The Iranians are converting a container ship into a flat deck drone carrier.
![]()
I think we could make significant use of a vessel like this, not only to alleviate the deployment pressures on CVNs and LHA/Ds, but also as a multi-purpose CVE style vessel in wartime.
I'd like to see vessels like these carry a mixture of low cost UAVs, one-way attack munitions, and helicopters. Primary ISR could be covered by GA Mojaves or STOL Reapers.
The primary aircraft would be an Extreme Low Cost Attack UAV (ELCAV). It would use a low-cost diesel or gas piston engine, instead of a turbine. It could even be a tail dragger. Payload of one 1,000lb-class munition over a 800-1,000nmi combat radius at around 200-250kts air speed would be sufficient. Or a heavier load over a shorter distance. It would have limited onboard sensors and comms; just enough to allow it to safely take off, land, receive midcourse instructions, and navigate. Maybe it could use Starlink as its primary comms. Aim for a unit price of $1 -2 million, in quantity, for the base air vehicle. That's around as much as a JASSM. Ground control systems, sensors, and related equipment would add to the overall system price.
Potential ELCAV loadouts could include,
Since ELCAVs wouldn't be carried on CVNs or LHA/Ds, they may not have as many of the deck handling and interoperability requirements as other carrier-based UAVs. Obviously, they still need to be safe.
Additionally, the drone carrier could carry and launch long-range loitering munitions in the Shahed-class or container-launched cruise missiles.
A parent vessel for this concept could be the Lewis & Clark T-AKE. It already has significant fuel and munition storage and we have 14 in the fleet.
![]()
Other possibilities include NASSCO or Philly Shipyard container ships, though neither have the aforementioned fuel or munition storage.
Whether it should be a STOBAR or CATOBAR design is an open question. Given the low speed requirements of the air wing, STOBAR may be the most cost effective.
If you dedicate the area ahead of the deckhouse to a flight deck and hangar underneath, a large number of folded ELCAVs could be carried. Perhaps as many as 50-100. Now whether it would ever carry or operate that many is open to question.
I think we could make significant use of a vessel like this, not only to alleviate the deployment pressures on CVNs and LHA/Ds, but also as a multi-purpose CVE style vessel in wartime.
I'd like to see vessels like these carry a mixture of low cost UAVs, one-way attack munitions, and helicopters. Primary ISR could be covered by GA Mojaves or STOL Reapers.
The primary aircraft would be an Extreme Low Cost Attack UAV (ELCAV). It would use a low-cost diesel or gas piston engine, instead of a turbine. It could even be a tail dragger. Payload of one 1,000lb-class munition over a 800-1,000nmi combat radius at around 200-250kts air speed would be sufficient. Or a heavier load over a shorter distance. It would have limited onboard sensors and comms; just enough to allow it to safely take off, land, receive midcourse instructions, and navigate. Maybe it could use Starlink as its primary comms. Aim for a unit price of $1 -2 million, in quantity, for the base air vehicle. That's around as much as a JASSM. Ground control systems, sensors, and related equipment would add to the overall system price.
Potential ELCAV loadouts could include,
- 1 x 1,000lb Quicksink JDAM or Quickstrike mine
- 1 x JSM
- 2 x MALD
- 2 x GBU-38
- 4 x SDB/SDB-II
- 4 x Altius 600m/700m
- 1-2 x Anduril Barricude-style low cost cruise missiles
- Multi-mission sensor pod
- Sonobuoy dispenser
- Comms relay pod
- Laser designator pod
- Chaff/flare pods
- ECM pods
Since ELCAVs wouldn't be carried on CVNs or LHA/Ds, they may not have as many of the deck handling and interoperability requirements as other carrier-based UAVs. Obviously, they still need to be safe.
Additionally, the drone carrier could carry and launch long-range loitering munitions in the Shahed-class or container-launched cruise missiles.
A parent vessel for this concept could be the Lewis & Clark T-AKE. It already has significant fuel and munition storage and we have 14 in the fleet.
Other possibilities include NASSCO or Philly Shipyard container ships, though neither have the aforementioned fuel or munition storage.
Whether it should be a STOBAR or CATOBAR design is an open question. Given the low speed requirements of the air wing, STOBAR may be the most cost effective.
If you dedicate the area ahead of the deckhouse to a flight deck and hangar underneath, a large number of folded ELCAVs could be carried. Perhaps as many as 50-100. Now whether it would ever carry or operate that many is open to question.
statistics: Posted by BSmittyVA — 1:30 PM - 1 day ago — Replies 13 — Views 145