this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
631 points (98.6% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2209 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Most US Navy ships have had CIWS systems since the 70s and have had many upgrades to their tracking systems since then. The US Army adopted the LPWS (C-RAM) which is basically a portable CIWS for land use. (The Russian version of the CIWS is called a Kortik.)

It wouldn't surprise me if there are already CIWS-type systems for commercial ships operating in hazardous zones.

I have had the pleasure of standing next to a few CIWS systems during live fire testing and it's quite the experience.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, very much so. The reason I think there might be add ons is due to the nature of the threat.

Very angry, low visible, high speed, armored, unmanned surface vehicles that hunt in packs.

  • The Rim116 might not be usable because by the time you see them you might not want to / can not use a missile anymore.
  • The gun based ciws (midas/goalkeeper/phalanx et al.) might not have enough penetration. They are built for engaging unarmored targets.

We can make fun of the Russian expansion of their submarine fleet in de black sea all we want.. but if these maguras where an easy threat to deal with they would. No reason to think any NATO surface combatant would do any better when suddenly confronted with a similar threat.

[–] chalupapocalypse@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You mean like a big net that sits 50 feet off the boat to tangle the props of all these drones

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or just put era blocks on ships too.. lol

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Would probably be nothing more than a software update. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already capable of engaging boats.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They are.. gun based ciws can easily be used against ribs and such. I just don't know if a drone boat ban be armored enough to withstand the onslaught.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The amount of armor necessary would render it useless.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I have no clue what kind of penetration a phalanx has, but Magura is armored.. there I also don't know if this is just against small arms but I'd imagine a bit more. Also a drone boat is not shaped like a normal boat. It is flat with a sloped top so even chance of glancing blows.