Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Why are maritime drones so hard to beat?" video.

I have no experience with maritime things or military stuff. But I guess that drones are hard to spot for sonars (because they are small and are moving on the surface) and with radars because the drones are small and could easily be confused with other stuff on the surface - and especially so in shallow waters like in the Netherlands or the coastal waters around Finland and Stockholm. So finding these drones would be difficult. Especially if they have some stealth coating making their radar blip on the screen no larger than a duck floating on water. Of course it would be a bit suspect if I see a duck moving 100km/h on the radar screen during my working hours. But if the drone is slow moving and hard to see I guess there would be no way for me know if there are drone boats or a bunch of ducks floating around on the water. And the russian navy has been badly managed for most of its history. However Peter the Great was an evil clever man that saw that the inferior russian navy could pose a severe challange to Sweden with cheaply mass produced galley ships that the powerful Swedish ships of the line could not hunt and destroy in the shallow waters of the northern Baltic sea. And the innovative work with land mines during the Crimean war was something that russia could thank Alfred Nobels family for. The Soviet navy was mostly just a fiasco due to the strong focus on prestigeous white elephant projects instead of putting resources on a more potent navy with less glamouros ship types. To russias defence was they the first country in the world to mass produce missile boats. It is a land power, so russias navy has never been a priority for them. For Denmark and Britain things have been different with their coastal Capital cities and widespread territories that had to be linked up with a strong navy, So of course have their navies been more prioritized. Danish vikings were skilled seafarers. And the Danish navy is probably one of Europes oldest - many decades older than that of England and Sweden. And both Britain have their own naval heroes like Nelson and Tordenskiold.
3
Seems like all Vatniks are just haters
3
Torpedos have a short range.
2
I am not aware of any ability of Denmark to close the sea to russian warships during peacetime like Turkey have. However had russia attacked Sweden before it joined Nato last year would the result for the russian economy have been catastrophic as Swedish warships on the west coast along with coastal missile batteries and military aircrafts would quickly have destroyed the russian Baltic sea trade. According to the World Bank do half of russias trade pass through the Baltic Sea and Sweden could quickly cut all of it off and destroy it if it wanted to. And not just alone Swedens west coast, but with the island Gotland in the south east are russian warships easily within reach. And this tiny lake does not offer many places for the russian navy to hide. And given their poor performance in Ukraine would I not be that afraid of a russian invasion. Their landing ships would be sunk before any troops or tanks could enter Swedish land. And the russian airforce that cannot even take on Ukraine would simply not stand a chance against an airforce with some extremely well trained pilots, excellent doctrine and modern military aircrafts. The Swedish military is much weaker now than back in 1994 due to reckless, incompetent and irresponsible cuts to the military budget. But even so would fighting Sweden today be a nightmare for Russia.
2
I think letting ships move alone makes them vulnerable. Making them move by night makes them even more vulnerable. It is dark and the drones are hard to see, and therefore are they are hard to shot at. They are also fast moving which makes them even harder to take out. And unlike a light flying drone with just a battery and an electric cable that can easily be destroyed by any kind of hit cutting off a cable, a propeller or a battery... do I imagine that a big drone boat of over a ton in weight is more difficult to destroy or harm. I don't know, but they might even got a piece of armor plate covering their most vulnerable parts, so even if you hit with a shot it might just richochet off. And pullets flying into the water will off course not do any harm to the drone. And even if a drone is taken out, are there still many others moving in fast. And just a single hit from one of those could mean the loss of a ship.
2
@SianaGearz I saw IR camera footage from the drones on one of their recent attacks against a small russian ship. There the crew fired against them with with assault rifles and something that did looklike machine guns. I believed one weakness the russian ships had was their inability do lower their auto-cannons enough to hit the drone boats when they had come so close - and therefore was it impossible to hit them and do anything meaningful for self-defence. Anyways, if even attack helicopters like Hind could be made to resist some small bullets, then I think a naval drone would be even less vulnerable to enemy fire as there are no driver that needs to be protected and you do not have to worry about too much weight from armor plates like you have to do when you are building a helicopter - which cannot carry much armor because the helicopter cannot fly if it is too heavy. But for boats this is not a problem, as they can float even if they weight 120.000 tonnes.
2
Ukraine got limited resources so they need to focus those on the black sea. Russias ability to transfer ships into the black sea is also limited as they cannot move big warships through the Bosporus as Turkey does not allow it. So the only way for russia to move ships from other parts of the country is through some network of canals within the country, but those only allows small ships to move through.
2
I guess that I will buy stocks in companies specializing in electronic warfare, jamming, cryptation,
1
Så har det varit ända sedan 1914. Torpeden gjorde slagskeppet omodernt redan under första världskriget. Många vägrade att acceptera faktum under 1920 och 1930-talen. På 1940 talet blev det dock uppenbart att slagskeppen var dinosaurier dömda att dö ut, en efter en slogs de ut av torpeder och angrepp från ubåtar och flygplan. Som Royal Oak, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Yamato, Musashi, Repulse och Prince of Wales, flygangreppen på Taranto och Pearl Harbor. Så efter andra världskriget var ingen stormakt längre intresserad av att bygga stor artilleriskepp. Amerikanerna tog till och med och avbeställde sitt gigantiska Montana klassen slagskepp mitt under brinnande världskrig. Maktbalansen var rubbad. Alla insåg det. Sjökrig var inte längre något som bara en liten klubb länder som USA, Japan, Tyskland, England, Frankrike, Italien, och Ryssland hade råd med. Slagskeppens tid var nu förbi och mindre länder kunde nu ha råd med att bygga massvis av små fartyg. Torpedbåtar, korvetter och sånt. På sin höjd kunde någon kryssare få finnas kvar, men då endast för att ge skyddande eld åt torpedbåtarna när de skulle genomföra sina anfall. Men inte ens några nya kryssare ville man bygga efter kriget. På sin höjd kunde stora skepp som jagare kanske ses som användbara. Men på 1960-talet så ändrades allt igen med nästa stora teknologiska genombrott: missilbåten. Sovjet började som första land att bygga små snabba båtar som kunde bära missiler som huvudbeväpning. Dessa kunde lätt sänka stora krigsskepp. Och att ha stora kanoner och tjockt pansar blev alltmera värdelöst. Torpeder kunde göra massiv skada på krigsskepp med att träffa dom när vattenlinjen eller under skeppet så att fartyget klövs itu. Nu kunde däremot missiler färdas otroligt långa sträckor - längre än vad den största kanonen på ett slagskepp kunde skjuta - och missilen kunde orsaka massiv skada och sänka det mäktigaste slagskeppet i världen med bara en träff. Pansarskydd har blivit helt värdelöst. Ett slagskepp på 60.000 ton är numera inte mycket mera värt än en liten missilbåt på några hundra ton. Stealth och snabbhet ger bättre skydd och överlevnad än 2 meter stålplåt. Vill man så kan man så klart se historiska paralleller till tidigare i historien som till 1700-talet när den stora mäktiga svenska flottan tappade kontrollen över Östersjön till den ryska flottan som massproducerade billiga fartyg av lågkvalitéts träd. Ryssarna byggde i rask takt mer än hundra galärer som med sina åror snabbt och lätt kunde röra sig på grunda vatten där de stora kraftfulla svenska segelfartygen med sina hundratals kanoner inte kunde röra sig utan fastna. Sverige var totalt oförberett för denna nya typ av krigföring. Stora slagskeppens tid i Östersjön tog slut, och istället blev det bättre att ha många små snabba fartyg istället.
1
i dont think they can be easily fooled by any chaff as they are steered by camera. I rather think that filling the water noise, radar echos, and false IR dummies would help the Ukrainians more. That would make it even more difficult for the russians to know that an enemy approaches
1
@David.C01552 But not all of the russian navy needs to be sunk. Only the ships in the black sea. And russia have already lost 25% of the black sea fleet including their most powerful warship and the have also even managed to lose a submarine and a dockyard
1
The ukrainian drones have a low siluette so I guess that they are not just hard to see, but also hard to detect with a radar for the same reason. The drones are small to begin with, which means that they will not show much on a radar. Add to that they have a low siluette that makes them even more hard to see. And with stealthy material would they be so small on a radar screen that one can mistake them for a bird or something else. And the drones are small vehicles with engines that are not that loud. And in an ocean filled with noise everywhere will those small drone engines noise get drowned out by all the other noise in the area.
1
Probably with better tactics, better sensors and more situational awareness.
1
Cope cage + reactive armor
1
I guess lack of resources. They protect the Kerch bridge with a floating wall on the water surface. But I guess that protection is not perfect as one could just sacrifice a drone to blow a hole in that wall. Or what do I know? Maybe hovercraft drones or submarine drones can bypass it. Sure will this place be well defended with auto-cannons everywhere. But on the other hand a black fast moving drone in a dark night is not easy to see. And maybe a few drones could also launch some smoke grenades and carry some barracuda camouflage that makes them hard to spot with IR. And if they carry 1 ton of super powerful explosives like HMX and hits the weakpoints of this bridge then I think that the end result could be catastrophic for the russians.
1
@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2 I am aware of that. They could act like the sensors along the McNamara line and give an early warning of incoming enemy threats. Navies use AWACS to spot enemy aircrafts from far away before they can pose a threat to an aircraft carrier. While small budget navies with tiny carriers that cannot launch such aircrafts (basically all navies aside from USA and France) have to rely on helicopters for early warning instead. But helicopters have limited range and ability to see far.
1
Probably. Tanks from the cold war had most of their armor put at the front and a little to the sides while the rest of the tank was weakly defended to save weight - and that made sense when the biggest threat to tanks was other tanks that were most likely to shot at them fron the front or sides. But today this is not the best choice. Now would it be best to have the thick armor in the front and on the top of the tank, as the biggest threat from enemy fire still comes from the front, but now are the threat from flying drones a much more dangerous threat then enemy fire from the sides. And no in the world tank is prepared for this new threat from drones. Not even Leopard2A7, M1A3 Ambrams, Merkava 4 which are the worlds best tanks. The same goes for warships. The torpedo and anti-ship missiles hunted Battleships into extinction like humans did to the mammuths. And for the last 60 years have warships seen missiles as their biggest threat. And counter-measures have been developed against them. Patriot missiles can now shot down other missiles. And Phalanx CIWS can spray defensive fire to protect a group of ships against incoming missiles. However drone boats are a new type of threat against ships. They are not easy to detect, and not all ships can lower their guns to protect against a wolfpack of drones coming their way. The drones are cheap, they carry large payloads, they are hard to see becuase planet earth is round and prevents radars at surface levels from seeing far. And even if they could see far would it be hard to see a drone boat with a low siluette that is hiding much of its body underneath the surface. The electric engine for the small boat is very silent and hard to detect in an ocean filled with noise - especially at longer distances. So neither sonar or radar will therefore be easy to detect. Seeing the heat from the boat will also be difficult as it is such a small target and will therefore produce very little heat, and the little it produce will be hidden under water and you will not see the warm heat from the engine since it is only watchable from the rear, and the ship is driving towards you and you can only see the front instead. The low siluette on the drone makes it also hard to see in the evening, and impossible to see in a dark night. And even if you use massive search lights and fire lots of cannons with tracer rounds would it still not be easy to take out a drone boat as water effectivly curtails the power from machine gun rounds, and the extremely well sloped armor on those low siluette boats will bounce off most low calibre fire. And probably especially so when the boat is partly under water. And even if defenders would be lucky and one or two boats would be destroyed, would there still be other boats around there that could cause massive damage if they just score one hit.
1
Assburger could only talk about one favorite topic and nothing else
1
Maybe towing a line with sea buoys after the ship could help locating an attacking drone with sonars then? You can compare the audio from different locations, and if the volume is higher at one place its more likey that the ship closer to that buoy than to the other buoys. Just like with the human ear that can determine where a sound comes from through 3 parameters: - Volume, if a someone standing to the right and saying something to you. Then will the sound likely be louder in your right ear and lose some volume before it reaches your left ear. - Time, the sound will likely reach your right ear a few milliseconds before it reaches your left ear, because the speaker stands closer to your right ear than to your left ear so the sound have a shorter distance to travel to the right ear. - Phase, the audio will sound slightly different when it reaches your left ear compared to the right ear. If you are standing inside a room is it possible that the sound bounces on walls and loses some high frequency sound before it reaches your ears. And the longer the sound travels, the more frequencies will be lost.
1
Yttersta vänstern i Sverige har ingenting med nedläggningen av Svenska försvaret att göra eftersom partiet aldrig någonsin har välkomnats in i en regering eller deltagande i försvarsfrågor för deras pro-sovjetiska hållning under kalla kriget. Det här är en gammal socialdemokratisk politisk tradition i Sverige. Det är istället högerpartierna och Socialdemokraterna som slaktade 90% av svenska invasionsförsvaret för att istället satsa på EU projektet - i direkt strid mot viljan hos 90% av svenska folket. Så ja, de är landsförrädare i mina ögon. Qvislingar. 2004 års försvarsbeslut är den enskilt värsta katastrofen som har drabbat det svenska försvaret under de senaste 500 åren. Värre än nederlagen vid Kircholm 1605 och slaget vid Poltava 1709.
1
Ice boats barracuda camouflage sail? 😂
1
History is filled with such things. The Germans covered their tanks with zimmerit against allied anti-tank mines that never went into service. American troops did carry heavy uniforms resistant to enemy gas attacks, but the germans never used any gas during the war so many young american soldiers drowned on D-day because they had to carry nearly a hundred kilos of gear on their bodies, and many did never make it towards land. I think Generals are supposed to predict future trends, and they are not stupid. But it is of course not easy to predict how good a new weapon will be. Its easy to over-estimate it or underestimate it.
1
I think that torpedos have much been replaced by anti-ship missiles already. And "the nice thing" about a submarine is that it is stealthy, the enemy cannot find it. And even if he managed to destroy every city and military base in America in one first strike, could this single submarine with its enormous firepower launch their nukes and destroy every large city in the enemy country and get revenge. So it is an enormous deterence in a way I don't think a drone can be. And it cannot be taken over by cyberattacks, or getting taken out by electronic warfare cutting off electronic signals. I am no expert, but regarding the ocean gate submarine did I hear that it is not possible to do any internet communication deep down in the ocean either. So its not possible to have a drone then steering around at those depths.
1
They are good to have I guess, aircrafts can sink ships too but China also have lots of planes. Landbased anti-ship missiles are good at preventing China from landing troops and tanks on Taiwan. Also uboats and surface ships can sink Chinese landing ships. However drone boats and land based missiles are probably the best ways to fend off an amphibious invasion. Unlike missiles can maritime drones do reconainaissance and search and rescue operations. And stealthy drones can do precision strikes and be harder threat for the enemy to remove.
1
Another navy not relying on vodka thinking would probably not let warships sail lonely during night time. But instead would there be say 5 ships sailing togheter. And one of those ships could have some sensors and help revealing threats to the group. And if a bunch of drone boats attack, then they can direct their search lights and all ships fire all what they got against a particular drone. That would be a smarter way of doing things. But no, russia have learned nothing after losing half a dozen ships. They continue the same tactics as before. Even at night time do they sail their ships alone.
1
The torpedo was the nail in coffin for battleships and cruisers. And then would the invention of the anti-ship missile become the 2nd nail in the coffin for this ship type. Your ship can weight 120.000 tonnes and have 2 meters thick armor. But it will still be a vulnerable sitting duck. And big guns are not that useful - because if missiles have a much longer range, and they are not limited by any flat trajetory of naval guns that could make them useless at destroying ground when you want to invade a pacific island. The best protection you can have for a ship today is not armor. It is stealth and being small and fast so they enemy have a difficulty in fiding you and hitting you with his guns. And with a small ship can you hide in shallow waters among the tall grass and launch gerilla warfare raids. And even a small boat that just carry one anti-ship missile can be a deadly threat to a large warship.
1
Ukraina har steg för steg vunnit sjökriget. Ukraina har tagit tillbaka hälften av den mark de förlorade 2022, vilket jag ser som ett tecken på att kriget går dåligt för ryssland. Statistiken talar också sitt tydliga språk att ryssland förlorar. Man kan också bara notera alla dagliga videos på ryska skepp, tanks och flygplan som förloras för att se att ryssland inte har en kompetent militär och att en seger är avlägset för ryssland. Enda sättet ryssland kan vinna är genom lögner och förräderi som blockerar västs militära stöd till Ukraina. Mike Johnson har hittills varit rysslands största militära seger i detta krig, vilket säger en del om ryska krigsmaktens patetiskt usla prestationsförmåga i detta krig. Att stödja Ukraina är en moralisk plikt. Angreppskrig och folkmord ska aldrig accepteras, belönas och uppmuntras - punkt! En vapenvila med ryssland är inte heller samma sak som fred. Precis som att Tjetjeniens fred med Ryssland aldrig var en riktig fred, och stridigheterna mellan Ukraina och Ryssland slutade inte efter rysslands aggressiva annektering av Krim. Appeasement är inte lösningen. Det blir troligtvis bara fler krig i framtiden. Hittills har Ryssland inte brytt sig i att hålla några ingångna avtal, så ett fredsavtal är inget annat än ett värdelöst papper. De lär bara angripa Ukraina igen så fort de har återuppbyggt sin armé efter alla tunga förluster. Och under tiden kommer ockuperade delar av Ukraina utsättas för våldtäkter, tortyr, kidnappade barn, och Ukrainare fråntas rätten till deras eget språk, kultur och nationella identitet och mördas i fall dom bara ens viftar med en Ukrainsk flagga eller talar sitt eget språk.
1