>>24371533

> a low-flying HCM traveling at Mach 6 may give a target only 15 seconds to react after detection

This is why I say, bring back the Naval 16 inch guns and instead of shooting shells, either have them shoot airburst or pellets. Those old Battleships had 6 16 inch guns that could shoot 1,200 pound shell, 26 miles. Technically, 2 battleships could cover an entire fleet with ammo that is way cheaper than the projectiles and drones that are coming in at it, by an order of magnitude. Guns could be prepositioned to cover the sky in at various altitudes, and ammo only needs to be strong enough to cause a detonation if not destroy a drone. As for air defense, solar powered blimps that can stay up for days armed with lasers, could give line of sight to any drones or missiles as another tactic. Flexible solar panels are light and getting much closer to the capacity of hard panels and would make an excellent out shell to capture sunlight at all angles from sunrise to sunset, without the need to be repositioned, but zoned. The future, due to missile speeds, are going to be carriers at safe distances that need to be constantly mobile along with the fleet.

>>24371554

>As for air defense, solar powered blimps that can stay up for days armed with lasers, could give line of sight to any drones or missiles as another tactic

The only hard part about this, is if they need other sources of energy such as fuel. You could do air refueling because the blimp is too slow for C130 types of refuelers, and propellor based helicopters and ospreys could cause lines to hit rotors. The engine from an F35c to a small tanker, would have to be devised, something that can hover and fly slow, but then again, it wouldn't take too much fuel, if solar is not sufficient.

>>24371569

>Sir!!! This is 2026

I know it sounds crazy, but one thing I learned in technology. There are some attributes that fit a requirement. We have to think of costs. A $30k shahed drone vs two $2-4 million dollar missiles, is a losing battle financially. Think about dummy drones that have no payload against an $8 million dollar barrage? They have been swarming with cheap drones and intermingle a hypersonic or two in the mix of a couple hundred drones. We need solutions that are cheaper for us to fight then them, and we have the older tech that has certain attributes that could resolve some of these issues and at times, marry them with more modern tech like lasers. $40k hr to fly a jet xx 24 hours is over $800k per plane, to watch for a cheap drone that may or may not have a warhead. Whereas to fly a solar blimp that gets most if not all of it's energy from the sun, would cost virtually nothing. And it would be better to have a dispersion of smaller capable blimps as opposed to Led Zeppelins.

>>24371575

We also have to think about being subjected to the geo-politics from now on: Of using bases that are too close, of bases not being allowed to use planes, or partners like we saw with the UK not allowing us to use their airfields. We have 5th and 6th generation jets that have the range that can launch from carriers and can hyper cruise to get to the theater, so from now on, most of our battles must be assured, as we rely solely on the naval fleet for everything at greater distances. Then we are never subjected and can continue to project well into the future.

>>24371578

>US Navy is scared shitless of the Iranian hypersonics which is why they lurk 1000 miles off the coast

Correct. It is called the Time Delay Factor. The shortest hypersonic threat that I wrote about, gives you a 15 second time delay factor, to detect, acquire, and fire. I warned Llyod Austin about this when we were guarding the Red Sea, and told him not to be that close because Iran could supply them with these hypersonics back when the Houthis were attacking shipping as Gaza was being leveled.

>One missile = Carrier sunk

>>24371579

SBCs have their attributes that can be exploited.

>>24371581

That is a solution too, but that looks to dangerously close, and bad weather would be problematic. An automated retractable hose would be better, either automated or grabbed by a sub personnel to attach to refuel is a possible solution. We learned some lessons from this war, for sure, and so did the enemies.

>>24371594

>>24371581

>>24371592

Small blimps can typically stay airborne for up to 24 hours without refueling, depending on fuel capacity and engine efficiency. Some models with additional fuel tanks can remain aloft for over 50 hours—for example,a Skyship airship flew for 52 hours without refueling in 1990.

It is doable. Just make the outer shell with solar panels and put a laser weapon on it. A blimp would have a much better line of sight that a sea vessel by an order of magnitude. Lasers can take literally cheap shots and stay afloat way cheaper than a $800k dollars a day that it costs a fighter. I bet if we had something like this, it probably would have saved the lives of some of our people that got droned at our base in Bahrain.

While blimps use helium for lift and do not consume fuel to stay afloat, propulsion and control systems require fuel, which limits flight duration. Extended missions may also be constrained by crew endurance and weather conditions

>>24371602

This might sound stupid, but I bet you, that instead of using even lasers, that sound frequencies could take out drones quicker than lasers would. Mark my words. Imagine just filling the sky with the right sound frequencies in a broad band wave you would get much better coverage.

>>24371604

The difference between me and you, is that I was thinking about our soldiers that we lost due to a drone attack, just as you are revealing what is on your mind.

>>24371613

That is a solution that I suggested years ago, that Russia has actually deployed as a tactic against drones for ground troops. I would take an A20 with 50 air burst rounds.

>>24371619

Correct. See, either know your rights, or lose them. They play on our lack of diligence.

>>24371630

One thing to take into consideration, with all the underground capabilities that Iran has, is a supply chain for launchers from China or other neighboring countries. Without ascertaining this, we could be playing an endless whack a mole. Essentially the launchers for a shahed drone is just a metal rack, and for a ballistic missile, it is just a truck capable of handling the payload, with hydraulic racks, with small amounts of easily replicated electronics to position into angle of attack. The real tech is on the missile. ThankQ for your attention to this matter!!!