Why are American Cars so BIG?

[Matra et Alpine]

Matra old mate, whome is going to launch this massed attack? Certainly no State. The rest of the worlds mentality is on par with the US. A terrorist organisation. Their assets have been hunted down, and they will need money. Of course you actually will have to produce the hundreds that I think you are proposing. THe best the mighty Al Queada can organise since 9/11 are delivery vans with fertiliser and its getting harder to grow good lawns since Bali.

The Axis of Evil ?? Agreed that it's hard to see soemone putting together an orgnaised attack.
But I'm sure analysts said the same before the USS Cole

That it/ they will be seen coming for about an hour before they get close means that what is left will be few enough to be made into confetti by th phalanx.

You are still thinking in them as one at a time.
Does one bee bother you as a human ? 2 ? off course not. But a swarm can kill you.
Step laterally a few 'thoughts' and consider HOW would a plane or defence system down somethign the radar doesn't detect ( Phalanx relies on fast movement to de-clutter the radar image, so slow may well be missed ). How would such a procedure handle 500 'targets' all converging ?

They are automatic and ferociously fast. And as you say designed for targets approaching at double what the drones can offer.

and THAT is their downfall. As they rely on a feature of the attac to ensure success. Features which 'swarms' don't exhibit.

Poor little fishing boat. We havent seen too many little boats of any kind getting through the Persian Gulf. The place is a treasure chest of high tech, high cost big , grey targets who are still holding the upper hand.

Thinking Persian Gulf is again wrong.,
9/11 showed that it can happen anywhere, anytime. The 'swarm' could launch from the beaches near San Diego as a Group leaves harbour. To consider alternative threats it's necessary to put current thinking aside and go lateral.

[Egg Nog]

mr bill, I give up. Right when I was getting really into the debate, you took over again with your trivial military discussions

[crisis]

The Axis of Evil ?? Agreed that it's hard to see soemone putting together an orgnaised attack.
But I'm sure analysts said the same before the USS Cole

I know the horse has bolted (its always the way) but I cant see anything larger than a duck being allowed withing 500metres of a US Navy vessel of any kind anymore.

You are still thinking in them as one at a time.
Does one bee bother you as a human ? 2 ? off course not. But a swarm can kill you.
Step laterally a few 'thoughts' and consider HOW would a plane or defence system down somethign the radar doesn't detect ( Phalanx relies on fast movement to de-clutter the radar image, so slow may well be missed ). How would such a procedure handle 500 'targets' all converging ?

I was thinking a swarm but how big a swarm is the agressor going to logistically be able to put together. A large swarm will make an excellent radar target and as it will be closing at a slow speed , be able to be intercepted early. Also these dumb hand launched weapons will need as many hands as weapons to be able to launch them all simoultaneously. It probably not impossible in some form but I thinkit would be easier to hijack a 767 and crash it into a building.

Thinking Persian Gulf is again wrong.,
9/11 showed that it can happen anywhere, anytime. The 'swarm' could launch from the beaches near San Diego as a Group leaves harbour. To consider alternative threats it's necessary to put current thinking aside and go lateral.

Not since 9/11. Similarly I dont think a hundred drones getting launched from North Harbour Drive San Diego is going un noticed. I agree the way that conflicts and the type of conflicts are different but the three last ones (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq) proved how valuable Carriers groups still are. Seeing that North Korea and Iran have appeared on the radar ( I truley hope not }I think they wold still have a part to play.

[Matra et Alpine]

I know the horse has bolted (its always the way) but I cant see anything larger than a duck being allowed withing 500metres of a US Navy vessel of any kind anymore.

500 metres is a short distance

I was thinking a swarm but how big a swarm is the agressor going to logistically be able to put together. A large swarm will make an excellent radar target and as it will be closing at a slow speed , be able to be intercepted early.

The term 'swarm' is representative of large quqntity, NOT that they actually act like a bee swarm ( until the meet target of course ).
You could launch 360 targets and each could approach the target from a different degree on the compass. 360 'bomb's all heading from different direction. So SERO target for radar ( it gets to be noise if it's too small )

Also these dumb hand launched weapons will need as many hands as weapons to be able to launch them all simoultaneously. It probably not impossible in some form but I thinkit would be easier to hijack a 767 and crash it into a building.

Still not thinking as laterally as the guys coming up with this shit
So it takes 30 minutes to laucnh them all. So what, each takes it's own route to the target and all guided to arrive at the same time,. Some will fly fast, some will fly fircuitous routes, some will hang around waiting for the right 'time'. So it takes 15 mins to 'launch' so what, it's all done out of sight !!

Not since 9/11. Similarly I dont think a hundred drones getting launched from North Harbour Drive San Diego is going un noticed.

And so it's noticed. That doens't help the defender stop them !!

I agree the way that conflicts and the type of conflicts are different but the three last ones (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq) proved how valuable Carriers groups still are. Seeing that North Korea and Iran have appeared on the radar ( I truley hope not }I think they wold still have a part to play.

Perhaps the reason carrier groups are effective is because those are the only 'actions' the US militasry wants to get involved in. It didnt'help in Somalia

[Coventrysucks]

I know the horse has bolted (its always the way) but I cant see anything larger than a duck being allowed withing 500metres of a US Navy vessel of any kind anymore.

You'd have to be quackers to think otherwise!

The US Navy suspects fowl play, destroys duck:



I'll get my coat...

[crisis]

500 metres is a short distance

The term 'swarm' is representative of large quqntity, NOT that they actually act like a bee swarm ( until the meet target of course ).
You could launch 360 targets and each could approach the target from a different degree on the compass. 360 'bomb's all heading from different direction. So SERO target for radar ( it gets to be noise if it's too small )

Point taken. Logistically large though. At least 360 people (security issues) around 300 vans/trucks, coordination, 360 suspicious events taking place in 360 difficult to find locations suitable for launching. The idea is there but to pull it all together is huge. I know 9/11 was not exactly insignificant but was possible under the guise of getting on a plane with little in the way of weaponary. I would think the US military has at least looked at these possibilites.

Still not thinking as laterally as the guys coming up with this shit
So it takes 30 minutes to laucnh them all. So what, each takes it's own route to the target and all guided to arrive at the same time,. Some will fly fast, some will fly fircuitous routes, some will hang around waiting for the right 'time'. So it takes 15 mins to 'launch' so what, it's all done out of sight !!

Until we know who we are talking about we cant really decide if it could happen. None of the current menaces have shown anything like the technology for this type of thing. The drone would need to be large to carry a significantly lethal payload. The type of explosive would also need to be something a little more sophisticated than amonia nitrate and large purchases of explosives would attract attention. if anything the 9/11 attacks have made subsequent attacks all the more difficult to execute.

And so it's noticed. That doens't help the defender stop them !!

It gives them time to engage them. Also unless the drone can actually lock onto its target, in this case the carrier, its target will be able to evade by merely getting out of the way.

Perhaps the reason carrier groups are effective is because those are the only 'actions' the US militasry wants to get involved in. It didnt'help in Somalia

Somalia could well be the last time we see the US take for granted an enemy. Lessons are learned from all conflicts. Somalias lesson was unguided RPGs can be fired from close range at big stationery helicopters with a reasonable degree of effectivness. Not that despite the odds the body count was clearly in the US's favour. Not that it is a particularyl pleasant way to score.

[crisis]

You'd have to be quackers to think otherwise!

The US Navy suspects fowl play, destroys duck:


I'll get my coat...

And that looks more like 1000.

[mr bill]

Lastly, show me a drone that can reach supersonic speeds, has a range greater than that of a modern fighter aircraft, has the ability to be retargeted in midflight, carries seperate munitions for a multirole sortie, can be recovered after a mission, and is cheap enough to be produced in the thousands.

I DARE YOU!

Only becuase you dared me:



Range: 1,300 Nautical Miles
Payload: 4,500 pounds
Speed: "Hi subsonic with supersonic capabilities"
Ceiling: 35,000 feet
Carrier based: Yes
Missions: SEAD, Strike. Capable of "accurately targeting multiple enemies simultaneously."
Thrust: 3,190 pounds

[mr bill]

A note on the much vaunted "Phalanx" defense system:

M61A1 Gatling gun mounts fires at 4,500 rpm with an ammo belt of 1500 rounds. That's 75 rounds a second. Count it with me now, that's 20 (TWENTY) seconds of firing time.

I got news for you, there's no way that's going to stop a full on drone assault.

[mr bill]

And now for the point by point:

This Corsair group sounds great, but it's not in service yet is it? No, it isn't end of debate. Eventually I believe we will move towards more cost effective systems with un-manned aircraft such as this. Still though a drone can not reach supersonic speed (as far as I know),

Yes they can, but really... they don't need too.

even if it could it's range would be limited by it's small fuel load.

Actaully, unmanned drones, such as the Gobal Hawk have some of the most impressive ranges in the US airforce, almost outstripping the U2 spyplane.

Really can you point to one drone that can accomplish all the things an aircraft like an F-18 can?

Yup, I can- really! X-47 Pegasus! It's right there, above you a few posts.

I mean given multiple sorties, they still can't do what an F-18 can.

Actaully... again... they CAN.

Let alone match the versatility an F-18 brings each time it takes to the air. Show me a drone that can engage ground targets and enemy aircraft in the same sortie.Drones are the future I agree, but they aren't fully developed yet.

Again, once more, its called the X-47 Pegasus built by Northrop-Grumman. Infact, it's a stealth plane, which means it can do MORE then the vaunted F/A-18.

These marine troopships and amphibious assault craft, can they launch any kind of air attack what so ever?

Yes they can: the Tarawa Class Marine Assault ship carries 6 Harrier attack planes, 12 Super Cobra/Seaknight helicopters and 9 Sea Stallion helicopters. So, yah, they CAN launch "any kind of air attack whatsoever".

Didn't think so

Obivuisly, you didn't think at all, because you're completely wrong.

I admit the carrier is far from perfect, or cost effective. However in most cases a carrier can continually be resupplied, enabling it to hold a position indefinately.

This is poor reasoning- try resupplying a fleet composed of over a dozen ships and over 20 thousand men "indefinately". It's almost impossible.

Light? An F-14 is one the most heavily armed fighters in the world. Expensive? Definately. Short ranged? I guess if you consider a range of about 400 to 500 miles short, then yes.

Firstly, it's range is 570 Nautical miles, and, yes that IS short. Look at the X-47! It's range is over a THOUSAND Nautical Miles- that's more then TWICE the range of the Tomcat.

This is why they are on an aircraft carrier, to move them closer to the objective.

The reason you have aircraft carriers is becuase its the perfect symbol of American Militarism and Imperialism. Moving a carrier CLOSER to its objective is a death wish- not only would this put the ship within range of land based cruisemissiles but also of airbased fighters, and no matter how great your carrier is, it can't face up to a full ground luanched missile/strike fighter/bomber assault.

It's about quality, not quanity. Some of the best fighters in the world, flown by some of the best pilots.

The best fighters in the world are currently Russian, (for example, the Super-Flanker) and that line about the best pilots is mere conjecture.

There is hardly a nation that can match the U.S.'s quality of aircraft/missile/radar technology, as well as the skill of their pilots. Besides a single carrier group was not designed to win a war independently!

I never said it was- it was you who called it a 'floating air base'. Anyway, we've been over that line about missiles/aircraft/avionics and the only one I'll conceed is avionics... the US does have superior avionics systems, which of course explains why they are the furtherest ahead in drone technology.

Your scenario of a full compliment of russian Missile subs launching an all out attack simultaneously, and without detection is simply absurd. Not gonna happen. How would they get within range without alerting the U.S. ships on the perimeter who's soul purpose is to detect hostile submarines?

It's been done in the past by Soviet submarines, and it has been done in the present by German submarines. Believe me, its utterly possible.

How would they elude the U.S. attack sub guarding the group? It would be difficult to say the least. Not even taking into account the poor condition of the Russian sub fleet. They can barely keep their ships in working order, let alone coordinate a massive strike like you propose.

This is mere ignorance on your part, espacily that latter line about being unable to coordinate an attack. It would actaully be easy as sin to do for any nation with Satellite technology. For example, using GPS and survailance satellites, one tracks and locates a carrier group, then relays the information to the waiting submarines who then indepentdly arrive at prior set cordinates and fire their missiles at the apprioprate signal from a joint command. Easy.

Lol, you think our subs are out of date? Ever hear of the Seawolf?

You mean SSN-21 through 22? With 23 being built? At a total program cost of 2.7 BILLION dollars? I'd call that a complete and utter waste.

Here you go read all about it. Seawolf Unforunately only three were ever commissioned, yet they are just the cream of the crop. The Los Angeles class while not as quiet as the Russian Akula class is hardly obsolete. Also the New Virginia class subs are being developed and commisioned as well.

The LA class make up the vast mainstay of the US navy's submarine fleet, and they are indeed, rather obsolete.

The KH-41 is certainly a formidable weapon, 250 km is about 155 miles range. An enemy aircraft such as the SU-37 could be detected and engaged at that range. HARM missiles will be able to detect and destroy an active radar source such as the KH-41.

I'm sure the 37 could be detected but it would already have fired it's missile by that point. And HARM missiles are meant for stationary ground based targets, not missiles moving at MACH 3!

I see your point though Bill, an aircraft carrier is certainly not invulnerable. The loss of such an expensive ship would be...not quite devastating, but certainly not good!

Agreed!

However, there is no greater platform for the mobilization of forces on a global scale. An aircraft carrier in international waters is a sovereign entity of the United States. It can reach virtually any theater without the delay of prep for mobilization, it does not need authorization from another country to mobilize it's force. Where as any land based units will need permission to pass through or deploy on neutral nations. Also the fact remains that no aircraft carrier has been destroyed since the end of WWII.

On that final note, yes, but no war has been fought on the SCALE of WWII.

Another thing, while your drone swarm attack scenario is feasable (well slightly..thousands of drones? Come on, who has the resources to launch that kind of attack?).

Isreal, to name one small nation with that capabilty. North Korea wouldn't be an odd guess either... But you're missing the point, this isn't about what the other guy doesn't have its about what you COULD have- I'd rather beat my oponants without loosing a single man, rather then beat them WITH losses.

No nation would dare attack a U.S. aircraft carrier for fear of the reprecussions. And while terrorists may be able to launch an un manned attack, they certainly would lack the means to launch a swarm attack.

Terrorists certainly wouldn't have this kind of capabilty.

Lastly, show me a drone that can reach supersonic speeds, has a range greater than that of a modern fighter aircraft, has the ability to be retargeted in midflight, carries seperate munitions for a multirole sortie, can be recovered after a mission, and is cheap enough to be produced in the thousands.

I DARE YOU!

Well... I already delt with that one.

[johnnynumfiv]

Do you notice that big X in the name of that plane? That means it's experimental and not yet used by the military and probably years away from it too.

[Matra et Alpine]

Point taken. Logistically large though. At least 360 people (security issues) around 300 vans/trucks, coordination, 360 suspicious events taking place in 360 difficult to find locations suitable for launching. The idea is there but to pull it all together is huge. I know 9/11 was not exactly insignificant but was possible under the guise of getting on a plane with little in the way of weaponary. I would think the US military has at least looked at these possibilites.

Not thinking it through laterally yet.
Go to a known site for R/C enthusiasts to fly and launch a plane every couple of minutes. Do that at half a dozen sites and withn half an hour your swarm is out of sigh and plotting their own individual courses. Who woudl question the planes - as long as you chose a time when nobody from the club is there
If flight time is going to be short, you could assemble wings and launch a couple of hundred over a couple of hours out of a truck. These aren't intended vehicles for landing etc no wheel, hand thrown etc etc.

Until we know who we are talking about we cant really decide if it could happen. None of the current menaces have shown anything like the technology for this type of thing.

erm, the technology to do this is off the shelf.
R/C enthusiasts have created a 'monster' without them realising as they strove to make planes/helos easier to fly and recover. So lightweighth fuel-efficient and fast motors abound. GPS and microcontrollers are there NOW for the ordinary hobbyist to integrate. It is NOT rocket science, it's so easy it's why some defense companies are lookign at production and defense against them.

The drone would need to be large to carry a significantly lethal payload. The type of explosive would also need to be something a little more sophisticated than amonia nitrate and large purchases of explosives would attract attention. if anything the 9/11 attacks have made subsequent attacks all the more difficult to execute.

again I think you're considering outright destruction and yes that would take a lot of munitions as ships have been built to withstand those.
But you dont' do that .... say you use napalm - simple mixture to make up - and deliver by the hundreds. A first wave would alight a carrier deck and prevent planes landing/refueling/taking off. Then more arrive as fire crews try to control it. Now those fire crews become victims and soon the ship cannot fight the fires. Feeding a near continuous 1-2 gallons of liquid jelly will soon start ingress to the lower decks. THEN the ship does it's own destruction.
AND we've not even TRIED to make these smart weapons which could aim themselves for the 'soft' parts of the aircraft carriers. A swarm capable of aiming for funnels, bow openings, deck lifts etc would be more effective with less - but more complex.

It gives them time to engage them. Also unless the drone can actually lock onto its target, in this case the carrier, its target will be able to evade by merely getting out of the way.

Now THAT made me laugh, a carrier evading a small drone. NOT going to happen. And where do you evade to ? A decent 'swarm' will be coming from all directions acros a smallish time period. Still thinking bit modern munitiosn warfare. ( By now you might realise that we've a local defence contractor and a lot of mates have worked for them - I even interviewed for them - and tech-heads end up exploring possibilities over beers in the pub )

Somalia could well be the last time we see the US take for granted an enemy. Lessons are learned from all conflicts. Somalias lesson was unguided RPGs can be fired from close range at big stationery helicopters with a reasonable degree of effectivness. Not that despite the odds the body count was clearly in the US's favour. Not that it is a particularyl pleasant way to score.

Erm, you do realise that lesson was first learned in 'Nam. Hence why Hueys were successful and 'green giants' only sent in when ground fire could be supressed and ultimately why Spectre is now the platform of choice
The problem with military is they often forget the bad lessons because 'gung-ho' attitude doesn't want to reflect on errors in the past. Since WW1 there are hundreds of examples of the same mistake being repeated a mere 2-3 years later

Anyway, on those who favour free speech and are against monitoring you need to realise that by now this conversation has triggered nearly every key word that ECHELON has and we're almost certainly being monitored by the US for us Brits, the Brits for you guys in the US, and one of us will be doing the recprocal for Canadians. See that way each intelligence agency CAN say "we do not monitor our own people". So a big HELLO to the spooks

[more-boost1555]

are you talking about these drones being flown remotely? Or independently guided via gps, or radar of some sort?

Because if you are talking about remote, obviously you would have to fly either one at a time or have a pilot for each drone. Possibly you could have them all controlled by one master remote, or even a few different wings with master remotes. Still, this would require simultaneous launch....the logistics of this are just too complicated. They'd be all flying into each other and s@#t. So nix that.

GPS or radar guidance is feasable, but obviously this requires a much greater level of sophistication and investment. Crisis brings a valid point when he asks whether the drones will have homing capability. If not, then we are talking about drones being either remotely flown, or guided to a fixed point via gps. The remote theory I allready discussed. GPS guidance to a fixed point may work at first, scoring hits with the element of surprise. However unless they are carrying a significantly lethal payload to destroy or disable a ship in this first wave, a ship could move out of the way.

Obviously a homing drone is not out of the question, but once more you would be adding significant investment and sophistication to the equation. Plus homing devices need to emit their own radar signal, thus unveiling themselves to their target. Unless you are talking about laser guidance or some other form of passive guidance. The costs just keep adding up now

Another thing, your napalm theory is interesting. However carriers do have remote sprinklers on the upper decks, and hatches can be sealed to prevent leakage to the lower deck. These measures were set in place to deal with chem/bio weapons. Dealing with fires is one of the most often practiced drills in the navy, I am confident it could be dealt with.

[more-boost1555]

by the way, god damn is it time consuming rebutting you guys, fun though, no hard feelings of any sort to either of you gentlemen.

Ahem, ok.

First off, this prototype can go supersonic, I'll give you that point. However it's range and payload are not that impressive.

An F-A18, can carry a maximum payload of 6220 kg, which converts to roughly 13,712 pounds. That's just an F-A18, I couldn't find specs on the e and f models, or "superhornet". I could find range for it however. A superhornets' max range without external fuel tanks is 1,275 nautical miles, with three external tanks, 1,660.

The fact is that that drone is a prototype and not ready for service. Even if it were, it still will not be able to compete with the F-18's battle proven service record and un-matched multirole capability. Just read this Hornet

The global hawk, is not multi role capable, and it has a miniscule payload.

The Tarwa assault ship? Wow it can launch aircraft capable of attack and close support. None of those aircraft have any air Superiority capability what so ever, and they all have very limited range as well as small payloads.

Also it is not impossible to support a carrier group indefinately. It's called setting up air superiority, and secure routes for your supply ships. Besides do you think these drone carrier ships are going to just resupply them selves? They will have the same logistic problems.

The reason you have aircraft carriers is becuase its the perfect symbol of American Militarism and Imperialism. Moving a carrier CLOSER to its objective is a death wish- not only would this put the ship within range of land based cruisemissiles but also of airbased fighters, and no matter how great your carrier is, it can't face up to a full ground luanched missile/strike fighter/bomber assault.

The reason to have aircraft carriers is to have a highly mobile forward presence of deadly aircraft ready to mobilize at any moment! Of course you don't send a carrier into a known hostile area. That's why the U.S. has stealth bombers/fighters, you take out radar/power/communications sites first, then move in with the carrier to assert air superiority. Or you can just launch Tommahawks, same thing.

Russian planes may have the edge right now, but I would still put my money on an American plane to come out on top. Superior training, superior avionics, superior maintenance on the planes. Besides any edge they might have will be gone once the Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 enter service.

The Russian fleet is not capable of the things you propose! Well maintained and in top shape, perhaps they could be. The fact is however, they are not. State of the Russian Fleet

Isreal, to name one small nation with that capabilty. North Korea wouldn't be an odd guess either... But you're missing the point, this isn't about what the other guy doesn't have its about what you COULD have- I'd rather beat my oponants without loosing a single man, rather then beat them WITH losses.

I agree, and it will happen. The Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor are said to be most likely the last generation of manned aircraft developed by the U.S.

[Matra et Alpine]

are you talking about these drones being flown remotely? Or independently guided via gps, or radar of some sort?

it would be impossible to contemplate a swarm being remotely controlled as it woudl require more sophisticated comms than availabel off-the-shelf. And as you point out having a few hundred folks within 27/35MHz distance kind of defeats the object
[QUOTE] Possibly you could have them all controlled by one master remote, or even a few different wings with master remotes. Still, this would require simultaneous launch....the logistics of this are just too complicated. They'd be all flying into each other and s@#t. So nix that.[/QUOTE[
Too complicated, need to think REAL simple.
And so what if you lose a few drones through crashing into each other, there are so many it doens't mattter.
YOU NEED TO THINK NUMBERS with this concept.

GPS or radar guidance is feasable, but obviously this requires a much greater level of sophistication and investment.

No you can buy commercially available GPS receiver for $100. It doesn't need maps or anything, it just needs an 'address'
Serial controlled can interface to a micro-controller equally interfaced to standard R/C parts.
All up cost of electronics is only about $300 !!!!
You're not making an R/C vehicle, it is autonomous, so dont' bother with comms

Crisis brings a valid point when he asks whether the drones will have homing capability. If not, then we are talking about drones being either remotely flown, or guided to a fixed point via gps. The remote theory I allready discussed. GPS guidance to a fixed point may work at first, scoring hits with the element of surprise. However unless they are carrying a significantly lethal payload to destroy or disable a ship in this first wave, a ship could move out of the way.

yep and that's when simple imaging comes in.
Nothing too sophisticated, the lens assembly in your optical mouse or to be able to detect carrier versus 'ship' the one in your mobile phone Crude image recognition is easily done in a microcontroller by any second year computer science student

Obviously a homing drone is not out of the question, but once more you would be adding significant investment and sophistication to the equation.

It's $20 for a camer + lens module for microcontroller

Plus homing devices need to emit their own radar signal, thus unveiling themselves to their target. Unless you are talking about laser guidance or some other form of passive guidance. The costs just keep adding up now

Laser detection is VERY simple as with a simple filter it would be the ONLY thing to show up, but it has the drawback of needing someone to light up the target. Crude visual recognition woudl be the easiest, or infra-red - a $1 part

Another thing, your napalm theory is interesting. However carriers do have remote sprinklers on the upper decks, and hatches can be sealed to prevent leakage to the lower deck. These measures were set in place to deal with chem/bio weapons. Dealing with fires is one of the most often practiced drills in the navy, I am confident it could be dealt with.

If it's like the British Navy, there is an assumption of fire-control that it is unlikely to be necessary inder fire as defense will have been alerted and prevent further attacks of planes, subs, missiles. But, see, again we have big-weapon mindset clouding the challenge a 'swarm' places.
The sprinklers will be sized to assume a weapon burst and I doubt if they could sustain a fir 'fed' by regular new doses of material.
Again, I can only go from what I've been told and that is that the survivability is dependant on the fire-control team winning the battle. The UK lost ships in the Falklands because the fire control teams were overwhelmed - that was one attack If a swarm can truly continue to deliver 'payload' in a regular stream of 1-2 gallons at a time then it is unlikely to be able to be blanketed by the automatic fire-control systems - again built to address a fire started by a munition hit, NOT for continuous I bet.