Why don't ships use nets to protect themselves?

[goaded]

Reading about how Houthis are attacking ships using cheap hardware that cost a fortune to shoot down, I wonder why ships in dangerous waters can't hang out metal nets (possibly with explosives) to keep the drones and missiles at least a few metres away from the hull.

[RebelinSteel]

They have previously looked at using ceramics and nets, for Anti Shipping missiles the biggest issue is the size and speed of a missile, also the warheads are often shaped provide a increased damage profile from the missile. Also nets would interfere with comms and radar systems. Speed and weight of missiles would punch through normal nets, drones yes but if you have felt the weight of a fishing net, then look at a container ship, stowage when not in use, not having extra cargo for its weight, extra fuel for the ship due to weight and drag.
my view would be either Q ships or close in weapons systems and defence systems such as jammers. Alternatively a load of Sub launched tomahawks and military drones to hit Houthis.

[goaded]

It sounds like you know something about it. I believe there are plans to hit where the missiles and so on come from, but a passive defence against at least the cheap (so, presumably not so fast) attacks couldn't hurt, surely? And you'd have to consider the price against avoiding the whole area as a shipping route.

[RebelinSteel]

A ‘container’ ship with containers pre configured to hold offensive and defensive weapons would provide good anti pirate ships. That was considered as part of Somali patrols, have ships set up as Q Ships to look so tempting but then destroy any attackers.
With drones you would need a huge ship cope cage, the weight would be excessive and the ship would be in a faraday cage. It’s the size of the container ships and they are packed to best price return, mess with that and reduced cargo increases logistics costs.
Egypt potentially could lose $20 million in lost revenue from suez costs.

[RebelinSteel]

Oh and you lot across the Pond can expect an announcement tonight.

[goaded]

I guess it wouldn't be that hard to put put antennas outside the net for communication, but I don't know how small nets have to be to make Faraday cages (I'm looking at foot-sized rings). Thanks for the hint about Q-ships, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

[goaded]

I'd ask "what announcement", but it would be pointless. I wouldn't mind a link, when it's made, though!

[RebelinSteel]

It’s a bit lively out there tonight

[goaded]

I see what you mean. www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67952029

[RebelinSteel]

Yep and lots of people crying on social media about it.

[goaded]

Oh, and fyi, I'm not across the pond, just the channel.

[RebelinSteel]

Ah apologies this place tends to be heavy in our cousins

[goaded]

I make the same mistake all the time. Although I hope it will never be needed, you might one day get treated by one of my cousins.

[msc545]

The people that sail on their ships are civilians, not soldiers. None of them get paid enough to want to get into a gunfight with pirates. None of them are trained to do this and they don't want it for obvious reasons. Protecting the profits of their employers text a distinct second place to going home alive and intact.

[goaded]

Well, aren't the chances of surviving higher if the explosives go off away from the ship, rather than hitting it?

[msc545]

Marginally higher but this won't work. Explosives are a lot stronger than any net you can build for drag around. You might as well be asking why is it that ships don't have armor because it's too heavy is the answer.

[goaded]

How fast and heavy is a cheap drone, though? The idea is to tangle them up before it reaches the hull. A net with a hole in it is still a net. There are such things as anti-submarine nets, and they stop things with much more momentum.

I don't know, it's not like I've done the maths, it's just a thought.

[msc545]

A drone or a plane can drop explosives from above, obviously.

[goaded]

Cheap ones?

[msc545]

Yes, even cheap ones fly.

[NathanDavis]

expense... and liability

they will always go the cheaper route

also remember that a lot of these ships are not exactly 100% legal and many of them do questionable business... this is a business you want to do quietly

so, starting a war of wits against these rebels would create a lot of attention and scrutiny... this is why the military is going to "handle it" and then keep it quiet for a while

[Drewtate]

I wonder why they can't have CROWs remote control turrets on these ships.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/M153_CROWS_II_190719-Z-HT454-1216.jpg

[goaded]

Civilian ships are probably not allowed to.

[Drewtate]

That's the answer to the problem

[jshm2]

Because they are more intelligent than you.

Also, nets make for easier climbing on board by pirates.

Ships tend to have zero need for weapons. It's why there is a navy and security.

The main purpose of this attack is to tie up the US navy, so it can't be deployed elsewhere.

[goaded]

Possibly. But since this is the first time people have been firing lots of cheap weapons at cargo ships rather than trying to board them...

The US navy isn't the only one there.

[purplepoppy]

Medieval ships had anti boarding nets so it's not a new idea. I wouldn't be surprised if we see vulnerable parts of ships introduce something similar.

What's needed is a cheap method of downing drones that ships can carry.

[goaded]

I know, Napoleonic, too, it was a defence against boarders.

There's already netting that can stop large boulders, you could start with that.

[Roudyrebel8]

I'm guessing less effective