that doesn't HAVE to be on surface (e.g. planes, anti air) is probably deep inside.
They have already mounted grad to boat drones idiot. Have you not been following the war.
Webm related.
The fact that so many posts prior to this webm claim it would be difficult expensive, top heavy or impossible when it's already been done to some extent is astounding stupid.
The only thing missing is a missile guidance system.
No more is needed than that. You also need fire control and significantly better communications than what is basically a webcam broadcast.
btw Grads are unguided for a reason. They just fly in a ballistic arc. They're missiles in the same sense an artillery shell is and adding guidance to them is not simple.
>Not simple
Uhuh
>2012
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System
Lazer guided in this case, but lazer emitting drones aren't out of the blue either so it's doable.
And no, you don't need advanced ballistics on the drone itself when attacking preplanned mission targets, you just point towards a compass direction and preset the height angle before mission launch at base and let the kit do the rest.
Sure it won't have the same range due to needing to correct itself but it should still work.
>Not simple
>Uhuh
>proceeds to post a mobile wikipedia link to a kit that costs 9 times as much as the missile it adds guidance to and reduces the range by a third
Yes, uhuh.
And no, your moronic idea to add drones with lasers to drones just makes the idea dumber and unfeasible.
>Muh acquisition cost
It's a small project from the USN of course it's overpriced.
My point is there are several grads on these drone already. They can fit larger missiles.
You are dumb and your opposition to this idea so far has also been dumb.
>It's a small project from the USN of course it's overpriced.
What a dumb excuse. That's also not true. Only the initial order was USN, only a minority of kits made. The USAF spent 1% of its procurement budget, almost as much money as it spent on JDAM kits, in 2017. That was the last major order.
>My point is there are several grads on these drone already
And the point that actually matters is that you're ignoring reality and trivializing a weapon system. You're a typical idiot on this board, so of course you b-line to missiles as "easy" and "just do it". No it is never inexpensive to make guided missiles and that is relevant when you are UNIRONICALLY advocating for a maritime technical to be the launch platform.
If bongs can put missiles in tesco vans this is just as viable and you know it.
>blah blah blah
Nah. This is the truth
>No it is never inexpensive to make guided missiles
A FPV drone is a guided missile.
>your moronic idea to add drones with lasers
Excuse me, I believe I specified drones with *fricken* lasers.
the drone is shooting at nothing, great use of it. you don't even know what that is, could be just flares.
The drone is shooting at land targets on crimea. You can even see part of the map on the left.
There's a difference between slapping a pack of unguided missiles on top and actually having the required targeting euquipment for Neptun or similar systems.
They'll figure it out eventually, but as of now, Russians can't even deal with the boats themselves, so there's no rush.
>They'll figure it out eventually
yeah, just need to build antigravitational engine to slap 800 kg missile on boat with 300kg max payload
imagine if they fired this into their target right before ramming it
>The only thing missing is a missile guidance system
and that's a big fricking thing you fricking idiot
If nothing else this would be hilarious to use to saturate air defence just before or while ASM or land attack cruise missile strikes.
Besides when the target area is considered "anywhere with military logistics significance in Crimea" it also becomes a great harasment weapon.
Putting anything with guidance on a drone is an order of magnitude more difficult than what they're doing now.
Essentially it's just a boat with a GPS, SATCOM, and a telemetry stream. You start needing to launch actual, real big boy missiles (and not just grads that go off with a battery and a switch) and you start looking at a much more complicated integration of the weapon into the drone. Best case you "preprogram" them on the ground with an attack profile and move the drones into a launch box.
That being said, there isn't a good way to solve your target identification problem at all. These Russian ships are all hiding in harbors interspersed with civilian ships, last think Ukranians need is a Russian propaganda victory from a harpoon slamming into a grain ship.
Seababy/magura is cheap and effective, why drop all that for a questionable replacement with more risks.
If Ukriane imposes a blockade on Russian shipping bets are off anon. But also these drones are able to broadcast LIVE video feed, it's not too hard to imagine a connection to a mounted ASM could be possible for redeployment.
As for target identification, they absolutely could use scout drones for that, they already do it.
You do not need perfect mission profiles and perfect aim, you just preprogrammed, lob it, and hope for the best. The absolutely could expand their capabilites by doing it.
Tochkas are like 5000lbs my brother in Christ
Yeah that anon is a bit kekworthy, but the viability is still there.
They are vulnerable to patrol craft though, probably little to no shrapnel protection.
What's spookier is in future will have even larger underwater drones like the one shown on that Ukrianian test vehicle, but deleting merchant shipping in the Indian ocean with submersible torpedo launched ASMs instead. (Tomahawk analogues)
We are in for a wild ride.
i had the exact same idea but with a semi submersible vehicle. Sneak up, pup up, launch your missile, submerge and reload.
>Neptune is 870 kg
>it's a missile which works because it's moving fast
>let's put it on a tiny speedboat
>boats big and stable enough to launch
This made me think... if could you adjust the boat geometry slightly, just enough that sticking a SRB can send it airborne a mile or so before target to beeline straight to it avoiding any defense nets and leaving no time to react?
The idea has been floated.
How much do you really need for the missile to successfully depart? AFAIK most of the vehicle is for convenience - reloading mechanism, armour, durability for multiple volleys etc. But generally all you need is something pointing in the right direction until engine reaches full power and and a battery to start it.
HIMARs will also have an onboard IMU to help tell the missile where it is so it can plan out how to get to its target.
I'm notifying ICE
you will be deported for this
I thought one of their naval drone designs already had a MANPADS or some sort of missile launcher as a secondary armament
I was right. It exists
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraine_presets_sea_drone_with_rocket_launcher_and_the_video_of_first_ever_drone_vs_ship_naval_battle-9052.html
Harpoon weights x2 more than payload of Magura v5, Neptune weights almost x3 times
I'm pretty sure they require radar and fire control systems, anon.
I'm pretty sure missiles work like they do in my video games. I'd say Ukraine should be launching hypersonics but NATO isn't that advanced yet.
Neptune is too big but Brimstones would be an interesting pairing
Russian AA and their Aegis equivalent would fricking detect and defeat the missiles! The only thing they have trouble with is Storm Shadow!
>their Aegis equivalent
There are no analogues on earth for russian equipment
Ak-630? Its supposed to bully incoming missiles and it was made back when Soviet Union was in its heyday.
Not even close to what the Aegis ecosystem is, or what it's capable of.
AK-630 is more like a Phalanx competitor, but even that is questionable. Phalanx also has a real operational history.
I have no idea of what the difference between Phalanx and Aegis is. I thought it was all just CWIS point-defense BRRRRTTTTT. Which is what AK-630 daka is, just one is networked and the other is 50 years old....and the networked one has a sensor and targeting suite 50 years newer. Same thing, category, kinda?
As a quick and dirty explanation, AEGIS is a centralized system to coordinate radar and missile launches both within the ship itself and among other ships in a fleet to intercept incoming targets.
Phalanx is a last-ditch, independent system that tries to use bullets to hit a target coming at the ship it's mounted on.
Also the fact that the west is doing most of their innovation for them. Why do it yourself when DARPA will tell you exactly how to modify some of your 50 year old systems to go far enough and fly accurately enough to hit bombers deep in Russian territory while giving you all their old toys from the 90's to blow up the guys still on your lawn?
Aegis is a system of systems specifically designed to add anti-ballistic missile defense to a ship. That means an Aegis equipped ship can shoot down nuclear missiles. Because of the radar, communication, control, and standardized VLS tubes needed to make this a reality, an Aegis equipped ship obviously also can shoot down lesser targets if the ship has munitions on board that can interface with Aegis. Some Aegis ships can't shoot down nuclear missiles because they don't have the full system, but all of them can be expected to shoot down incoming cruise missiles with reasonable accuracy and precision.
Russia has no equivalent to Aegis.
A lot of issues with the missile could be avoided using torpedo.
I am not evn talking about newest and gratest ones.
UU made metric frickton of mk48s during cold war. Theres still tons of them gathering dust in some navla warehouses, when they were replaced by more advanced versuins.
While thy are supposed to be wire guided from nuclear attack sub, even 80-90s era versions had very good autonomous tracking mode, and launchng them from ranges we saw ukrodrones engaging would be like shooting someone point blank with a shotgun.
The hit effect would be devastating as well, its a keelbreaker with warhead strong enough to deal with literally every vessel russians have in black sea.
And the best part is that its neutrally buoyant so it could be simply strapped under the drone, and unlike antiship missile it would not require drone to be bigger and heavier to carry it. Sure, it would have to tow the additional weight, but the range and performance hit would be a faction of that required to mount missile system.
In theory it has 20+ mile range. If launched in autonomous search mode at 2-5 mile range (and we know drones get much closer, even in failed attacks) russians would be completely and utterly fricked.
its a perfect match.
What equipment is required to activate the Mark 48 almonds then launch it? As in how large?
An entire submarine
Obviously not since the vast majority of a submarine's structure and systems are not torpedo-centric (nor are surface ship systems).
If the torpedo can be delivered and initially steered by an "aquatic JDAM kit" then what stops it from finishing the attack? They're basically little autonomous subs in their own right.
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167907/mk-48-heavyweight-torpedo/
>Why haven’t the Ukrainians tried
Because they are not very competent and are barely trying to develop their own weapons. Their only advantage is that monke and ziggers are moronic.
Cost. A drone costs less than a traditional AShM.
Placing fire control systems on a jet ski is pretty unreasonable, so we'll handwave this away and claim that NATO is doing that for free with Black Sea drone overflights.
Second problem is datalink and networking. Getting a drone to talk to a drone isn't free. I'm not sure how consistent Starlink is. Up to date information on targeting is pretty important, if for no other reason than to not waste expensive AShM munitions. A Ukrainian based system of updating the missile flight path after launch is also important.
Then you got fleet tending to take care of. These aren't just jet skis anymore. They're carrying expensive equipment, and I don't mean in money, I mean in time to make by people who are in limited quantity. Ukraine doesn't shit out Neptune missiles. This basically entails either a very secure coastal deployment system that isn't harassed by Russia much and is itself very efficient (again, efficient with time) or deploying a drone fleet tender. A tender is an obvious no-go, at least not one that can reasonably load missiles onto a drone.
And then there's just the number of people. A coastal Neptune battery takes time to create, yeah, but once it's got equipment and crew it is mostly good to go for a long time. It'll keep Russian ships away from the coast. A hodgepodge drone missile flotilla??? That would require the attention of a lot more people just to have what amounts to over glorified jet skis. And again, it's all beholden to NATO sensors doing the most dangerous work for them.
If a few jetskis can dump several ASM's into the side of your lovely expensive billion dollar ship then it's doing its job.
You just need a second drone for scouting and a local GPS or sat comm system for both to get the general location of the enemy. A little bit of map work and you can lob self guided radar ASMs at anything moving in the black sea from a platform with no moving parts outside of the onboard motors.
Sure it's crude, but so what.
Well at that point it would be large enough to be shown on radar and easily targeted my multiple firing solutions. The water drone swarm the US/UK/AUS/GERMANY/UKRAINE coalition used against the Russian ship was hard to target. There were at least 3 maybe five small speedy drones could not get them with small arms fire. One was doing circles and looks like it distracted the morons on the guns while the kill snuck up from the back...
I think the point of the missile drones was to attack OTH. You do realise short drones are really hard to spot with radar till they're right on top of you right? 50ft tall radars can only see about 8.66 miles till they start getting horizonal gaps for example, not even including wave cover.
Missiles exist at the ranges involved outside of the horizon that could do the job honestly, even if we assume higher radars with thus more range.
Hell, brimstone might even be viable against sea targets, despite its anemic size compared to other ASMs.
Lots of negativeness ITT.
The Brimstone would be very easy to do this with. It is quite autonomous and can be launched from a regular truck. Too weak to sink anything bigger than a small fishing boat though.
Ukraine has already been given the RBS17 (ground launched Hellfire) from Sweden. Everything one needs to aim it and launch it is in the pic.
A few of those will be enough to cripple a Russian ship for the remainder of the conflict, most of their (remaining) ships are pretty small anyway and their capacity to carry out repairs Is limited. In fact, their dry docks are a big fat target as has been shown before.
And the Hellfire can hit first, distract the crew and the boats then suicide into it like they have been doing anyway.
Unironically, despite the naysaysers in this thread, an airborne drone (or a seaborne one on a calm day) with a laser to light up a ship, might be a great idea.
Then the larger hellfire launcher can be much further away. I doubt one of these landing ships can hit an incoming hellfire, and they probably have no laser detectors.
Hellfire warheads are too small; they're more than 20 times smaller than a Harpoon
probably because one big advantage of these drones is the small size and very low profile, making them really hard to spot and destroy.
if you start making them bigger and put a big superstructure for a neptune missile it kind of defeats the point.
besides im sure there's lots of technical complications from launching a missile on a moving platform at sea rather than a truck.
Instead of trying to mount missiles, they could make these as small drone carriers, even if just for one or two cheap suicide drones.
And then the suicide drones can do more precise missions to saturate Crimea.
I would think the drones are already loaded to their maximum weight with explosives, so they'd have to trade off. If they can currently hit their targets the cost and performance equation probably favors the raw explosive over the addition of a missile. When Russians become adept at shooting these drones from a short distance it will be worth to change tactics and put some missiles on them.
Or a torpedo.
Torpedoes are literally made for this kind of short range usage with devastating effect
I hope Ukraine has some kind of torpedo in the work even with 2-3km range it could be a massive pain in the ass,
On the other hand although without good guidance it will have rather limited utility, and you can't really just slap an night camera and be done with it
/k/ is filled with unironic morons.
Suicide boats need weapons to destroy point-defense on the ship or suppress any crew firing back to approach the ship and blow it up. NOT to fricking blow up said ship from 3km away
Thank you for your insight VehDehVehsex, but.
If they have missiles they can wait unti some other day to spread the glory of Allah
Don't think you could physically fit a harpoon onto something that small.
You'd be better served with torpedoes. These are nice, remote torpedo launchers, and that's just dandy.