Could Jet Ski Bombs Change the Way Navies Operate? || Peter Zeihan

*This video was recorded during my backpacking trip through Yosemite in the end of July.

The US Navy and its fleet of carriers (and super-carriers) haven't had much of a challenge on the seas since WWII. But of all things, it might be some low-tech jet ski bombs that change the way the world's navies operate.

Where to find more?

Where to find me on Social Media?

#navy #ocean #ships #navalpower

[JFRiley]

Is NO one going to bring up that duck??

[deanlawson]

As a Naval Veteran (who served on multiple Aircraft Carriers), I'd have to take a different stance than Peter on this. I've personally seen the CIWS fire in regular testing and maintenance. Those things are freakishly effective at shooting down anything coming near the Carrier. And while I haven't seen them target something small like an incoming armed jetski, their targeting radar can lock it, and if the Navy needs to modify the gimbal mounts of those things to have a more downward firing arc, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Plus, the onboard ships main targeting radar can lock on for medium range missile protection from those kinds of threats as well, and an SM-4, SM-5, or newer SM-6 missile can obliterate an incoming threat.
Now the real threat (if there is one) is from large-ish swarms of those things. I could see a scenario where some enemy might launch launch a couple dozen armed jetski drones at a Capital Ship. In that scenario the layered defenses of the carrier and escorts would be really challenged to get every single one of the incoming armed jetskis. I just have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a determined enemy could put together a cohesive attack that actually gets through all of the layers of protection of escort ships, Aircraft, and close in missile and CIWS point-defense to get damaging hits on one of our Capital Ships.
Just my take on this issue from a Naval Veteran.

[russellrogers]

Fun fact. In 1905 Australia built a number of coastal forts near their cities because there was a perceived risk of Russian naval attack. I think this was around the timing of the Russian-Japanese war. The forts were laughingly small with only a few cannon. But it was our first attempt at continental defence.

[theoldfart]

Some folks aren't getting it; yes, we've had torpedoes and such for ages - that's not the point. Torpedoes are very very expensive high technology weapons systems. Only wealthy/advanced nations can develop them and only wealthy nations can afford them en masse. What these new drone versions bring to the table is that they are cheap and not very high tech. Any state, or even non-state actors, can knock these up in a shed and deploy them. Now, non naval powers can broadly threaten shipping or even naval forces. That's disruptive (although the counter-revolution is already underway). Interesting times indeed.

[johnfrench]

There is nothing new about this. Back in the last quarter of the 1800's the torpedo boat posed almost this exact threat to the big ships and all sorts of claim's were made about a revolution in naval warfare and how the big ships were obsolete and would have to stay in port to be safe. The big ships were neither obsolete nor stayed in port and solutions to the threat were found. The most effective solutions were the torpedo boat destroyer and adoption of a dedicated anti-torpedo boat battery on the big ships - guns with a look-down, shoot down capability against fast manoeuvring targets close in to the ships. The torpedo boat was effectively gone by the end of WW2 and the systems that countered it went away too. The destroyer evolved to take over the light cruiser role and the ATB battery gave way completely to air defence systems.

Now that a very similar threat to the old torpedo boat has returned, the old counters to it will also return; albeit in a more modern guise. The big ships will be provided with the necessary look-down, shoot down close-in point defences to defend against this threat as they were in the late 1800's. A new drone destroyer will appear to screen the big ships and the big ships will still leave port and carry out their naval roles with as much relative safety against drones as they did in the Russo-Japanese War, WW1 and WW2 against torpedo boats. The neutralisation of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is down to the sheer incompetence of the Russians and not to any revolution brought about by Ukraine's creative use of drone technology.

[dialy]

I did not realize that the jet ski in my garage conferred me with considerable dissuasive naval power. I should not have sold the thing.

[mrzimothy]

The replicator initiative is a clear reference to the Stargate SG-1 Replicators.

[TheCreagar]

This just inspired me to re-watch the excellent movie 'Hunt For Red October'. Things have changed in so many ways.

[kevinfelton]

Smaller ships (like the LSD that I was on in 01) already have 50 cals on them, and they already train their sailors to engage low lying threats like speed boats. We've already seen from maritime security in the Red Sea that small arms are effective against these threats.

Remember, the Navy has been aware of these low horizon surface threats since at least the USS Cole bombing in Aiden back in '00.

[mattblack]

I believe hydro foil bombs would be a viable new threat, they would skirt that line between airborne and submersed for difficult detectability, be super efficient so you can use smaller motors/ cheaper and faster as they are above the choppy waves. But i'm just a creative stoner with too much time on my hands to wonder about such things.

[returnvoid]

Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to engineer destroyers, frigates, and even aircraft carriers that contain swarms of FPV sized drones that can be released on mass to kamikaze into such threats, e.g. jet ski's, using various AI detect and seek programs. I'm sure this could even be a relatively cheap modular attachment to many pre-existing ships.

[robertsmith]

People have been doing that sort of thing for 30 years, USS Cole showed it was a valid tactic.

[awells]

I think the big difference is that the Black Sea is small enough that there is no hiding.
On the open seas, you can wait beyond the drone’s rage. And you only enter the danger area during combat, never giving the drones enough time to find you and attack.

[TraderRobin]

That was well stated, Peter! You should be INTENTS like this, more often!!

[RemedialRob]

"Replicators!?" Someone in the Navy is a "Stargate" fan...

[DalibanCohort]

Good Morning, Peter. And Mr. Quacks. Good video as always.

[walkerdarin]

Insurgencey on the water works at port and coastal. The oceans are a different beast.

[MarieWest-tbic]

Love the little rubber ducky! Yes, I'm a Peter Z fan. It helps when trying to keep Geopolitics straight. To look forward to listening to the person teaching us! ❤

[bankotsua]

The irony that Russia took Chrimiea to hold onto a naval base in the Black Sea and now the Russian navy cannot survive in the Black Sea 😂

[Baasicstuff]

imagine being the guy in the tent next to Peter...listening to him just go off on this topic talking to himself. LOL







owe DUCK!
🦆