I'm sure that the reports of the RG being brought out of storage and sharpened has everyone... on edge.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Carrier Schmarrier. While they're at it, they can build a Maginot Line and some horse-drawn chariots. What the US military needs is drones. Millions of them. But as our military is built right now, it's not in their DNA.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 05:38 pm: Edit

money for carriers. Uhm As I work in the ship repair industry.

Close down a lot of overseas bases. Bring solders home. Stop paying all of the other countries money. Cut back on the Army. Really, we do not need that big of one and the National guard. Will cover the gaps.

Stop policing the world.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 10:05 pm: Edit

If you stop policing the world even the requirement for all the carriers disappears

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, November 05, 2025 - 10:33 pm: Edit

The President spoke to a group of high ranking Marines in Quantico,VA.

The subject of warship construction and the value of “traditional “ materials and naval architecture was discussed.

Many of the points made on this topic were posted above, including no current production of 16 inch diameter shells etc.

The President emphasized that the use of Aluminum in the construction of warships has serious negative issues (primarily used in the construction of littoral combat designs) that ships constructed of steel do not have. (Specifically mentioned Iowa Class battleships and Arleigh Burke class destroyers.)

The President did address the proposal that is under consideration of a distributed network of combat platforms using unmanned surface boats (various sizes down to the size of a small boat).

The emphasis seemed to be less directed to armored ships designed to resist large caliber shells with armor piercing capabilities as opposed to missiles that could ignite fires on ships made of aluminum.

(See historical incidents concerning U.S.S. Belknap and H.M.S. Amazon.)

Specific mention of new construction warships with up to six inches of armor protection as opposed to modern warships Construction standards.

By Steve Stewart (Stevestewart) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 05:50 am: Edit

Not sure the "civil war" story is accurate - that's the kind of thing that would have appeared in the UK press, and certainly as of this morning, nothing has been reported. However, I look forward to the ceremonial sharpening of the RG if it is true, although we might need to borrow one from the French as they have a bit more experience in that area.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 09:30 am: Edit

I have heard the British story from multiple sources right and left. Starmer is in deep political trouble.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 05:13 pm: Edit

I haven't read anything about the former either - by the PM is in massive trouble.

As thats Political - probably thats all I can say.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 07:02 pm: Edit

it is true that there are major problems with using aluminum in ships. I repair navy ships have been doing so for close to 15 years now. The aluminum does not rust. No, it does a strange kind of rot. Also, it does not flex like steel does and then it cracks.

Repaired a lot of big cracks in the upper structures made of aluminum.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 07:45 pm: Edit

As it happens, the corrosion-resistance of aluminum is compromised by aqueous salts (you know, like that interesting wet stuff that warships float around on and are constantly splashed with), and are particularly so when in contact with dissimilar metals (you know, like everything steel, copper, etc. that is necessary for a warship to do what a warship does).

Mind, I get why various navies have gone the aluminum route: in the zero-sum tradeoff between displacement, speed, and armament, aluminum make a big dent in the former, allowing more of the latter two. That wouldn't float (no pun intended) during the era of naval gun battles - aluminum makes for lousy armor - but the negatives were deemed acceptable in an era when missiles predominate (as the best defense against missile is defensive counterfire). But yeah, the issues are significant.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Under certain conditions, aluminum can also combust.

--Mike

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 11:26 pm: Edit

So can most or all metals. But aluminum is the fuel in the standard thermite mix, and also the major fuel in some solid rocket propellant mixes (the binder and the oxidizer tend to be bulkier, so the mix isn't all that much aluminum by volumn or weight, but aluminum is the fuel).

Magnesium, Lithium, and Titanium are all even more spectacularly flamable, but Aluminium is up there. Moderately hard to get started, but it keeps going once it starts.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, November 06, 2025 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Google images of the USS Belknap after her collision with the USS John F. Kennedy.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 02:40 am: Edit

Due to these issues - are modern warships about to go through a whole re-design stage?

Littorial Ships didn't work...

Modular Ships don't appear to work....

What will work?

Facebook brings up some wierd and wonderful stuff - a recent picture was a French 1880's pre-Dreadnouvht - looked very Jules Vernes - and it had the usual jokes about French designers - the relevant point was with Ship Techlogy going at the speed of light (some shis was obselete the day before they was launched etc) - Designers had now idea what would work - and what wouldn't?

Are we about to go through a similar phase again (or go back to good old fashioned tech - with some new tech to make them 200% more effecient?

i.e. Steel, Big Engines - some armour.... a couple of main guns and a stack of Missiles AND drones?

Heck - would a Mother ship system work?

Motherships stays 100 miles out of the Combat Zone - huge bays to hold stuff - and couple of long range missiles and defensive weapons.

Satelite ships have armour, a main gun and defensive weapons and sit 10-20 miles off shore....

....and a stack of Drones (Both Air and Water).

You could even have a high speed Tug Saterlite ships to help drag the combat Saterlite ships closer to the Combat zone....

Drones go 100% into harms way

Saterlite Ships have some protection

Mothership Ship only needs some protection

Expesnive - yes - but an option?

By Matthew Lawson (Mglawson) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 07:38 am: Edit

I heard this morning that Tony Blair has been tapped to run the Palestinian Provisional Government.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 08:33 am: Edit

Paul Howard,

Drones work. With no people on them, you can make something small and inexpensive that you don't mind losing.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 12:55 pm: Edit

William

Correct - but Sea Based Drones might take 8 hours to travel 100 miles at sea? i.e. not a quick respone.

Having the Manned (I suppose they could be unmanned, but that raises alot of questions) Saterlite ships closer would give a much quicker response?

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Why would you think Sea based military drones would have a top maintained speed of only 12.5 MPH/20.1 kph?

These would not be cheap off the shelf civilian drones, with a hand grenade zip tied to it.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Can't see, where there would be much difference in the speed of a drone and a torpedo (basically the same thing)....

The Japanese Kaiten, manned cruised at 12Kts...
Had a max speed of 30kts...

Can't see why a modern drone type would be so slow....

Then, how hard would it be to turn a tomahawk into an under water weapon....

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Drones can be cheap, but the USMilitary at least has a very bad record of making them cheaply.

My wife recently retired from cost estimating small tactical drones, which were relatively cheap for US Military drones. But she had regular comments on the program office needing to fight off attempts to gold plate them. (Most notably, people kept wanting to arm the small, light, and carried into action by an infantryman drone. This isn't as much a problem of cost as of weight, as the infantry does not NEED a heavier than neccessary tactical recon drone. They have rifles, Javelins, and most important of all radios if they find something they need to kill. They need to keep the load light enough that they can carry it and maintain mobility. But arming them would also have massively increased cost.)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Slow speed - because the Sea Drone needs to travel 100 miles from the launch point?

Could a Small Sea Drone do 30 knots for 3 hours+?

If it's launched Closer to land - yep - it could go faster - but the Launch Craft needs to then be alot closer to the enemy - and so the whole point of a Mothership is partially invalidated (needs more armour, more defences and probably more speed)?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 04:41 pm: Edit

What about a flat, broad beamed submarine that sits on the bottom and serves as a launch platform and maintenance shed for underwater drones? Minimal crew, hard to distinguish from rocks, and can be powered by an AIP power system might be almost undetectable while in a mission position.

Underwater drones can serve as launch platforms for aerial drones to help preserve the secrecy of the deployment position of the mobile facility.

U.S.S. Flatfish? U.S.S. Flounder?

Okay, maybe not the latter one...

Or, maybe for something further off-shore (or as a "Proof of Concept" prototype), rebuild one of the older Ohio class ships... Excuse me, BOATS.

Getting back to the flat basic concept, to help keep it from being found, the drones it services could be controlled VERY remotely, like perhaps back at Norfolk, to prevent some very cagy enemy from perhaps tracking the control signals.

If it ever WERE to be located, though, it would need some ability to protect itself. Perhaps a (limited?) number of the same sort of lightweight torpedoes ASW helicopters carry? I believe ships make use of them for self-defense as well. A buoy deployed Stinger launch system might also be worthwhile.

Does this seem reasonable, or have I taken one too many bowling balls to the head over the years?

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 05:42 pm: Edit

The current Virginia Class SSN, carries up to 40 Tomahawks.... A payload of smaller drones, could be as high or higher than 100...
That still leaves it with 25 or so torpedoes to defend / attack with....

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Build a fast carrier. Loaded with aerial drones and water drones. Huge computer system control spaces for drone operators. A couple of escorts for killing incoming drones and missiles. They can also carry some drones.

Connected to satellites to help guide drones to targets.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, November 07, 2025 - 06:49 pm: Edit

++++++++++
Under certain conditions, aluminum can also combust.

--Mike
+++++++++

And once it starts burning, it is incredibly difficult to extinguish. During the Falklands war, HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet missile. The weird part is that the missile's warhead didn't work but the burning propellent started uncontrollable fires in the ship's aluminium and aluminium alloy upper-works.