There's nothing new about networked naval warfare. Link 11 was around 50 years ago, since when we've had Link 16, Link 22, CEC, satellite connectivity and more.
You’re absolutely right Dougie, that networked naval warfare is not new. Systems like Link 11, and later Link 16, Link 22, CEC and satellite connectivity have been connecting ships and aircraft for decades. Modern fleets have long relied on shared tactical pictures rather than ships operating in isolation.
The point I was trying to make in the article is slightly different.
Historically those networks primarily connected crewed platforms—ships, aircraft and headquarters. What is changing now is the scale and composition of the network. Increasingly it includes autonomous systems, seabed sensors, space-based surveillance and persistent unmanned platforms feeding data into the same operational picture.
That shifts the balance somewhat. Instead of a network built around ships, the network can extend well beyond the fleet itself.
Hull numbers still matter of course. Warships remain the platforms that carry the missiles, command teams and decision-making needed to deliver combat power. But the way those ships are informed, supported and positioned within the battlespace is evolving.
In that sense the change may be less about inventing networked warfare and more about expanding the network far beyond the traditional fleet.
Unfortunately, Richard, history shows us that the bean-counters are likely to see autonomous, networked systems as an opportunity for saving money through cutting hull numbers, rather than an opportunity for enhancing capability.
The fact that the RN doesn’t have a ship at readiness for such a contingency is so revealing. The navy that once ruled the seas and is still looked up to because of its historical legacy. A naval anchor of NATO is MIA.
There's nothing new about networked naval warfare. Link 11 was around 50 years ago, since when we've had Link 16, Link 22, CEC, satellite connectivity and more.
Hull numbers remain important.
You’re absolutely right Dougie, that networked naval warfare is not new. Systems like Link 11, and later Link 16, Link 22, CEC and satellite connectivity have been connecting ships and aircraft for decades. Modern fleets have long relied on shared tactical pictures rather than ships operating in isolation.
The point I was trying to make in the article is slightly different.
Historically those networks primarily connected crewed platforms—ships, aircraft and headquarters. What is changing now is the scale and composition of the network. Increasingly it includes autonomous systems, seabed sensors, space-based surveillance and persistent unmanned platforms feeding data into the same operational picture.
That shifts the balance somewhat. Instead of a network built around ships, the network can extend well beyond the fleet itself.
Hull numbers still matter of course. Warships remain the platforms that carry the missiles, command teams and decision-making needed to deliver combat power. But the way those ships are informed, supported and positioned within the battlespace is evolving.
In that sense the change may be less about inventing networked warfare and more about expanding the network far beyond the traditional fleet.
Unfortunately, Richard, history shows us that the bean-counters are likely to see autonomous, networked systems as an opportunity for saving money through cutting hull numbers, rather than an opportunity for enhancing capability.
The fact that the RN doesn’t have a ship at readiness for such a contingency is so revealing. The navy that once ruled the seas and is still looked up to because of its historical legacy. A naval anchor of NATO is MIA.
Really interesting analysis! Thanks!
I didn’t realise they reloaded the 4.5” gun by hand, like in WW2.
The gun itself is semi-automatica from a feed ring of 12 rounds, this crew are feeding the ring from the magazine.
Thank you for the clarification.