Iran's 'Mosquito Warfare' doctrine employs asymmetric naval tactics using speedboats, missiles, and drones to threaten Western naval vessels in the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, which controls 20% of global oil trade; this strategy leverages the confined geography of the strait to create a 'sea denial' effect, where Iran cannot control the waterway but can deny access to adversaries through saturation attacks, though the effectiveness is limited by the US Navy's superior ISR capabilities and layered defensive systems including CIWS, electronic warfare, and helicopter support.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
LA GUERRA MOSQUITO: armas y tácticas asimétricas iraníes en el Estrecho de Ormuz *FEDE SUPERVIELLE*Added:
The mosquito war. Today we're going to discover what symmetrical warfare is like in the Ormud Strait, but hey, it's not useful for every type of naval warfare. We'll see how speedboats, torpedoes, mines, or missiles, land, sea, can close any maritime route.
Now we have an expert that you'll discover in a second.
Hello everyone, welcome to Pelun Artis, military and geopolitical news. Today we're going to talk about naval tactics, specifically what's known as mosquito warfare.
Someone will say, "What's that all about?" It's very simple, many mosquitoes bite you little by little and can do a lot of damage. Something similar, as our friend Fede Superville will explain to us.
Hi Fede, how are you?
Hello, Francisco. Hello. Nothing, just delighted to be here again.
Well Fede, delighted. Welcome back home. Let's talk about a topic we covered a while ago, which is, well, naval tactics, right?
We did a program on naval tactics based on one of your books, an essay because you have many books that deal with the modern subject, right?, with current naval maritime affairs, uh, but this is an essay, an essay to understand and know what war at sea is like, right?
Yes, indeed, Naval is a bit like chocolate for real chocolate lovers, is n't it? It's almost a doctrine manual, explaining a bit about how war is waged at sea in the present day, in the 21st century. It's true that in novels it can be conveyed in some way, but it's told in a different way, perhaps more entertaining, but not so technical, not so detailed, not so expository, right? Well, it's been very well received, it's a book that's selling very well and it came out a while ago and it covers all the wars, right? We talk about three main wars, which are anti-aircraft, anti-surface, anti-submarine, and electronic warfare, which is not considered a main war, but it affects them all a little. And then I dedicate an entire chapter to maritime safety, which is perhaps very much related to what we are going to talk about today.
Maritime security is a bit more of a policing aspect, isn't it? Uh, pre-combat, so to speak, and then the projection phase, right?, or whatever we call amphibious operations. Uh, so, well, today I think we're going to cover almost all the bases, of course, anti-aircraft, anti-surface warfare and maritime security. Let's talk a little bit. Well, there's naval tactics for anyone who wants to know more. And we're going to explore a very open topic, open to whatever I think of asking you and whatever you think of learning. We did a program about electronic warfare not too long ago, did n't we? And that electronic warfare program helped us understand how the operation to capture Maduro was carried out, which invited people to watch, and today we are going to talk about a topic that is, as they say, in the spotlight, right? In the spotlight, which is the theme of the street ofermo mood, the revolutionary guard and its army and how they put jack in the Navy. And we're going to see that this isn't something improvised; Iran has been talking about this hybrid war, this symmetrical war, or mosquito war for a long time. Yes, and it's also curious because if we look at it, Iran maintained almost two parallel armed forces, right? The traditional armed forces, sorry, and Iran had ships, had frigates, uh, had submarines, uh, and so on. And then there's the Revolutionary Guard, which is almost another armed force, isn't it? And the Revolutionary Guard, indeed, has concentrated, above all on the naval aspect, but well, a bit in general, on waging that war in a different way, right?
Instead of conventional warfare, which is what the Iranian navy, which has disappeared, was trying to do—it was practically sunk by the Americans—well, the Bucera has its speedboats, its missile launchers, and so on, right?
And then, well, the debate will surely come to the forefront.
Sure, you can have a big impact with just a few things. Obviously, that has a major limitation, which is that you can only have it very close up, right? So, um, your ability to influence is very limited to your immediate environment, uh, and in a hyper-connected world, right?, like the one we live in, well, that limits you a lot. It's true that if you're like Iran, positioned in a place where your immediate surroundings have a lot of geopolitical impact, right? In a way, you still have power, but you're obviously very limited, and Iran, I mean, I'm not even talking about influencing other things, it simply can't reach the US aircraft carriers because the US aircraft carriers operate so far out that the Iranians can't reach them, right?
Well, it has its advantages, of course, that, let's say, that mosquito-exploiting concept, but it also has its drawbacks, its limitations, right? Like mosquitoes, literally, they bite what they can bite. Well, uh, look, speaking about the aircraft carrier issue, I don't know, I think I published this in January, I think, January 31st, and I was talking a bit about the obsession the pro-Iranians had that they were going to sink the American carriers, right? And I was saying the same thing as you, that the distance, the layers of protection, are something we always forget because we always think about the missile, right? And yes, Iran has ballistic missiles; it has demonstrated that it is capable of using them. Then there's one thing to keep in mind: ballistic missiles. The problem with giving them a ship is that it moves. So, the terminal guide has to be very thin, usually radar, okay? Although it can be infrared or other types, well, normally radar for ships. Um, and hitting something that moves is much harder than hitting a bunker or a building, because they're just there, you enter some coordinates and it goes to the place and it's very easy, right? Uh, so the problem, but that's a problem, but the real, big problem that the Iranians have, or anyone who wants to give them a ship, is finding the ship first, right? And as much as we live in the age of satellites, the reality is that the United States will have its aircraft carriers, I don't know the distance, but it says 200, 300, 400 or even 500 miles from the Iranian coast, and Iran does not have the capacity to explore at that distance, it does not have the means because the few it had were sunk and it does not have satellites to constantly scan that entire area of sea and know permanently where they are.
Probably not even the Chinese have it to do it in a permanent, constant way, etc., etc., right? So, that's kind of the mindset we need to have, which is if you increase the range of a missile linearly, that is, if it goes from having a range of 100 km to 200 km, well, that engineering effect is relatively simple, right? Well, to put it very simply, you double the fuel and you go twice as far, right? But doubling your exploration range means exploring in a 360- degree radius further. And as we all know, area is πr², right? Well, like the rado, if you go from 100 to 200, it's not double, it's 100 squared versus 200 squared. It's much, much more, isn't it? Well, then, as I said, I'm a big advocate of the ability to explore. In the book we explain, we go into great detail, that surface warfare is really what makes the difference, exploration and counter-exploration, which is the ability to avoid being detected by the enemy. And that's where the difference lies, and that's where, well, the safety of US ships is part of it. In other words, there are people who say, "No, it's because they're afraid of Iranian women and that's why they stay away." No, it's not that they're so superior that they can attack from afar, is it? In fact, and what we're going to talk about at the end today, right?, which is that crossing of the three destroyers, Pormuz and so on, uh, well, it's interesting because they went into the lion's den to fulfill a mission that we can discuss whether it makes more or less sense, but they went into the lion's den and they fulfilled the mission because they weren't given anything, so you have, I mean, it's very interesting why they did it, right? I'll try to explain why they did it, and then we'll see a bit about how we think they got out of there unscathed, because they certainly walked right into the lion's den, didn't they? Well, as I said, we can go into that whole combination of missiles or rocket missiles, we can talk about that, uh, fast boats and drones, right?, which seem to have been the three main vectors, apart from the mines, which in some way it is believed that they had at least cleared some lanes, let's say, to pass through, uh, well, those three vectors, right?, at the same time at such short distances, uh, with such reduced reaction times, well, it certainly demonstrates the ability of the American ships to survive. Like I said, what we sailors like is being in the middle of the Pacific with hundreds of miles of water around us because we know we can control that environment, right?
We'll see whoever approaches in a while, and the ship, let's say, is in its element in that environment and that's where it works best. Now, as soon as you get near the coast there are a lot of bad apples, right? The bad thing is that things get much more complicated.
Brown water, right?
Yes, exactly. We like blue water, don't we? That's where, let's say, things are clearer, and in those brown waters, on the coast, is where everything gets a little complicated.
So, going back again to the exploration capability, this is the key because it has been said, we know it has been published that apart from the three destroyers, land-based Apache helicopters were certainly involved. Uh, but what was involved, and hasn't been said but is obvious, uh, were aerial surveillance and reconnaissance assets. That is to say, during the crossing of the three instructors, I am sure there were easily half a dozen, if not a dozen or two, reconnaissance aircraft dedicated exclusively to supporting those ships.
We're talking about P8 Poseidon aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, drones like the Reaper, Global Hawk, etc., and even smaller drones or other types of aircraft, right? So there, for example, one of those three threats we were talking about doesn't eliminate it, but it makes it much easier for you. In other words, if you have the photo or video because it's moving from the strait from above with all the contacts perfectly classified and you know who's who, that is, a small missile- launching or suicide boat comes out of the Iranian coast and your P8 aircraft, which you have there on screen, or your drone, or the Global Hawk, or the RIP, or whatever, sees it on the camera, identifies it, gives it a name, and then in the shared information system, everyone knows that's that boat.
So, you can't face it yet because maybe it's too far away for whatever reason, because you only have it through the plane's sensor and the ship's sensor doesn't have it yet.
Anyway, for the reasons I know, because you don't have a suitable weapon, I mean, it's a small boat, maybe you're not going to fire an anti-ship missile at it, right? The P8 could launch a Harpum-type missile, but that's a very large missile to launch a small boat at. Uh, the small boat doesn't generate enough radar to launch an anti-ship missile at it. You have to wait until it gets closer. That's what the Apaches were for, but you already know who he is.
So, even if it gets close to the ship, the difficult part is the ship itself; the easy part is shooting, right? No, what we can think, I mean, someone who maybe isn't involved in the scene says, "Well, the difficult thing is hitting the big one on no." Once you 're at 12.7 machine gun range, okay? Uh, that's easy, you open the game until you hit it and the dist, I mean, and you hit it, I'm telling you, hit it, okay? In other words, with a warship and minimally trained personnel, you can hit a vessel of that size if you see it coming. So, once you 've seen it coming and you know it's bad, the easy part is the end, the easy part is hitting it with the machine gun, okay? And that's where we can start to understand why they happened, huh? And they haven't been hit by a suicide drone, a speedboat, or a missile. Okay, for me, one of the keys has certainly been what we call intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and I'm sure that they were supported, as I said, probably by a P8, several drones, and other systems, and all of that was fed into the common command and control system, and the ships were crossing with a lot of information, that is, knowing absolutely everything that was happening in Orm at that moment.
Sure, here we're going to look a little bit at how the case of the destroyers went, right? But we can also see a bit of the Iranian strategies beforehand, can't we, for this war of denial? Because basically what it does is deny the sea, right? Iran doesn't want to control it, it wants to deny it, right? In other words, it's exactly what we were talking about at the beginning: you don't have the ability to exert positive control over the sea, so what you do is try to exert negative control, or in other words, deny it to the enemy, right?
So, the three vectors, right? One missiles, another speedboats, and another drones. Regarding missiles, I would first like to clarify that with Iran, things aren't so clear, but with the Khutis, who are basically Iranians under a different flag, it has become quite clear over the last few years that when people said they were launching missiles, they were only launching rockets, okay? The difference between a missile and a rocket is that a missile is guided and a rocket is not. A rocket is a propelled projectile without guidance, and a missile is a propelled, guided projectile, okay? With radar guidance, infrared guidance, image guidance of any kind, okay? Why do I say that it's become quite clear? Because first they didn't give it to almost anyone, and then, well, it was known through the stories, right? In other words, they basically looked at the courses and speeds of the merchant ships that passed by, in this case through Band, through the other strait, the Strait of the Hutis, let's say, and calculated their course and speed and fired the rocket at the estimated position of the ship when it was going to launch the rocket. We cannot say that they are missiles because they were guided to a geographical point. No, in the naval context those aren't missiles, that's a rocket because it's unguided, okay? It goes to a fixed point. So, we don't know to what extent the same thing is happening to the Iranians. The Iranians did have missiles, they have had anti-ship missiles, but we don't know how many they have left. We don't know what's left of the destruction that the United States has caused by bombing and so on. Perhaps a large part of what they have left are the least capable, those with bad guidance systems or no guidance systems at all. So there is a factor there. Either way, it's dangerous. Uh, there are two ways to use this. The ground throwers, that thrower we're seeing there on the screen. Mobile launchers are once again being used on trucks and other vehicles so they can be moved along the coast without being destroyed. And then you're limited to the reach you have.
These are more like rockets. Look at these ones they're launching now.
Yes, those look like rockets.
Okay, it's a quick save.
This is a missile, but the others are... That does look like a missile. What we don't know is if they have any of those left or not, so what's the concept of employment? Well, nothing, you have them on the coast, you move them around, you place them wherever you want and you launch them. What you need to know first is where the enemy is in order to launch them. This is very difficult in the open sea, but it's much easier in a strait, okay? I think Ormut is about 33 km wide at its narrowest point, and we can assume that Iran doesn't control it as much as the United States does with its ISR and surveillance capabilities, but it is capable of controlling it to a good extent, okay?
Uh, both with cameras that I have on the coast and with small boats that, not being military, pass information to me, okay? Just a small fishing boat that's there in the middle and calls them and says, "Hey, there's an American warship passing by. It's heading north at about this speed." Um, like with some capacity they may have, we do n't know, of aerial surveillance and reconnaissance with some kind of drone or aircraft. This is more difficult because it seems quite clear that the United States has control of the airspace over the strait, but well, it's a possibility too, isn't it? So, the first thing is to detect them and then launch the missiles. That's where the defensive part comes in, if you want we can look at it later, okay? which is the missile defense part of the ships. Well, that's kind of the missile, is n't it? Then there's the boat, which we've already talked about a bit, right? Uh, the boat can be either a platform for launching things, usually missiles or rockets, because with a machine gun you're not going to do much to a 9000-ton ship, but anyway, uh, or a suicide boat, okay?
A boat loaded with explosives can simply be remotely controlled, or it can be crewed by people willing to blow themselves up, right? And that their goal in the end is to get very close. Okay, there we see one that does indeed have missile launchers, right? If you see him, he's throwing one, huh? Or the suicidal ones because their objective is to physically collide with the ship, and there are reports of 3000 to 5000 boats.
I understand that not all of them were missiles; many will even have little more than a metadora. Exact.
But of course, the difficult part is that you have to destroy many of them.
Even of course, Fede, when we talk about recognition, right? From what we can see, there are civilian satellites that show groups of 60 and 70 boats circling around these days. If we see it with effects, it's a little delayed, isn't it? There's a delay of maybe 24 hours; the Americans are seeing it in real time, and when they see a buildup of boats, they don't destroy it because they don't want to. If they don't, they send a formation of Apaches or 10s there. I think the role of the 10th in this war is also important in the maz.
Yes, it can be, it can be. Well, although there may be other means that are capable of doing that mission. For example, a few days ago we heard that they used an F18 to hit the rudder of a merchant ship with its machine gun, let's say, with its nose cannon.
Well, it works, but perhaps it's not the ideal medium, is it? Uh, yes, I mean, the starting premise for me, of course, is that the United States sees absolutely everything that happens in Street Move. So why not destroy all these boats?
Well, first there's the identification part, which I think they've more or less got sorted out, that is, they're able to effectively identify that they are boats of the Revolutionary Guard and so on. And then there's having enough effectors, right? That's a pretty ugly word, huh? To make a mistake, huh? Like I said, it's not worth launching big missiles for maybe a small boat, so you need to use other systems like the Apache, the F18, that kind of system. Uh, and then there's another factor, which is the political and diplomatic one, which is supposed to have been in a ceasefire since, let me say this correctly, since April 8th, right? Uh, so, well, it seems like they've been measuring interactions a bit for the past month. This does not mean that they are strictly adhering to the ceasefire because that is not the case.
It's clear that's not the case, but well, it does seem that they are measuring interactions to some extent.
So, as I said, the superiority in information... I have no doubt which side it is on, which is the American side. Uh, and but then the Iranians take advantage of the short distances, the saturation, and so on to try to do something, but we've seen that they haven't been able to, right? So, we've talked about the missiles, the boats, like I said, the objective could be either to launch their own small missiles or to collide with the ships, okay? Colliding with ships is very difficult for the reasons we discussed earlier. If they come from far away, the ship is capable of generating a curtain of fire to protect itself and should be able to destroy them in time. Apart from the fact that we know it has the support of those helicopters, both the embarked helicopters that have a certain capacity in this sense, they usually carry a 12.7mm machine gun as well, uh, as well as the Alpach helicopters that seem to have supported them when necessary, even the F18s in what we call APCMO, which is air power contribution to, well, for naval operations, right? In other words, let's say, aircraft supporting naval operations. Um, those are the boats. And then the third vector, which is drones, right? Uh, drones, uh, look again, there can be a bit of both, there can be drones that are only for surveillance and there can be drones that are uh launchers of things, in principle, missiles and more. And there can be suicide drones, which is where the line between what is a missile, what is a suicide drone, and what is a munition is a bit ethereal, isn't it? Because in the end, more or less, I mean, they do similar things, right? The missile I 'm investigating the target, but between the drone and the mercury, the drone shuts down. I think it's the price at the source. Originally, I think the loitering munition had a longer range, circling and searching for a target, while the Camicazi you could send directly to the target.
But now that's not the case because of the increased battery capacity and all that. Of course, indeed, I mean, in the end, the boundary is very ethereal. The concept is the same: you have something that you can launch into the air, and instead of the missile finding its target, it's capable of observing for at least a while, gathering information, and then, once it has it, going after the target, right?
So, in the combination of these three vectors, let's say, these three elements in the confined space of Ormud, and therefore the very short reaction times, is where they intended to harm the Americans. Well, like I said, as we discussed at the beginning, the Americans have decided to walk into the lion's den because, well, you go 100 miles offshore and they can't do it to you because, first of all, if you do it 100 miles offshore it takes hours to get there, so the other guy is going to see you in time and react in time. And secondly, you have to find him, which is much harder to find in the middle of a rowing course that, as we have said, is 33 km, and it is easier to establish, let's say, a barrier and have everything that passes the barrier under control, right? Um, so I think we 've more or less explained the tactics in a very general way, if you want, I mean, if you have any questions about the defense. Tell me, tell me.
I have these satellite images, you can see them. These are some of these, well, herds, right?, of speedboats that spent a few days cruising around. For example, this is from April 22nd, there are some, uh, just these days of the attack on the destroyer, on the destroyers.
Uh, of course, the dilemma is that these boats were dropping mines because some of these speedboats have mines, and here, of course, that's where my game comes in. Uh, at the time I was saying, "Well, during those 30 days of fighting in March, I don't think there were many mines, but then suddenly the United States started saying there were 20 or more mines." And all that was later discovered to have been launched during the ceasefire by the aniseeds on these voyages.
But of course, this is where Fede comes in, the part that I don't get to delve into. Hmm, they said it would take 6 months to remove 20 mines. Of course, that seemed like too long to me. I think it was a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
Uh, yes, yes, yes, that could very well be. Uh, mines, uh, I mean, they have their limitations, okay? The first limitation is that you have to put them at a certain depth. If you put them lower, they won't activate when someone walks over them, and even if they do activate, they won't hurt anyone, right?
Imagine you blow something up, I don't know, like 100m below a ship, right? It won't fit, you're not going to break it, okay?
And then you have to put them in very coastal areas. Well, it's true that the Enmut probes are quite shallow, but not so much everywhere, right? And then, uh, so one of the ways to solve this back then was that they would get funded, okay? In other words, the mine floated, a chain was attached to it, and a dead weight was placed below the chain, an anchor to put it simply, and then the mine remained suspended in mid-height and the dead weight at the bottom, right? So that the mine would remain permanently in place. What's wrong with that? because then they are much easier to find. Okay? We're going to go into a little bit about how mine hunting is done. How is mine hunting done? They are being searched for with a special sonar, okay? Those who follow me or have read me a little know that sonar has a very short range. Well, mine-detecting sonars, which are side-scanning sonars, have much shorter ranges, much shorter. We're talking about meters, okay? So, what happens is that mines that are on two slopes are very easy to see, but those that are supported at the bottom blend in with the bottom.
They can look like a stone, they can look like a washing machine, they can look like anything, right? Corals or whatever. Uh, if there's a lot of algae they can cover them up, etc., etc. Yeah, so there's that game, right? The limitation is that they can only be placed in specific areas, unless you place them adrift, that is, mines that are floating and go off on their own. That 's prohibited. Obviously the Iranians don't care that it's prohibited, but the risks are that it would damage their ships, that is, exactly, and then there's a risk that it could damage your own ships and then the mines could simply float away and in two days be out of the storm and useless. So it has its limitations, right? I'm not saying they can't do it, but it has its limitations.
So, going back to your question, if the mine-hunting times are that long, I mean, if you had to sweep the entire strait of mud, 6 months seems short to me, you'd probably need more and with 20 or 30 minesweepers, okay? Hey, what do you do instead of a bar since there's no minesweeper? The United States has it.
So, what do we do? Hey, don't sweep the entire narrower, what you 're doing is sweeping some channels.
Yes.
And you say, "Hey, there's nothing around here."
Then the minesweeper comes along, opens a trench, and says, "Hey, look, uh, from this line 100m to the left and 100m to the right there are no mines, so come this way and we know there's no problem here, okay? But outside this line you might get hurt, okay?" Of course, that's what they said in the Freedom Project, that we will show you the way. In other words, it's basically what the United States did in conors. Yes, they're known as dredged channels, okay?
And it's something we train a lot in, navigating dredged channels because navigation has to be very precise. It is true that GPS exists nowadays, but even so, guiding a boat exactly through a canal is still complex. If there are currents, if there's wind and so on, you have to make the heading drops right on the spot, and so on, and you might be in GPS denial environments where you have to do it visually or with radar or in other ways, right? So that's what we train a lot in, doing what are called dredged channels, and the assumption is that we're going through a channel that a minesweeper has dredged, right? Because dredging is no longer common, but it goes after the one that has hunted and swept up before we passed by, right? Uh, and so, as I said, uh, what it seems is indeed that there are analysts out there who have even painted the areas that appear to have cleared an area, a channel to pass through quite close to Miratos, uh, and that they have somehow certified that it is free of mines and that is where they are passing through. But yes, cleaning the entire narrow dermotud when the conflict is over could easily take us months. Regarding cleanliness, right? There are the good ones, the minesweepers that are already obsolete, the minehunters, right? Which is the most common thing, but the United States doesn't have it, and the four it had are in Japan, and the ones that were in the Strait, well, it decommissioned them in January and in February sent them for scrapping, right?
But then there's a new way to search for mines, isn't there? What is it with these drones? I made a short thread on Twitter, well, it's not entirely accurate, but it gives you a general idea of what this system is like. I see that as the future. I've always said that when we talk about the Navy 2050 and the future of the Navy and so on, when we talk about minehunters, which isn't my specialty, I've never been on a minehunter, but I see one thing very clearly from a logical standpoint, right? So, as we were just talking about, if you have to hunt at two or three knots off the enemy coast for two weeks to sweep the beach before making a landing, you're not going to land there because the enemy already knows where you're going, right?
So, it doesn't make any sense. That's something that can be done on a police-type mission, a peacekeeping-type mission. When this war is over, European minesweepers should go there and spend six months cleaning that up, okay? But in war it doesn't make sense, right? So the future of mine hunting will undoubtedly involve underwater drones.
Drones are already being used, but normally they're the ones that are RS, right? Uh, they're connected by cable to the ships. The next step is for them to become self-sufficient, right? To some extent, there will have to be mother ships, but these drones need to be able to navigate, enter areas where they shouldn't be, and have one or more of them be able to carry out the entire process, right?
That is, first detection, that is, detection and location, then identification, that is, confirming that it is a mine and what type of mine it is, and then the last part, which is either countermining, that is, putting an explosive charge on it and detonating it, or deactivation, right?, which is even more complicated. So, our own minehunters, which are already 30 years old or almost, use unmanned vehicles that are controlled from, or rather, remotely piloted, that are controlled from the minehunter. Well, the future has to be about moving towards larger vehicles so they can operate further away from their mothership and do this autonomously or almost autonomously.
Look, ask a question here that you once answered for me because what is the difference between minesweepers and minehunters?
And I think it's important that the minesweeper was like a large- scale cleanup, wasn't it? He even threw, didn't he? It's a kind of cutting.
It's a rake, okay? The minesweepers used to tow a dredge by the stern, and this dredge's original purpose was to cut those mooring lines, those cables I mentioned earlier, which the mooring mines, the mines that were anchored, would cut.
They carried something along the stern, and several minehunters usually had to join together.
They towed that dredge and that rig by the stern, and that rig had either explosives or shears, so to speak.
to cut the orinques. So, the mines would come out on the surface, and you'd shoot them four times and blow them up. Uh, then they evolved and I knew it, they were, uh, influence dredges, let's say. So, what the dredges did was... simulate that they were a ship, right? So, they would make a noise, either acoustic or electromagnetic, in such a way that the mine would activate and explode, right? Well, over time it became clear that this wasn't very effective, it wasn't as reliable as it should have been, and it evolved into minesweepers that did, sorry, a bit like what we 've been talking about before, right? It's about locating, detecting and locating, identifying and then either countermining or deactivating. It's not a much finer job, it's slower, but hey, it gives you more security than knowing where the minesweeper is going to go, there's nothing there beforehand.
So we have this, which would be, let's say, Iran's way of denying access. And well, we had that news about the three destroyers that passed through and previously just on the day that Project Freedom was declared almost at the beginning, which the next day was paralyzed, but that day two other ships had also passed supposedly testing or opening the strait, right?
And in both cases, missiles were launched at them, drones were launched at them, and speedboats came against them. Let me briefly explain what the defensive system of these ships would be like.
Okay, so we can divide it into two clear parts based on environments, right? One is aerial and the other is surface. We've more or less talked about the surface area. Okay, the first part is to detect, okay? And the further away, the better. And the clearer you are about it, the better. And once they get closer, you have to choose the system you're going to use to confront them. If you have aircraft support, for example, your own helicopter or a helicopter supporting you from the ground or fixed-wing aircraft supporting you, well, if you can engage them from further away, because you are clear that they are the enemy, then you engage them as far away from the ship as possible and thus you avoid that danger, right? They arrive, they eat away at those layers and get very close to the ship, because in the end the ship's last defense is sailors with machine guns stationed all around the ship who fire on these boats. Okay. It's true that I don't know about these specific ones, but I think if they usually have this, it's like a machine gun, okay? There's a discussion about this; some people tell me it 's a cannon, and I say it's a machine gun for a marine, uh, cannons 76 mm and up, okay?
This is a toy, eh, but well, that must be a 20mm, I have a feeling, if not it'll be 25mm, okay? And these are already operated remotely, okay? In this case, the one we're looking at, there's a miner there who physically moves it and aims by eye, but there are already remotely operated ones, and they guide the shots, by camera and laser, okay? Uh, so there are even some that are integrated into the combat system. For example, in our B-class, our most modern offshore patrol vessels, the ship's combat system can detect a target with radar, for example, and pass it on to this weapons system. This weapon system already tracks it visually and with the laser it obtains a distance that I can also get with the radar and it fires based on that. So it's super accurate fire and those weapons are amazing. So there are those in this system, let's say, that are more automated, or there are purely manual ones like the ones we were seeing there on the screen. Okay, so like I said, the danger here is in the saturation, in getting that, what you were saying before, 50, right? And saturation is combated by confronting them as soon as possible, right? The further away you go, the more you eliminate them, right?
You have more time to ration, don't you? And then, above all, the support of a helicopter in these scenarios is spectacular because the helicopter, uh, because of its speed, range, horizon, and agility, uh, gives you a huge advantage, right? The helicopter is able to get on top, hit one in two moments, hit another, and the ship, well, obviously it goes its own way and has to wait for them to approach, right? In that sense, the ship is in a super defensive role here, while the helicopter has a speed advantage, while the ship is at a disadvantage against the boats, the helicopter can be a bit more aggressive, right? The same would apply if there were A10s or F18s, or any other type of aircraft. Amos, durmo Fede, because in your thread you have something interesting here, which is this image, right? Thermal imaging to see if there were people inside or not. This, of course, in the role we are talking about in Hormuza today, does not matter much to the commander of an American ship.
We'd have to see what rules of engagement they're playing by, huh?
Because, you know, the narrative does matter to the United States. There is a fire.
Yes of course. And the narrative matters a lot to the United States. The United States cannot allow images to be released of fishermen who are actually fishermen, you know, who have been fried by an Apache, because well, it's true that maybe their current government doesn't care as much about what people think, but the reality is that they could face backlash from their own population, right? And well, it happened, they did it with the attacks they were making on the drug traffickers' boats in Venezuela, but they should have, I mean, if you noticed, the narrative was very important. They always said, "Uh, confirmed drug traffickers that we knew about," and once they were identified and we knew they were drug traffickers, we attacked them. Well, it's the same here, isn't it?
It's important, you know, not to shoot a fisherman, right?
Of course, I'm talking about a case of a chaotic attack.
There it is. So, uh, why did I put it in the thread? Because if a speed dial comes your way, well, it 's easier without a crew. You say, look, I'll hit him and if he was someone's toy, well, I'll pay for it, right? But I haven't killed anyone. Now, if they approach you with a crew, you have to either take a risk, which is to avoid getting hit by a rocket, or try to identify them first and confirm that they are indeed carrying weapons or even a flag, like the Iranian flag or whatever, right?
Well, like I said, we don't know what rules of engagement the destroyers crossed under. They were probably rules of engagement, or rather, probably not, they were definitely rules of engagement that were clearly flexible enough to allow commanders to defend their own ships, because, as I said, they walked right into the lion's den. I mean, I've said this seven times already, but I'm going to say it more times. In other words, what they did for a sailor is practically the most dangerous thing you can do, which is to go into a place where you know the enemy is coming at you from all sides.
I think there was an order before that their defense engagement rules were more flexible because I posted it, uh, some might be playing with some, but for that match I'm sure they were given others to be able to defend themselves, right? It's true that self-defense is always at the commander's discretion, but of course, if you act in self-defense and you're wrong because the rules of engagement didn't allow it and then it turns out he was a fisherman, well, you're going to pay for it with your career and maybe even with jail.
Well, of course, we have the speedboat section, right? And when you were talking about the last moment, right? There in the war in Ukraine we saw how the Russians defended themselves against drone-equipped speedboats, right? That is, autonomous ones that Ukraine uses with MG-type machine guns, that is, light machine guns at that last moment, right?
Here, of course, all the soldiers, all the sailors have to go out and defend their position, right? To say more or less those that are already there, well, not all, not all, well, defense position in what we call the combat plan, which is the distribution of personnel in each situation, okay? The ship also has, it's a Chinese job, eh eh, which is normally handled by the second commander, who is the personal chief and distributes all the personnel in each of the situations. That is, when we are on guard duty, on the bridge, on guard duty one goes Pepito, on guard duty two goes Sultanito, on guard duty three goes Vanito, on the other post of the bridge goes this one, this one, this one, and so on in all the guard duties. And now when we have to give the helicopter a look at the guards, they're going to give this helicopter, this one and this one and then in full combat. In other words, when we're in a full-blown battle, these are everyone's positions. Well, in that situation a condition is established, let's say, in which, depending on the ship, a certain number of people are positioned outside, like the one we were seeing in the photo with the machine gun, and occupy those positions, right? Ultimately, what you're aiming for is to cover all your sectors, right? In other words, to have 360-degree protection. Uh, and for that, the usual thing is to have maybe a couple of seats in the bow area, two or four seats in the upper areas and another two seats in the rear areas, for example, right? It could be three and three or whatever, but well, uh, so we have a reference point, to cover all sectors and so it's done with machine guns again of 12.7 caliber, maybe 62, some larger ones up to 20 or 25 mm and, like I said, they try to overlap those sectors so that everything is covered, right? And well, knowing that larger caliber ones usually have a greater range and so on. Then that management, that is, managing all those weapons so that each one has a target, not just one against the others and so on, well, it's super important, we practice that a lot. That management is usually handled by an officer, obviously a junior officer, and it's very... I mean, when the exercises are done it's very tense, it's one of the most tense and most entertaining situations, but at the moment it makes you, in my opinion, try to coordinate all those resources, right? Because it's not like when you sit at the CICE in front of the console, is it? In the computer, let's say, at the information and combat center, you don't have everything on your screen, but you're perhaps on the bridge and you have to try to see everything with your eyes, but of course, if you're overwhelmed as happens in these cases, it's impossible to see everything at once. The ship moves, the enemy moves too, the weapons are talking to you, a lot of people are talking at once, it's stressful, but if you've practiced, then those systems work superbly and it's really beautiful to see them working when those systems are meshed together. I'll tell you a secret. New visits I made to a ship, eh, I'm a bit of a gossip and I was also with José María and what we see is, well, in an area of the commander, right? There is, let's say, the ship's command area. To the right of the commander's station, there was a command post, I do n't know who it belongs to, if it's an operator or something, and it had a kind of plan of the ship with the places to put those metadata in case of a drone attack.
Clear. Yes, yes.
It said drone attack. That's pretty much what I was saying.
The locations are really more or less the same, whether it's for drones, boats, or whatever, right? Because in the end, those weapons, if they're not fixed— the larger ones are, the 20mm ones are, but the 12.7mm and others usually have bases on which to support them, right? Even though you can take the machine around, you still have to lock it down somewhere when you're going to open fire, right? The one with 7 that is 62 maybe not, but the ones with 127 yes, right? A Browning, uh, well, it's quite heavy and you have to prop it up somewhere to fire it, right? And a tripe made of, let's say, dirt won't do because that sits too low on the ground, right? Uh, even if you put it up high, it might wobble and move. So they have their sites, right?
So, even though you can move them around and that has some flexibility, it's more or less pre-configured, right? In the end, as I said, we have to cover the 360 degrees and have a few sectors to always have a couple of weapons for each sector so that any threat has at least two weapons covering it, right? And to have a variety of calibers and such and a little bit of that. Of course, we're talking about them already being visible. In other words, we're talking about distances.
Logically, maybe Claro, of course.
If you have the ISR, let's say, you have the surveillance capacity, you'll see them coming from afar. Now, if you don't have the ability to face them from afar, for whatever reason, you're going to face them very close.
That creates tension, but we have to be aware, and it has been demonstrated because they have emerged unscathed, that the firepower of a destroyer with small-caliber weapons, yes, with missiles and such, of course, but with small- caliber weapons is also impressive.
Then, they can become overwhelmed.
Yes, man, yes. Well, someday they'll give it to someone, right? But if they catch you prepared, it's another thing entirely if they surprise you, isn't it? Well, it happened to me with an American ship years ago. I don't want to say the name because, oh, the one they hit with the boat full of explosives.
Yes, yes. Uh, no, the Stark was the Stark could have been, well, I don't know. I mean, if they catch you off guard, let's say, it's easier, but if they catch you prepared, they can still get you, but well, uh, especially if you're thinking about helicopter support and such, it's more difficult. Like I said, the call was on October 12, 2000, the call, the coal, indeed, the coal, eh.
So, like I said, if they catch you prepared—I'm not saying it's impossible or anything—but if you're alert and well-trained, if you've done the exercises properly and all that, well, you should come out of it okay, right? There's the CO, they gave him a good whack.
Sure, a quiet area, let's say.
Clear.
Uh, what you're seeing on the map are NASAF remnants of fires on the water, from the very day of the attack on the three destroyers. Uh, therefore, people either intelligently or simply believe that they are speedboats on fire floating on the sea. The ones that sank must not be the ones that were there. Of course, the issue we 're seeing here on Street Ormoh is that there are movements of speedboats many days and they're seen on satellites, but of course, this time the three receivers who knew they were attracting attention saw the boats approaching, which on other days might have been around and they wouldn't have been fired upon, but since they're close to the destroyers, everything starts to be applied. But then, of course, they started launching missiles and drones at them, and that's when things start to change, and that's when we enter the other half, right?
in the other environment, right?, which is the air. So, in the air, well, no, I mean, here the helicopter is practically useless, okay? It's true that they've been used a little against drones, but well, that's more difficult, isn't it? And here he's always on the defensive, okay? Because the speed advantage will always be for the missile, even for the drone.
So, in missile defense, how is it done? It's also done in layers, okay? Somewhat similar to the one we made earlier with the surface one. Uh, the problem you have here is that the outer layer falls very, very short because you're right next to it. Well, normally, the Iranians aren't going to launch it from their capital, they're going to launch it from the coast. So, reaction times, especially for detection, are very short, right? And then you have the part, let's say, of saturation, meaning you can't face everything with your good missiles because you run out of them, right? And then it's true that once you get into this, you generally assume that everything that comes towards you is bad and you can take it down, but well, you have to be careful not to start shooting at anything that moves, right? Because the Vincense already happened, if I remember correctly, I think it was in the 80s, in this same area there in the Persian Gulf, it shot down a commercial plane, right? with 200-odd people on board. Uh, it's true that the Americans probably already knew in this scenario, I mean, the airspace there is kind of closed at night and they knew what they were going to do and I'm sure that the air traffic control was super controlled in such a way that they knew that if the saucepan is flying, I mean, if it's flying and it doesn't have IFF, the friend-or-foe identifier, it 's bad, right? So, well, many things come into play here. Well, one factor is what we talked about at the beginning, which is that if not everything was missiles, missiles, but some were rockets, you can to a certain extent assume that they are not going to hit you and react cinematically, move the ship and simply get it out of the way, right?
Uh, and then there are the ones that are real missiles, uh, you defend yourself against them like you would against a normal missile, right? How do you defend yourself against a normal missile? Well, there it is, like I said, that layered defense. Normally in this type of scenario, you're not going to use your own medium-to-long-range missile, let's say, your medium-to-long-range anti-missile missile, because it's too late. Once you detect the enemy, you have short- range missiles, which in the case of the Yankees are the Evolts and Sparrow ESM, okay? These fit four per cell of the Mark 41 launcher, so they can carry dozens on any destroyer. Oh, and then if the missiles are good, whether they're radar-guided or infrared, you have the decoys, okay?
What we call chaf. Uh, the chafing comes in radar, infrared, and combined versions. These are basically strips of metal that are launched into the air and generate a cloud of noise, whether radar or infrared, uh, I mean, thermal or electromagnetic, uh, that confuses missiles, right? And then you have, uh, uh, the artillery part, let's say, right? Both your main artillery, in the case of destroyers, have 5- inch guns which are a bit slow for anti-aircraft warfare, okay? You can use them, it's true that they have the advantage that, being a large caliber, the cone of the explosion is very large, so you do n't have to aim. If the shot passes close enough, you might bring him down, but hey, it's not the best setup for this type of defense. These mounts are designed more for surface fire or for firing at ground level.
Um, and then there are the systems like, okay, the famous closing weapon systems and, uh, other types of machine guns, uh, uh, especially for drones, okay? Uh, all of this is layers. You start facing it as far away as you can, that is, if you detect it as soon as it leaves the coast and you have time to launch a medium- range missile at it, you launch it. If you're clear that it's a missile that's been launched at you, eh, and inwards, well, all the people from that time, right? Uh, sure, I imagine the Iranians threw everything they had at them, and it's true there were three of them, but well, that's not many, three ships and they came out unscathed, so there we have a Cwish opening fire, okay? A Cwish, for those who don't know, is a point defense system. Again, they are, well, there are some with small missiles like this one, but the ones we saw before are again, uh, let's say machine guns, again multi-barrel with a very high rate of fire and that generate a kind of barrier of projectiles that the missile crashes into, right? Um, where was I?
So, that's it, I know, you start to face it the further away the better. Of course, what comes into play here is selecting the best weapon for each target, right? Because? Because you have the drones on the other side. So, drones are slower. Drones, in a scenario where you 're combining them with missiles, are almost more useful for saturation than anything else, because if you can't hit them with a missile, I mean, if I were the Iranian, I'd be thinking, if I can't hit them with a missile, I'm not going to hit them with a drone. The drone is a much easier target, it's slower, uh, well, mostly slower, right? And usually bigger too. In other words, you can barely see the missiles from the front, they're very small, while the drone actually has wings and is bigger, right?
Well, it doesn't always have to be like this, but it helps us understand each other. Okay, so if you do it right, if you have the time and you're able to manage it, what you should do is dedicate your best weapons to the most dangerous threats and your least good weapons to the least dangerous threats, okay? Uh, I mean, if you have to launch your own missiles, use them against the other side's missiles and leave the artillery part for the drones, okay? Uh, and then the chafing, the electronic warfare part only normally works against missiles, unless you're able to disrupt the guidance of drones, okay? If you know the frequency at which drones operate and you're able to disrupt them with electromagnetic noise at that frequency, okay? With systems that ships have that are basically just that, disruptive electromagnetic noise generators, then you could get rid of the drones with electronic warfare, okay? The advantage of this is that the ammunition is infinite, meaning that as long as you have electricity you can shoot jets of electromagnetic energy and you don't even have to think about it because if it's not a drone, you just hit it and well, nothing happens to it, right? Whereas if you fire a missile you can always have doubts, although I say that in this scenario I don't think it was the case that you were firing at a commercial airplane or something else, right? Even your own helicopter, right?
Imagine, even though they're all online, well, there are always glitches, right? And that happened with those demolitions that took place at the beginning, right?
The Emiratis shot down three Americans.
Cubaí. Cubaitiis. Yes, that's it. Uh, they were saying, now they're saying that an Iranian F5 came in and was very nervous because they didn't know who it was.
Yes, that's the famous fog of war that everyone talks about, and then when people do their analyses from home, they do everything very neatly and we're not aware of the noise and the absolute uncertainty that exists in these combat situations. In other words, no matter how sophisticated your computer system is, you'll never have all the information, you'll never have everything clear, and you'll never be sure of what's going on, right? So, like I said, for example, right? Imagine you're there with your saws and your Apaches flying against the boats and stuff and one of them has his command and control system malfunction, his FF malfunctions, I do n't know what and you hit him with a missile.
Well, if instead of a missile you hit it with electronic warfare, a burst of interference, you're not going to do anything to it, right? However, if it's an enemy drone, you do shoot it down or at least confuse it, but if it's your helicopter, you don't shoot it down, right?
So that's one of the great advantages of electronic warfare, isn't it?
Apart from the price and the fact that the ammunition is infinite.
Look, speaking of that, uh, I think this news is relevant right now, because Donald Trump, well, he's a big fan of social media, he's a... and he discovered an article and joined our Twitter account, but he posted this about drones with lasers, and it's kind of strange because the United States hasn't confirmed that they have them deployed, and he posted two posts, that one and this one, I mean, two. And he said something about how beautiful it was to see the drones burning in the sky, didn't he? And well, uh, I mean, I think I might have them on one of these frigates already, or maybe not.
I think that at that level, communication is more political than military, right? Therefore, the specific terminology should be taken with a grain of salt. Uh, we know they've tried them. The Helios system, if I remember correctly, is an American laser system that they are testing, and they have tested it and know how to keep it, they have tested it to shoot down drones. We do n't know if they've deployed it, as you say. There it is, there's the Elios High Energy laser, which is a laser for shooting down drones. Well, drones and other targets, but well, mainly drones, right?
Um, so, well, here are two possibilities. I'm not taking sides. There is a possibility that these ships do not have it and have shot it down with what we have discussed, with CIWIs, with artillery, with etc. And the other possibility is that they installed it on these ships. Perhaps that's why they were so calm as they crossed Orm, because they knew they had the system and that the system works.
This would be it, look, right?
And it won't be the first time. I mean, man, when you go to war, those systems you have there, well, I'm testing them. Well, man, it works.
Yes, well stop testing and you're going to really test it here. And if it works here, we're going to really test it because that's the best way to... Wait, like the Ukrainians do at arms shows, they put "tested in war".
There it is. So, the best test is to try it on our own; obviously you can't fully trust it, but hey, you combine it with other systems, right? Uh, in fact, uh, well, he left, I think almost everyone will remember the system they used to locate the pilot who had crashed in Iran. Hey, do you remember? Uh, the CIA had a system that was capable of detecting human heartbeats, uh, from space or something like that. Uh, that's what I was saying. Well, I don't know if it's true, it seems like science fiction to us all, doesn't it? But well, it seems so.
With lasers, we know that there are problems because there's a combination of factors, right? I'm not an engineer and I'm far from being one, but there's a combination of the power you're able to generate with the laser and then, let's say, how the laser spreads out as it travels through space, right? And the small particles that do it, well, that they lose strength, that they diffuse, etc., etc. Okay?
This is absolutely not terminology. I do n't think it would normally work very well here in Asturias.
As? As?
In Asturias, with the fog, with the bad weather.
Exact. So those are the problems that were developing, as far as we know, because they may have solved them, we do n't know for sure either. I mean, I think that the, I mean, the images that are also made with artificial intelligence, right?, that have been able to be published, right? That's not a criterion for saying they have them, is it? But I wouldn't be surprised if they had them. Well, what's more, even without those images being explained, we could consider it. Hey, do you think they installed the helios that were being tested on these three ships and then installed them so they could go to the Ruz?
Yes, that would seem perfectly plausible to me. Yes, yes, of course.
And they're using it in Israel. Well, they're bigger, aren't they?
The Aon Bing is a larger system. Yes, yes. And I'm telling you, I mean, it's the future, uh, the future of... There are also a lot of people who, when they start talking about whether you have to carry a lot of missiles to face drones and such, I say, no, no, you are totally confused. To center drones, what you need are laser systems when they are operational, which we don't know if they are yet, and high-rate-of-fire artillery systems, right? And a lot of precision or sufficient precision. Hey, you can't kill flies with a cannon, as the Israelis well know. You need to get a system that can take down a cheap threat cheaply, because it's not so much about being cheap as it is about logistics on the ship. I mean, in the end you can't build a ship that carries 1000 missiles because it would be a real eyesore, right?
So he has found other alternatives and it is perfectly viable to shoot down drones both with lasers as soon as the technology advances a little, if it isn't already, and especially with artillery pieces that have been done, let's say, all our lives.
Well, that's why I put "tran" there, it 's eye-catching.
Yes, yes, it's entirely possible that they already have them deployed there.
And we're left with the point. I think we talked about defenses, we talked about anti-aircraft guns, and well, speaking of this, I had an image here. Uh, they were asking two things, they were asking one thing and another that I just discovered and I'll tell you, okay?
Uh, we're talking about the Apachi, but these tigers also seemed to have a lot of success fighting against Saget-type drones. And now the French Navy wants to put these in the flasks.
Of course, and the next thing we'll see is that naval helicopters will be able to mount these types of rocket launchers, which is already possible, right? But let's say they specialize in this, right? Because it's clearly an ideal platform, isn't it? Like I said, I mean, I see the Apache as ideal in this scenario. I don't know about boats and drones because we have less information, right? of what they are capable of and what they are not capable of doing against drones, but for boats it seems to me the ideal platform to confront them, without a doubt, for agility, speed, uh, come on, the Tigers, France said that it shot down numerous Saget-type drones, well, Saget with the drones, with the helicopters and these Tigers.
Yes, yes. Well, that might be the answer, right? That's kind of what I was saying before, isn't it? Choosing your best weapon for each target, that's part of the difficulty of managing those scenarios, isn't it? It's no longer just about defending yourself, but about defending yourself in a way that allows you to defend yourself for an extended period of time, because yes, of course, here we can, every time there's a threat, boom, I launch a missile, boom, I launch a missile, yes, well, but this isn't infinite, is it? So you have to choose the best one for each one, right? And that's where the work is. Ultimately, that falls on one person, right? I mean, that's not it, there's no artificial intelligence here, nothing like that. There's a guy on the ship who gives the order that each ship, hey, you deal with this, you deal with this, deal with this, and among the ships there's one who coordinates them because so that two ships don't go after one threat and then none go after the other, right? So, all of that is done by voice through a coordination circuit.
Oh, and it's a person, I mean, it's a human who does it in the end.
Yes, yes. Well, one of the last threads you posted was about AI at sea, right? In AI, in naval warfare. And I speak a bit like that and open the door to the option, right?, that it's not humans. On land, in ground attacks, right?, with drones. The war in Ukraine gave us millions of data points, didn't it?
Vigat, who now apparently are all being used to launch drones and make decisions in the attack, right? But your thread, well, it's true that you're absolutely right, in naval warfare there isn't that much information to feed one because one feeds on big data, right? What's it called. I'm a little skeptical, but please don't misunderstand me.
I am not saying that artificial intelligence will not be applied in the field of naval warfare. That doesn't mean things won't improve, not at all, but I'm a little skeptical. Because?
Because for artificial intelligence to learn, it needs something to learn from, and there is no information; that is, there haven't been any major naval battles. And even the information that does exist—the problem, which extends to all military areas— is that this information is generally not shared because it is sensitive. But this has been happening to us for years; that is, it happens to us with acoustic intelligence.
If I don't know, I'll make it up. Let's say France, I do n't know, gets information from a German submarine, okay? that both countries are in NATO, a German submarine, uh, with a configuration that was only out for a few days because they put a new propeller on it for testing, I don't know how long, and the French were very interested and went nearby with their own submarine and got acoustic information. Do you think that acoustic information has been passed on to the rest of NATO? No, because then they would be saying that they were there where they shouldn't have been. And when I give you this absurd example, imagine something else, right? Uh, all that information you can't pass on because you're saying where you've been, right?
Uh, and so let's say that this information, being compartmentalized, prevents the generation of large databases that can be used to train artificial intelligence, which doesn't mean it won't be done, okay? But that's more difficult. Moreover, I even think that these days, you know, these small battles, okay?, that you're seeing, you can learn things from them, but if we ever go back to a big naval war, it's not going to be like the one we know now. There will be new and different things. And I am far from being an expert in artificial intelligence, but I do believe that at least for now the limitation of artificial intelligence is that it is capable of inferring things, but it has more difficulty creating things from scratch. Okay.
Yes, yes, it is generative. It is generative from things that they, no, but it is not creative, it is generative. That's the case. In fact, if you ask her—well, all of you who have played with her a bit know this—if you ask her for a picture of a pretty girl walking through the center of Seville, she'll do a great job. But if you ask him for an image of, I'm making it up, eh, a soldier of the Spanish Tercios on the edge of a galley at Lepanto, such and such, he paints the Spanish flag of Rojigualda instead of the one of the No, of Saint George, but this is not, but you didn't feed him well, you have to give him hundreds of well-explained photos. So, in the military field, this is going to happen a lot: the machines, these Chinese artificial intelligence systems, won't have enough information to give you good results, right? And besides, the information we give you is even contradictory because we're going to give you information about exercises and the exercises aren't reliable. It is very difficult to replicate the reality of war in an exercise. This reality we were talking about before, the uncertainty of not knowing anything, of everything failing, of not finding out, right? In the final exercises, since what we are looking for is to train ourselves, we generate the conditions that will allow that training. Well, but the reality is very different. In reality, then, uh, in the exercise we force the ships to meet so they can practice, but in reality they might not meet and then that meeting never happens naturally and we don't really know what it's like, right? In short, there are a lot of different scenarios, right?
So, like I said, I'm not saying it won't help, I'm not saying it won't be used, but we have to be a little skeptical, because there are people who seem to think that with artificial intelligence the world is ending, it's the end of history, and in the military and naval fields specifically, I think it's going to be applied much less than in the rest of our lives.
Well, regarding drones, I don't know yet if they're being used in Ukraine, but we're back to the same point, there's no information because many drones have been used, especially the small ones. The little ones, yes, yes, but the little ones at sea don't have much more.
No, no, no, I don't mean on land, I mean, of course, of course.
Well, Ukraine, Ukraine, well, the Magura and all that uses them quite a bit, but it's true that these attacks, well, they're not all very similar, so there won't be much data generation there either. Like I said, there are things that are true, and you're right about that, but I think there will also be many limitations, especially in terms of decision-making and so on. There, it won't be so... it won't be so much more because of morality and ethics.
Yes. Well, and then of course indeed, and I've said that a lot when we've talked about the topic of underwater drones. I've always said it.
The problem with the underwater drone is, who is going to give the power to a machine that kills people?
The underwater drone cannot communicate.
So, when you have an underwater drone that detects an enemy submarine, you're going to let it decide whether to kill those people, because underwater it's not like on the surface where, oh yeah, yeah, it's the bad guy because I can see him, no, there you depend on acoustic intelligence, it depends on whether it's working properly or not. So there's a lot to unpack there.
Or the war is over and the drone still knows it's out there hunting. Indeed.
Sure, sure, sure. Because if you gave someone a license to plunder, he'd say, "I'll keep robbing French ships." There wasn't a... I think there was a Japanese soldier who... decades later they brought him out and the man was convinced that... Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Look, there's a news item that has to do with this, that I was going to tell you because I find it very interesting. I just wanted to know if it's common.
Today on social media we're seeing the case of the Yus Alaska, an Ohio-class submarine, one of those that's in Gibraltar and which they say are rarely seen outside, right? These are the ones who are there for 90 days, right?
Well, but these are, if I'm not mistaken, the Alaska is an Ohio and the Ohios are... But this one is a converted one, is n't it? These have gone from being the ones that launch my Tomahawk-type weapons.
Yes, indeed, they have gone from being nuclear ballistic missiles to being, uh, they call them SSCN, right? Guided missiles. Okay, because these people sell it as having nuclear medicines, but if it's one of those I'm going to look for. Let's see, it's the Basque one. Alaska, yes, I'm looking for it. Yes.
Uh, no, like I said, I was saying it from memory, uh, and yes, yes, that's not SSVN. So, everyone who's talking about this is talking a little bit about fulo, but it's clear, it's one. So, I think this is a Tomahawk-type missile launcher.
That is.
Yes, it's that one, come on. Yes. Well, everyone on the internet is saying that of course it's strange because this one, this one doesn't usually show itself much, it's not like it's used for launching nuclear missiles and such, but well, it has happened before.
These aren't usually seen much either, because what happens is that they're being used a bit like missile platforms, they can carry, I don't remember the name, but anyway, a huge amount, many dozens of Tomahawk missiles, and then also special operations platforms, well, this one doesn't carry them because you can't see them, they put both on it, I did see it a month ago, we lived on one coming back to the United States. I have a bad memory of them being swimmer delivery vehicles. Well, anyway, I forgot the acronym, but let's go. And then yes, and well, nothing to enter Gibraltar. It's true that the British have, I think, some minimal facilities there to support their submarines, and I suppose they must have taken advantage of some of that, right? A diplomatic message as well.
Look, we're sending another one so it can be. They've also broken into Rota from time to time, haven't they? I do n't think I've seen any Ojayos, but the attack class is angels.
Look, so you can see that I do my homework well. I have one here that was caught this year; it was posted on March 31st in Shelter. This one is coming out of the Mediterranean and it had one of these systems.
Yes, the DS Drix Shelter. That's a module, and from there the combat divers and sometimes the small submarine they have also come out, right?
Yes, yes, of course. And the strange thing is that it came out right at the height of the Mediterranean war, because maybe they wanted to use it at the time for something in Ormud, or maybe they didn't use it, or maybe they have used it, or maybe it's there for something else, we don't know.
Anyway, uh, well, we don't know if it's crossed Suez, right? Because Suez does have to cross it on the surface, eh, maybe the news is out there somewhere. Otherwise, it stayed inside, it stayed in the Mediterranean and maybe it launched from there, right? This one, no, this one, when I published it was leaving, it was leaving the Mediterranean.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But I mean, of course, in that month we don't know what we're doing, right? Of course, maybe he's stayed in the Syrian area, right? And from there he could launch the missiles to Iran, or maybe he crossed Suez and he was seen crossing Switzerland a few days ago and we haven't seen him.
Well, this is today and it's one of those. So in the end it's not exactly what almost all the accounts that talk about pitchers say.
If it's Ohio, I think they're all converted. It already says SSBN, those are not SSBN, it's a nuclear ballistic missile. Well, it says, no, it doesn't say, well, it says that, huh? Well, it says that and the SSCN, right? Well, this one says SSBN.
Okay, Witch is fine, but it quotes Wikipedia, which isn't exactly the most reliable source either.
No, you're right.
No, this one is ballistic. There are four that have been converted: Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia. Those four were nuclear ballistic missiles and now they're missiles, let's say. SSGN. So, no, this one, the Alaska is still ballistic. Yes, it's strange. Maybe they've had some maintenance issues or something, they've had to go out and do something, or maybe, as you say, it was simply a diplomatic message.
Perhaps, although it's not usually the case because they are very strategic assets, in fact it's rare to find them here, they've used them for something else, I mean, even though it's a nuclear ballistic missile, they've used it for something else, that's why it's rare because normally, I mean, they are very expensive assets, very, well, very specific and they usually use them for what they are for, which is nuclear disarmament, right? But well, we don't know. I think this is submarine diplomacy.
Could be.
There's a news story that I'm sure you recognize, this famous Clash Trump, Clash Trump that they wanted to do.
Ah, yes, it was a cuirassier. Armored, isn't it?
Well, now there's talk of putting nuclear propulsion in it, because of course, it's very big, isn't it? And you know I said it as soon as it came out, but because, I mean, without being an engineer again, because of what they wanted to set up for him, it wasn't right. So, you're doing that with diesel engines, I mean, you would have needed 16 diesel engines to provide enough power, right? Because what about adding lasers, I think directed energy weapons, and then all the normal stuff, and that would give me I do n't know how many knots. In other words, you don't need a rector to generate all this.
Sure. Come on, I said it as soon as it came out. Well, if they want to do it and they're going to do it, it almost certainly has to be nuclear. Well, then we can get into the debate about whether it's necessary or not, but of course, they argue that it's for a missile war, right? The more missile capability you have.
Yes. Look, this is a bit like Zoomwalt, you know, those who have followed me for a while will know. It's a Zoomwalt, eh, less ugly or less modern, come on. But yes, he said that the ships were very ugly, so he wanted to do something more classic.
Yes, indeed, they have the advantage of being a very large navy, being able to afford to have several levels of ships. Our warships are practically all frigates, that's it, because we can't have destroyers, frigates, corvettes and all kinds of ships, right?
But they can, and it's good to have that range of possibilities, isn't it?
Although they have nothing underneath. Well, now they're finally going to build the frigates, although we'll see how it turns out. They have nothing underneath the frigate. that could have corvettes, right? But to have that ability to say, "Hey, look, I have a super capable ship to command a squadron and act as, let's say, a flagship, a small surface patrol vessel, without an aircraft carrier or anything, I have small ships for escort duties, I need to have that flexibility. We do n't have that kind of smaller options, do we? Because, of course, we'd have to have two or three ships of each class, and that's very inefficient.
But it does make sense for them to consider having—well, let's just make up some numbers, right?—maybe 10 cruisers, right? 10 ships like this or like the Zoomwelt, then have the 70 or 80 destroyers they have, have 50 frigates, maybe even have 50 corvettes below the frigates, right? And that gives you much more flexibility, it allows you to send, for example, the Ormud cruiser— this wasn't meant for a Destroyer, this was a mission for a corvette, and a corvette because there were missiles, not even for a patrol boat, right?
But it was a mission for a corvette because you're risking a lot with a very expensive ship. So, if you're going to risk a lot with a very expensive ship, do it with one that can defend itself, which is a corvette, but one that's much cheaper, right?
And maybe in that sense, the US Navy is currently lacking that flexibility, isn't it? It's true that they've been wanting to rebuild the frigates for years since they decommissioned Perry, which I think was around 2015. And I think they're partly aware of that because they've been trying for years, right? Well, with all the problems they've had, but anyway. In fact, there was a Navantia project, wasn't there? If I remember correctly, among the... Yes, Navantia lost that contract, in my opinion, because... because they had bad luck or made a bad decision, I don't know because I don't know how it was... He developed that, but basically Navantia had gotten involved with the shipyard that builds the Harleyburg-class frigates, and the Italian company had gotten involved with the shipyard that builds the LCSs, the Littoral Combat Ships. What happened? The Littoral Combat Ships were canceled, and that shipyard was left without work, and the Harleyburgs were going to continue being built, so that shipyard couldn't build any more ships.
So, obviously, the contract went to the shipyard that would be able to build them. Furthermore, in that state, in the state the LCS shipyard was in, it was a key state in the elections, so the Republicans had to win, right?
So, these contracts aren't decided by that; they're decided by two other things, and of course, I also said this at the time, and they're going to have a huge problem with the Constellation-class frigates because Spain is the only country that has integrated the LCS into a frigate. It continues to be the only country that has integrated the LCS into ours, into the Australian ones that they call destroyers, but well, they are Just like ours, and the Norwegian ones, which are even smaller. The only other countries— Korea, Japan, and so on—all have much larger ships, and the Americans, of course.
And indeed, that's exactly what happened to them. They wanted to add Aegis to their frames, and the frames got out of hand and turned into huge vessels.
Suddenly it was incredibly expensive; they had to change everything. It was much more expensive because instead of building a frame with Aegis, they were building a new frame because a frame with Aegis doesn't exist. If they had built Formula 1 ships with Aegis, it already existed, and they wouldn't have had this problem.
So, let's move on to the audience questions, Fede. The people who follow you on Twitter—you have a very interesting account—should read the book Naval Tactics, but above all, they should get ready for what's already out, which is The Fierce Turk at Lepanto, a book about Álvaro Bazán, John of Austria, and Miguel de Cervantes. What more could we ask for?
No, this one is my latest historical novel. The It's true, wow, it's being very well received, and I'm very happy because Lepanto is a spectacular story, and it took me a lot of work to research it because, well, there's so much written about it, right? So, I read about eight books and a magazine, and sure, 90% of it is pretty much the same everywhere, but then there's that 10% of each source that's pure gold, right? And it really is spectacular.
Incredible anecdotes, stories that actually happened, right? And you find them scattered throughout the chronicles, and they're spectacular, and I'm really thrilled. So, if anyone likes historical fiction, they should check it out because it's getting a lot of attention, so I encourage people to get a read. He'll be back to present it when his schedule of in-person presentations allows, and I hope the book by our friend Fede is very successful.
It will be available in all bookstores, and the one on Naval Tactics is on Amazon. I mention this so we know how to differentiate between the Amazon books. And on my website too, if anyone wants it, it's also a little discounted.
Well, on my website, Francisco Capa, my people can also order it. Uh, look, Fede, I have something that maybe you have, I don't know if you have it, which is a stamp with the logo of Regio Hermano. Yes, yes. That goes on the books for those who buy them on the website, and they come with the brand. That's cool, I didn't know about it, to be honest.
One of my brothers gave it to me.
Yes, yes. Well, let's get to the questions. How is the Spanish army doing in terms of exploration and counter-exploration? Obviously compared to other armies, for example, our neighbor.
Well, I'm talking about the Navy, which is what I know.
Yes, right? We're referring to the Navy. Yes, yes. Uh, let's see, at sea the problem you have is that, exploration from the ship only reaches the horizon, and the horizon is very close, and for us the horizon is rounded from the bridge or from the radar.
Let's say, from a ship. It's between 12 and 15 miles, okay? That's 20-something, 30 km.
Uh, that gives you a reaction time, for example, if they fire a subsonic missile at you, of 1 minute, 90 seconds, a minute, okay? It's very close, uh, and nowadays naval combat, by common sense, has to be beyond the horizon, right?
So, how do you scout? You scout with aircraft. Uh, and there we have a little problem. In Spain, we've decommissioned our maritime patrol aircraft, which are land-based aircraft that fly over the sea. Uh, in Spain, they were also from the Air Force, although they carried out purely naval missions. Uh, in other countries they belong to the navies, and we've decommissioned them without spare parts, let's say. And the spare part that we've decided to buy, instead of buying the one that everyone else is buying, absolutely everyone else, which is the P-8 Poseidon, well, we've decided to buy one that we're going to make in Spain, but that Well, in terms of capabilities it 's far inferior, not only to the Poseidon-class destroyer, but even to the one we already had, right? Obviously it's more modern, but in terms of range, endurance, sensor and weapons payload capacity, well, it's very limited, isn't it?
So we're quite lacking there.
And then the other side, let's say, is the carrier-based helicopters. With carrier-based helicopters, we've always been quite good with ours. Now some Seahawk Romeos and MH60 Romeos are coming. There aren't many. We'll see if more come, or if in the end they finally build the tactical NH90, the H90 anti-submarine helicopter, which we always talk about, both the MPA and the helicopter, as anti-submarines, but they're fundamental in surface warfare, which is where this reconnaissance we were talking about takes place. So, we'll see. And what else? Oh, well, and then there's the helicopter side. Early warning aircraft, or even early warning aircraft like those carried by American and French aircraft carriers, right? They call them Screw Tops because of the radar they have on top, which is like a mushroom.
And the thing is, you need a large aircraft carrier to be able to launch one. And we don't have that. Back in the day, what we had were the early warning helicopters, which were King Air helicopters with an early warning or aerial early warning version, equipped with a large radar. You'd take them up to a certain altitude, and with that, you'd gain a much wider field of view and observe much further than where you were standing. So, what will drones allow us to do? That's one of the things where I think they'll be crucial. We'll probably be able to do this with drones. It's not one of the missions I think is most suitable for a drone. So, let's hope that in a few years... Let's see if drones with this exploration capability are being launched from Juan Carlos I Airport, right? So, well, we're not doing badly, but we could be doing better.
The MPA issue, in particular, is quite critical.
Everyone who follows me knows I've been very critical of it. I think we're completely wrong.
Besides, when everyone else is doing something and you're doing the opposite, assuming you're the smartest in the room, is a bit presumptuous. It's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? Everyone makes mistakes and only you get it right.
Anyway, it seems a little presumptuous to me, but oh well. And we'll see how the helicopter issue develops. If we go with the S90, let's say, navalized, tactically only for Spain, we're going to have the problem of developing a dozen aircraft just for ourselves, which means we'll have to bear all the development costs, and it's going to be very expensive. And we're also going to have to... The drawbacks that these systems have from the start are natural, but of course, if you go it alone, you have that disadvantage, right? It has advantages, obviously, that certain industrial independence and the ability to adapt it to your needs and make it work the way you want, but in terms of time, robustness, reliability, and so on, well, it's not the same, is it? So, well, I don't know if I've answered more or less.
Yes, yes, more than less. Very good. Um, what's the cost of these anti-ships? Well, this, of course, this will depend. Yes, of course.
Well, I don't know, uh. We haven't done this for many years, and, look, in the study, for anyone who's curious, on the blog, uh, I published an article about the Navy 2050, right?
Which has caused quite a stir, there was this transfer with the plan. So, uh, based on an article that came out in the Naval Thought Notebooks and doing some calculations, uh, we used a system called The equivalent frigate, right?
So, basically they say, "A frigate costs, I don't know if it was 800 million, uh, and then, uh, with the equivalent frigate system, uh, that's there, uh, let's say, by multiples you get what the whole fleet costs, right?" So, well, a submarine costs the same as a frigate, a corvette costs half, an aircraft carrier costs, I don't remember, I'm speaking from memory, but I think it was every 6000 tons of LHD costs the same as a frigate and so on.
So I think that's where, if you look at the MCM, the sixth part is indeed, right?
0.17.
That's what they estimate him to be, one-sixth. So if the frigate was around 800, then calculate it at one hundred and something million, right?
But like I said, this is a purely theoretical estimate and we'll have to see, right?
Furthermore, I insist that our future minesweepers should be mother ships for underwater drones.
So, the boat itself might be much cheaper, and what's expensive will be what's inside, right?
So, sure, it's difficult, I don't know, we'd have to see, we can do a quick search to see who has recently bought minesweepers and how much they cost, but right now nobody comes to mind.
Uh, like I said, ours are on their way to being 25, if not 30. Yes, they're already 25, so the first one, so, yes, yes.
In the Gulf, supercavitation torpedoes are a real danger due to the short distances involved, or they have remained just undeveloped ideas.
I'm skeptical of supercavitating torpedoes and hypersonic missiles, but more so than the Garat and San Jurjo. Admiral San Jurjo also said that I 'm not very skeptical, very very skeptical.
Uh, first we're back to the same thing. If this were real and it worked, does anyone really believe that everyone wouldn't already have it? Or at least the powerful ones? In other words, we believe that Russia has been able to develop it, but the United States has not.
Well, how many things do people believe about that?
Look, I'm not saying they're incapable of doing something, or that they won't be able to do it in a few years, but if it were really useful, because we've already been dealing with this super-inhabitant clumsy thing for easily two decades. Do you really believe that the United States in 20 years has not even been able to develop it, but has instead stolen the design and such? Nothing, it's very complicated, I mean, theoretically it's viable, but it's very complicated. Also, keep in mind that I've always said the same thing: they have to be straight lines. You ca n't change that course because it falls apart, that is, if you try to change that course it will be destroyed. And then not the system, the torpedo is incapable of having any information from the outside. If he's constantly training, he won't be able to know what's going on outside. So it could only have been a fixed point, right?
Uh, and then the Psycho has another drawback which is the probe, uh, there's very little probe.
So, we would have to look at those torpedoes that probably need a certain depth margin because they cannot supercavitate if there is not enough space, say, enough free water to do so. I don't know, I'm just rambling, but I see it as complicated.
Last week they were training minesweepers off the coast of Alicante. It is common for them to go to the strait.
Well, the entire Spanish fleet, several ships, just set sail today.
Yes, it's common. It's common. Now they're here, the flotex have just started, and then the minehunters are based in Cartagena and they usually patrol the Mediterranean area quite a bit. They're going to be in the Balearic Islands, that's a lot too. Alicantes, and yes, it's normal.
Hey, is there any news about the future Spanish aircraft carrier Catobar, or was it fake news and at most they'll build another HD? Well, those of us who are Garat and these big shots, those who can speak San Jurjo, all want an aircraft carrier of this type. Another thing is that there's money, and another thing is that I want it. I want it and a yellow tractor.
But let's see if we reach 5% defense.
Sure, the catobar, that study I was doing, if you're curious I'll take a look, eh, it was without the catobar, okay? But he was talking about three LHDs, three Juan Carlos Is, in fact, probably even bigger than the Juan Carlos, uh, plus keeping two of the old ones plus three new small ones. Of course, all this obviously has to be with the F35 because otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Having 3 LHDs without F35 makes no sense.
And it was economically viable, uh, with only 2% of GDP. It was economically viable by 2040, by 2037, but the catobar wasn't included in that.
So, with Cobar, what I want people to think about is not whether we want him or need him or not, which, hey, that's debatable, but how we got to him, okay? If you decide you want a catobar today, it's 2026, you won't have it until 2046.
Okay, keep in mind that we have to design it from scratch, that this doesn't exist and it's the first time we'd be doing it, so obviously it's not going to turn out right the first time, just like what happened with the submarines and that's normal, okay?
Uh, we can talk about alliances with other countries and have France help us, or do it with the Italians and so on. That will probably only complicate things further. Okay, so that 's the first problem. So, even if everything goes perfectly and let's say we go to war and the budget triples, let's assume we have it by 2040, okay? It's crazy that we're not going to have it, but let's suppose we have it by 2040.
Hey Raúl, try talking to me, let's suppose we have it by 2040.
If we have it by 1040, we've lost the Harriers 10 years early, okay? 10 years seems like a short time, but within the institution it's a very long time.
In those 10 years, all the know-how has been lost, all the know-how of the people who knew how to work with fixed aircraft on ships, which are not just the pilots, there are maintenance people, deck people, the doctrine of how to operate them, everything, that is, a lot of knowledge, that is lost. Those people move on to other jobs, they stop doing that, they completely forget about it, they even retire, okay?
So, in 2040 we would find ourselves having to start from scratch, from zero with a catobar.
Nobody has done that. Everyone, well, at first yes, right? But they weren't even catapults because they didn't have catapults. But now, with everything that everyone else is doing right now, what has Japan done? With three times our budget, he's gone for the F35 and we'll see if after the F35 he goes for a Catobac. What has Italy done? He's gone to the F35. What has the United Kingdom done?
United Kingdom, okay? So, what has the Royal Navy done with the full support of the United States? He went to F35 because he can't, I mean, Cobar is the Champions League and you can't start with the Champions League, you have to start from scratch, okay? That's the second problem. And then the third problem is what you put on top of the catobar, because the catobar is very good, but you'll have to put an airplane on it, okay? airplanes. Oh, right, the idea is not to put an F35 in.
Of course, the idea is not to use the F35.
So, possible aircraft for the catobar. F35C, what for, because what we want is not to use F35, so it makes no sense. The Rafal, which will be on its way out by the time the Catobar arrives because the Rafal isn't, I mean, the Rafal is already old, the Rafal, I mean, by the time the Catobar arrives it's going to be an old plane, it's going to be like the Harry is now, practically, okay?
The FC Naval is no good to us; if they make it to 2060 it's a miracle. I do n't know, we can talk about the Chinese, the Indians, or the Russians if you want.
What are you going to put on top of it? No, in the end you have to put the F35 on top because there's nothing else, because either you wait for the FK if you're going to 2060 calmly or you put the Rafal on it, which is why I prefer LHDs with the F35B, without a doubt, because I can have three instead of one and I have much more flexibility and I can have more numbers and it's a much better aircraft, I mean, it doesn't make sense. So, this stems from the news that the Navy requested a study from Navantia. A study. A study may be conducted, and the result of the study may be that Navente says, "I am not capable." Navantia will never say it's not capable, as long as they're paid, but it's a study. So I have two theories. One is that it is a trial balloon. The navy is requesting it to see how people, the political establishment, and others react, and in some way to demonstrate that there is no alternative, that if you want to get to Catobar you have to go through the F35, that there is no other way to get there. And two, it is a 30-year program that is starting 30 years in advance. Very good. And that program is the next step after having three LHDs with F35. In other words, I buy the F-35, I operate it for two decades, and then I say, "Okay, now's the time, and I want to make the leap to the catapult, and then we'll decide if I make the leap to the catapult, get rid of the F-35s and go to the Naval Air Force or whatever you want, or how I do it, but I start the program with the program, I start the idea early enough to have it in mind and see how I develop it in the long term." But what isn't viable, because, as I'm telling you, it's been incredibly difficult for the British to recover their fixed-wing aircraft, even with all the support from the Americans, and being the Royal Navy, that support has cost them dearly. They've had accidents, they've had planes grounded, they've had extremely low availability, and it's not because the F-35 has low availability and so on, which may be true because it's a more complex aircraft, it's because they grounded them, they lost all that know-how despite maintaining exchange pilots in the United States and a A lot of things, and despite having all the support from the Americans, embarking American squadrons on their ships, it's still cost them a lot. Do you think anyone believes we'd be capable? It's impossible, impossible, impossible if we lose the capability and try to recover it like that, right? No, the idea is that this capability, through the F-35, which is the only way to maintain it, could be possible. If we suddenly maintain 3% of GDP for 30 years, we maintain the capability with the F-35, and in 2050 we consider a catabolic bar so that by 2060... Great, that sounds fantastic.
Yes, yes. No, the problem is, it's like a company, right? If all the engineers retire and you stop making a product, and then 10 years later you want to start making it again, you're starting from absolute zero. Engineers, but engineers and milling machine operators.
No, no, wait, wait. Yes, yes, yes, wait. That's where I'm going to the part that... I'm dealing with the milling machine operators and the lathe operators, which is clear, of course. I mean, everyone. The thing is, the number of people involved is... no, not the pilots, the pilot is the last in the chain. Below the pilot there are hundreds of people with very specific jobs, with very specific know-how, and if that's lost, you do n't start from scratch, you don't start from scratch to go to a catastrophe that we can't.
How true is it that the Thurw was a failure?
Well, it was a program of 32 ships that ended up with three, so if we measure it by that parameter, yes.
Hm. I, in my opinion, I really like the topic, it was my final year project at the Naval Academy and I'll publish an article in Marina magazine and then I've talked about it in other places. I think the ship itself is a good ship. What happens is that it's too much, I mean, almost, I mean, it was so futuristic, or is so futuristic, that it has ended up being more of a capabilities demonstrator than as a ship as such. What happens? It's still sailing. Yes, no, yes, yes. If all three are sailing and in fact they've been converted, their main problem was the gun mounts, those two cannons you see on the bow. The idea was to get ammunition with extended range, because this whole program originated from a requirement of the Marines, who said they needed ships to provide them with fire support on land, and so these ships were created with these cannons.
What happens? The problem with fire support nowadays is that you have to get very close to shore to do it.
So these cannons are mounted on them with the idea of giving them extended range.
Ammunition is made that has a small rocket and, if I remember correctly, it's guided. So, what happens? The ammunition ends up being as expensive as a missile. So, of course, it's like trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The ammunition turned out to be extremely expensive and it wasn't worth it, right? So, Apart from that, they're super stealthy, they're incredibly expensive. They made the third one in the series, although they did build it, they built it with regular steel instead of using the same method as the first two, which were super stealthy. And in the end, what they've done—or are doing, or will soon do—is remove those two mounts and replace them with enormous hardpoints for hypersonic missiles, okay? The hypersonic missiles that are being developed, it seems the first ships to receive them will be the Tomwelt-class.
So, it's been a failure because it's proven that they're not what they seem. In the end, what they 've done is make it more of a bust, but well, they've served as a technology demonstrator. They developed many things that they're starting to implement on other ships, both radar systems and platform control systems, and so on, which they're gradually implementing on other ships. And if the time comes when they need us, that is, if the time comes when they say, "Hey, well, we're going to war with China." In the Pacific, we need large surface combatants, because they have them there and they can do more, right?
So, once you've made the first ones, then it's about making more of those, right? Well, as long as this new Battleship doesn't replace them.
And the option that's being seen a lot is to put in containers, right? Even creating missile-launching platform ships, that is, ships that are not real ships. without even a tow from another ship to load it with missiles.
I have always been skeptical because if you create that large missile launch platform, in the end what you have created is a very juicy target and you end up having to defend it because otherwise they are going to sink it.
So in the end, to protect him, you put a bodyguard next to him, damn it. That's why he hires an escort to carry the missiles, even if there are fewer of them. Do you know what I was going to tell you? I mean, uh, I don't know, it shocks me. Maybe it's because I'm too stuck in the traditional thinking about war mail, but I see it more as a liability, right? That's what it's called in English, something that's going to create a problem for you, which is that you're going to have to be on top of defending that, rather than an advantage, right? Well, we have to remember that, in other words, the great advantage of ships is their mobility and autonomy. They are capable of moving with their enormous capabilities, moving relatively quickly, not like an airplane, but fast, much faster than land units, moving large, such autonomously, but autonomously in the sense that they defend themselves too, because we already have to defend the aircraft carriers, we have to defend the tankers, we have to defend the amphibious vessels. If we also have to defend the missile launch platforms, we need to know how many escorts we need, right? Well, then I don't really see much sense in it.
I'm choosing some. Something is known about this. Our Algerian neighbors, with their navy so close to our shores, are not dangerous in the face of a future conflict with them. For example, through territorial waters. Well, well, the Algerians. Angelenos are dangerous in terms of, let's say, the level of her sister.
Well, they have dangerous ones, or let's see if you understand, the question is a bit like this, that is, they have an interesting or powerful navy, perhaps the most striking thing they have are four Russian submarines of the improved Kilo class, uh, which they say are very very capable submarines. Well, the doubt that arises for me there, more than in terms of platforms, which may indeed be something we shouldn't worry about, is in terms of training, how good are their sailors really, not because their sailors, the people, not because they are useless or anything like that, but because it has been seen, I think it has been seen quite clearly in Ukraine with the Russian navy. Uh, one of the great advantages of Western navies, what is NATO and its environment, I mean the Pacific environment, Australia, uh Japan, South Korea, that is, the American environment after all. Uh, one big advantage that people outside the organization don't usually see is the joint training. That is, we have been developing techniques, tactics, and procedures since the Second World War, which we share among all of us, and we conduct large exercises in which people from many countries participate. That helps us learn, and although we've said it before, it's very difficult to simulate war in exercises, really, that's where we get a lot out of it, and my impression is that navies that aren't in that environment tend to have much worse training. Generally, okay? Well, it's true that the right hand, I mean, you learn it quickly in war, you usually learn it quickly because it's right in your skin. So, well, we can't let our guard down either.
Yes.
And let's move on to the last question, Fede, what are Spain's most urgent needs for maritime defense? Well, this could be a whole program in itself, Fed.
Uh, well, we've already mentioned the MPAs, maritime patrol aircraft. Hey, the submarines are on the right track. It seems practically confirmed that we're going to have six. Well, going to eight wouldn't be bad, but oh well. Hey frigates, we're late, but we're doing well. Uh, uh, and then the fixed-wing aircraft, which we've also brought, is fundamental. Well, if we lose the carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft, we have to redesign the entire fleet. It makes no sense to have an amphibious force if you don't have a fixed force to support it. Hey, and anyone who tells me that you can commit crimes inside the umbrella of the air doesn't understand what an amphibious force is for and how it works. The fun part is that they don't know where you're going. If you are limited to the air's scream umbrella, you don't have an amphibillary force. Um, yes, we can say that. We're also missing patrol cars, but people tend to like that less because it's less sexy, but oh well, yes, we have to cut that out now. eh MPS, eh continue with the submarines, eh ensure the relief of the fixed position in marked position and with that there are miles to cover.
The moment could come somewhere if we didn't have F35s and we don't have other types of aircraft carriers, uh, to drone the LHDs in the Turkish style, yes, but the capabilities have nothing to do with it. Well, maybe in the near future, right? But in the end it's the same thing. They would need your power. I see it, I see it as very, very far off. I see it as very far off. Well, just so you know, I'm a little bit involved in the world. I am a drone pilot. Right now I'm stationed in the eleventh squadron and we're still a long way from having an aircraft or a drone capable of flying in contested airspace and coming out unscathed. We're still a long way off, huh?
And I'm not going to make it in time for the reel, Harry, and I don't think we're going to make it in time for later on, but hey, I could be wrong, but no, no, we're not there yet. Hey, if those drone carriers are in any disputed airspace and the other side has small planes, you're screwed. Uh, the Turks are evolving some kind of thing, aren't they? Type of reaction, hunt, such.
Yes, they want to release something, they want to release something for Claro, yes, yes, they want to release something because they have been left out, but they are releasing something, that is, they are putting a patch on. The Turks wanted the F35, that's why they bought the Anadol. And they were members of the program until they got too close to Russia and were kicked out. The United States will tell them, "Give me the S400s and we'll start talking."
And so they're putting a patch on it. Well, let's see, he'll do something. It's better than nothing. Yes, of course, it's always better than nothing, isn't it?
But it has nothing to do with it, nothing to do with it, nothing to do with it. In other words, the Turks, for example, if they go against the Greek F16s with that, they'll last 2 minutes.
2 minutes clarified. And you could even blind them with very powerful electronic warfare, right? I mean, I don't know.
Yes, yes. The problem with drones is that unless they are 100% autonomous, one of their advantages is that there is a human inside who is able to control them.
The problem with unmanned aircraft is that if you lose control, unless it's 100% autonomous and capable of completing its mission without any human intervention, then obviously you've wrecked it.
Well Fede, thank you very much for everything.
I hope you'll come back soon to talk about modern technology and current events, but on the history channel you're going to come in, well, in a month to talk here about Lepanto, uh, the fierce Turk, Lepanto, but well, the fierce Turk with Lepanto, but seen very much through the eyes of the Spanish, right?
Well, one of the point-of- view characters, I mean, I like to write novels as if you were watching them, right? As if seeing the same thing as the characters who lived it. One of them, there are several, there are at least five, uh, one of them is Turkish, but all the others are Spanish.
Well, thank you very much, and if you'd like to share something with the audience about your experience... It's a pleasure to be here again, and as you mentioned, anyone who has anything they'd like to discuss can contact me on Twitter, or if not, on the website. My contact information is there for whatever you need. Anyway, thanks for inviting me; you know I love chatting about these things, and I'll see you next time.
Well, thank you very much. FD and thank you all. I hope you enjoyed the program, and if so, you know the drill: like, leave a comment, share, subscribe, and all that. And since we're talking about the sea and amphibious capabilities, remember that Belun Artis is organizing a trip to Normandy this summer with Grupeando Tour. All the information is on the Grupeando Tour page. The most important thing is that David Díaz Cabo, an expert on World War II, on military matters in general, is going as a guide. He wrote three books about Normandy during World War II, travel guides to Normandy. What better guide could there be? I don't know, I don't think you'll find it.
Therefore, the opportunity is there for you this summer, Normandy with Belung Artis, all on a group tour. If you go Belum Artis 26, use the code for €100 off, or €150 if you have already traveled with Grupeando. See you another day, and I hope many of you will be in Normandy.
Thank you and see you next time.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
