• RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

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

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days 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.