> I find it hard to believe there's anti-sub tech that can tell if a given vessel is being operated by cartel members or the Russian navy.
Passive sonar could trivially differentiate between military and civilian engines in the 1980s. And within those, often fingerprint individual vessels by their machinery quirks / lack of maintenance.
And that was without heavy computer pre-processing.
The more cogent point is: why would navies care?
30' length x 10' beam
Modern diesel / AIP examples are in the 200' x 20' range?
There isn't enough room to put credible military capability on a vessel this size. And if you're going low cost, then you want to go fully UUV and elimate crew spaces and logistics altogether.
I think we can agree that the USS Cole incident turned on rules of engagement more than capability.
In a more wartime footing, I don't think a fiberglass boat filled with 500+ lbs of explosive often succeeds in a suicide attack against a 500' destroyer w/ multiple CIWS mounts.
But "American destroyer vaporizing fishing boat that drifted too close" isn't good PR, hence restrictive RoE.
Passive sonar could trivially differentiate between military and civilian engines in the 1980s. And within those, often fingerprint individual vessels by their machinery quirks / lack of maintenance.
And that was without heavy computer pre-processing.
The more cogent point is: why would navies care?
30' length x 10' beam
Modern diesel / AIP examples are in the 200' x 20' range?
There isn't enough room to put credible military capability on a vessel this size. And if you're going low cost, then you want to go fully UUV and elimate crew spaces and logistics altogether.