do Americans have a good, cost effective response to this?

do Americans have a good, cost effective response to this? feels like if terrorist gets them, it's over for the troops

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah they just have Israel bomb the factories.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So THAT'S why they keep giving them money.
      It actually kinda makes sense now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Israel was just burger wagner all along

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Azerbaijan hosts loads of aircraft too so Israel is always ready to bomb the fuck out Iran

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    aint these the things that are never being used against military targets?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they targeted factories and training facilities

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        may i see it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-destroys-iranian-drone-manufacturing-plant-in-syria/ar-AA13hTuv

          That's pretty much how it will happen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Based, now the US should do that to the one in Tajikistan, and KSA to the ones in Yemen.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        sure they did gay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they targeted factories and training facilities

        surely you have photographic or video evidence to proof such a claim.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Targeted.
        That's nice. What did they hit tough?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >do Americans have a good, cost effective response to this?
    No, we have a very cost ineffective response to it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a high buy-in solution, but with low long term maintenance costs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Iran is a fortress. This simulation will be fiction

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Saddam thought the same once

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's what they've all said, it never works out. The only way to fight the US is to do it as bugs from holes in the ground. Everyone who tries to go the impenetrable fortress route gets fucking deleted.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >simulation

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And a fortress it would remain, just with its air defense, air force, ground force, navy and manufacturing ability deleted by planes it can't even see.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That webm is a depiction of the initial attack of the Gulf War.
        Sounds like you're too young to remember the Gulf War. There was a lot of "Iraq is a giant fortress" and "Iraq has one of the largest and most well equipped armies in the world" talk too.
        But hey, they have lawnmower drones and rickety F-14s. Maybe that will save them. Pffhahahaha

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >and rickety F-14s
          They may be old but that's a solid plane and they've take remarkably good care of them consider the lack of access to parts. Frankly, I think we should invade Iran for no other reason than to just rescue the poor girls and give them a nice storage hanger stateside to spend their last days comfortably in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They could do the job without invading or occupying Iran. Regular infantry boots don't ever have to touch the ground.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >simulation

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We're willing to take that "gamble," are you?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Does Iran have a good, cost effective response to this? it can fly at Mach 3.3 at 90,000 feet (it’s from the year 1964 btw)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          None exist today and it has never been mass produced.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It ain't archeotech, bruh.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Simulation
        Ohnonononononono

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        All you gotta do is do a feint and they'll shoot down another airliner on accident. They're basically middle eastern vatniks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >iran is a fortress

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your brain is a fortress.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Iran is currently being brought down by women who don't want to wear scarves anymore. Not much of a fortress.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          when will the glowies be arming moderate thots?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Probably actively working on that soon assuming the police keep killing and raping children.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          isn't that in germany?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You poor sweet summer child..

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >simulation

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is the funniest post I've seen in weeks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >No, we have a very cost ineffective response to it.
      kek

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      $50,000 per flight hour jets firing $1,100,000 missiles at $5000 drones.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I think the webm shows air to air
        The only air to air in that video was self escorting bombers. America's response would be to glass wherever the drones were being launched, then shipped, then built, then designed, in that order.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Kamikaze drones aren't going to stop aircraft. The established American strategy for invading countries these days is comically huge overwhelming SEAD and air assault until everything that might be able to impede the ground invasion has been destroyed. Iran's terrain is not the sort of place I would like to invade by land, but if the plan were simply to pound the country until it's completely dysfunctional, you can do that entirely from the air.

        It's possible that S400s or other high-end AA might be able to impede this, I don't know how much of that stuff the Russians have shared with Iran. I do know that the American track record is to do very well in the initial war where their technological edge and sheer scale of air power basically guarantees them air supremacy and thus the ability to just slaughter vast quantities of the enemy in symmetrical combat.

        The "invasion" phase they always win, but then you get to the slow, grinding attritional guerilla warfare and while Americans can afford to keep this going for 20 years, they are also fickle and a bit effete so they'll inevitably start bitching until the government just leaves. Iran would probably turn into another one of those. Iran's intractable terrain basically demands a huge military to control all of the disparate ethnic groups (this is not a recent development it's been this way since the Bronze Age) so an occupation would require a vast, vast occupying force and I don't think the Yanks have it in them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >”haha westoid! You just shot a 1 million dollar missile at my 10,000 dollar drone!”
        >gets JDAM’d 30 seconds later

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      establishing air supremacy on day 1 to prevent any hostile action, manned or otherwise, is a top priority
      its as close to the ideal of spending shells to save lives as you can get

      in that respect, it costs no additional resources to combat drones because it is part of what they were already going to do on the opening weeks of combat

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Still coping about how cool you were in 1991
      You wish they still had half this capability

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Can you imagine a modern Gul War-scale SEAD operation conducted with AGM-154s, JASSMs, Block V-B Tomahawks, AARGM-ERs, B-2s, B-21s, and F-35s? My dick would be hard for so long necrosis would set it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        American air power isn't weaker than it was, it's gotten MORE extreme.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We repeated it in 2003 with a full invasion into a hostile country. If America invaded Ukraine we would have taken 3 months to cross the Polish border but when we did we would have been drinking Zelensky’s personal stash of vodka in Kiev in two weeks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You wish they still had half this capability
        Thirdy cope, the difference between then and now is now it doesn't even appear on your radar screens anymore. After the F-35's eat your air force and air defense you get to die in droves to people armed with Xbox controllers...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What's in the teabags?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what is this? can't imagine planing a big war like this who does it is it the generals or is the task broken down to many other people.

      This is like a nightmare to plan something like this

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Americans can shoot mortars down. Yes.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So lawnmower with a jet engine? Terrific, they re-invent V-1

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >do Americans have a good, cost effective response to this?
    Yes, the Stryker IM-SHORAD.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Forcing the enemy to spend millions to defend against a weapon that costs thousands is also a victory of sorts. Swarm drones are going to change so much about warfare. Modern navies are going to get a rude awakening the first time they go up against them. Looking forward to some sweet video of carrier exploding (I don't care which country)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a long ways off. The sort of "drone warfare" we are seeing in Ukraine poses no threat to a carrier. On the other hand if you are willing to include UAVs as drones than the US has been doing that for like a decade, they just haven't fought anyone with carriers (and its not a swarm). Cross your fingers for China trying to invade Taiwan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CRAM/CIWS shred sneed drones.
      USA already has AA and antidrone weapons.
      These drones aren't even effective in swaying the battlefield, just cause more overtime for utility repair crews.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Forcing the enemy to spend millions to defend against a weapon that costs thousands is also a victory of sorts
      the USD is backed by the US military. They will spend infinite money to remain the world reserve currency.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love how the chassis that hold them are all individually improvised into existence, each one a unique mashup of hand made scrap metal

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How about the brace they directly rest in is just an unfinished 2x4 with a semi-circle cut out of it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        haha yes for SOME of them. Even that isn't consistent. I loved some of the batshit scifi fake figter jets they mocked up out of wood, shit was hilarious

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ever since the TB2 started blowing up Pantsirs in Syria we’ve been deluged with third-worlders excited about the paradigm shift which they pretend threatens the US and West in general. Meanwhile in reality the Western MIC has been putting out a constant stream of low-cost high tech anti-drone systems AND much more capable drones for Western military use.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I want EA to announce to announce a new C&C Generals 2 where the factions are NATO, China, and ME/Africa armed with shitty drones

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >russia will be the snow tileset reskin of the africa faction

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with this cheapshit "swarm" spam tactic every single one of these gays keeps shilling here is that they thing that somehow the fucking US military is unwilling or unable to spend obscene amounts of dosh to combat it.
      Or that by virtue of the cheap and shitty construction of the drones themselves makes them voulnerable to jamming and ewar shit or other countermeasures.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Large numbers of untrained savages become even less relevant than they are today
      >Logistics, engineering and control of natural resources become even more important
      Is there even a hypothetical way that a drone meta wouldn't put the western boot even more firmly on thirdie faces than it is today?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They also seem to forget that America has deep pockets and can just do it right back to them. You're going to see trailers full of loitering munitions being pulled behind HMMWVs.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is their low cost and low footprint means far less sophisticated actors can pose a threat with lesser but comparable capability to cruise missiles so although current anti-missile systems are adequate to deal with them it's now a much more present threat.
    Short term reintroduction of stinger and eventual addition of electronic anti drone weapons into line units is what's being done and is probably enough to prepare in the event of a war but it'd still be neat to see bradleys with a small fire control rader shooting airburst at drones 59 degrees elevation isn't great but ought to be usable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This shit has already been thought of, just look at those new tank concepts that came out recently; all three have a 30mm autocannon with programmable airburst.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >imagining a future where modernized MANPADS are stardand equipment at a squad level and on every light vehicle on up
      helicoptersisters... I don't fufufufufufeel so good

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >can pose a threat
      They really can't, not to any militaries really. I suupose they might get lucky and do some damage to military infrastructure (fuel depot, for example) but as we have seen they are good for no more than civilian damage and terror warfare. The are far too inaccurate and slow to be used against anything that is an actual threat.
      >comparable capability to cruise missiles
      lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US has evolved past using even EWAR and ballistic solutions to cheap and shitty drones, and instead is starting to field directed energy weapons, aka lasers, that kill them dead for pennies worth of gasoline.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    do Russians have a good, cost effective response to the Suhed-30 drone?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    German mantis or even puma if they get it running. I dont know how much one ahead shell costs and how much you would need on average. Probably 5 shot burst is enough.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We would just send swarm drones to terrorize the terorrists

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the scariest scenario is terrorists launching them from Mexico into the US under the protection of cartels
    full scale Iraq style invasion of Mexico might be required

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >invasion of Mexico
      as a resident of AZ this get me hard.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >as a resident of AZ this get me hard.
        I agree...until the refugees start coming.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related would fuck them over pretty hard. Though Israel refuses to sell it to Ukraine.

    There's a reason Hamas/Hezbollah don't use them much and prefer rockets instead.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The proper response to this is to invade the country firing them and slaughter every single person in it.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What are the available anti-drone technologies?
    It seems to me that jamming is only viable against low tech adversaries and as AI technology becomes more accessible, drones will be able to operate entirely offline or using minimal communication.

    S2A missiles are impractical due to costs

    Automated gun turrets could work but I believe they're only effective against low altitude drones, and they also pose collateral damage risk

    Lasers seems promising but the massive size and battery requirements make it infeasible for non-stationery positions (which then become targets for precision weapons)

    Anti drone drones?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Lasers seems promising but the massive size and battery requirements make it infeasible for non-stationery positions

      It would appear that this problem has already been contemplated and worked on. The thing about making them so damn cheap is that they also are going to be rather fragile.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *of making the spam drones so cheap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >tfw a few thousands of dollars in chink laser diode arrays can build a cheap equivalent without the tracking system

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How many AAA's does that thing take?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >a cheap equivalent except it can't see or hit anything and is totally useless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Lasers seems promising but the massive size and battery requirements make it infeasible for non-stationery positions
      you mean like the stryker-mounted 300kw laser prototype delivered to the us army like two weeks ago?

      >Anti drone drones?
      you mean like the coyote?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >S2A missiles are impractical due to costs
      Cost is rarely an issue as whatever they are defending costs more than the missile

      >Automated gun turrets could work but I believe they're only effective against low altitude drones, and they also pose collateral damage risk
      Guns dont exist in a vacuum
      Fly high, its missile time
      Fly low, its gun time
      Exist anywhere close to friendly lines its get buzzed by a passing plane time

      >Lasers seems promising but the massive size and battery requirements make it infeasible for non-stationery positions (which then become targets for precision weapons)
      Lasers have drastically reduced in size since the 80s, they arent the YAL-1
      And the stryket laser system has guns and missiles on it as well

      >Anti drone drones?
      Or establishing air superiority on day 1

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the advancement of the blue laser diode has made small and energy efficient lasers super practical nowadays
      some dude on YouTube (StyroPyro) made a 700 watt laser that fits in a microwave lmao, a laser that powerful could shoot down aircraft, and blind anybody who looks at/near it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have no idea why a 40mm bofors with attached radar wouldn't or a VADs with a good search radar wouldn't be effective.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      literally any auto cannon with airburst capable rounds + more EWAR specialists carrying "fuck up my remote control signal" equipment
      oh also strong wind lmao

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    YES!
    >Picrel related

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Jamming. Super cost effective.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How are these any more of a threat than real missiles or rockets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      way less of a threat. smaller payload, slow, and garbage. Only real use is to target civilians. Set up a couple jammer around your strategic areas and the drones can't touch you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The point is
        >piston powered "missile"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        These are basically pre-programmed, right? How would a jammer help?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ewar modules can also fry their navigation system or tell them to nosedive early. Even V-1s were had their gimbals fucked with making them think they were over the target by just tipping them a little.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They don't have inertial sensors because expensive. They use GPS

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The nominal threat aspect of them is that electronics have gotten good enough and cheap enough that you can build a Great Value cruise missile for a couple thousand dollars which means that you can afford more of them, especially if you're a poor country who can't just afford to use a Tomahawk on anything that you want dead. While the Iranian ones suck dick because of their terrible CEP, it's not inconceivable to improve terminal guidance for a relatively small price increase. This means that non-state actors, who're typically broke, can afford these as well affording a poor country an intermediate between having an actual airforce and having no ability to strike at an opponent's backlines. Of course, the big caveat is that these things are so vulnerable that a fucking rifle squad with AKs is a viable air defense if they can be positioned to intercept, which means these are only capable of inflicting real damage against completely undefended targets. That limits them to largely targeting civilian infrastructure which is largely useless unless you're able to make use of the confusion and disorder to advance, while the current Russian strategy of terror bombing is counter productive since every study shows that it just hardens resolve.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sure they're cheaper, but they're slower, and have worse hit probability than a dumb bomb if they're even the slightest off course. You might even be able to afford more of them, but at the same time you'll NEED more of them to be effective. Even if the point is to "bleed" your enemy of money you still need to cough up that payment somehow, and if you enemy that you're fighting has even the slightest bit of effective AA you're puffing smoke. If anything these hobby store drones with a bomb are just the same strategy and effect as the model rockets launched by Palestinians and Lebanese, hence who these gas powered missiles were designed for in the first place, same with their ballistic missile program. They're flagship models of ordnance for the desperate and weak since they have no better options or are running low on them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't disagree that they're ineffective weapons if you actually read my analysis, but the pK they have is largely due to the shitty Iranian components they're relying on. You could make them dramatically more threatening by simply switching from Glosnas to GPS, a free change, and adding a cellphone quality camera to the front for terminal guidance, also pretty cheap. There would be additional development costs to get the terminal guidance image recognition to actually work, and I'd still probably expect it would be limited to strategic targets instead of tactical ones, but if you are Durkadurkastan and are going to go war to Alohasnackbarastan because they've been fucking too many of your goats and you don't like sloppy seconds, a opening salvo of these targeting both civilian infrastructure and lightly defended military targets where there is a reasonable chance of catching them with their pants down is a pretty big force multiplier compared to using just a couple of expensive actual missiles. You also can force the enemy to attack into you while you safely pelt their major economic structures or force them to divert a non negligible amount of man power and weapons to defending them, which is why Iran originally developed these to target Saudi oil refineries.

          While a modern and effective military can deal with them pretty trivially, these aren't being presented as a threat to those by anyone but delusional retards, but in an AK war, being able to strike at the backlines, however poorly it may be, forces the enemy to respect it and deploy countermeasures which comes at a non-negligible opportunity cost, especially if they are lacking a solid air defense radar network.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blowing them the fuck up at the source would be pretty effective. Anyway, judging by the Russian use of them, they are of little use on military targets. Everything that's been hit so far can be found on civilian maps.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    C-RAM, Phalanx, pretty much any gun AA with radar guidance

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Cost effective
    For the USA a lot more fits into the budget than other countries so yes and no. Only thing these drones would threaten are large forward bases & ports so you wouldn't even need to lug around your CIWS trucks or whatever they have to the frontlines when it's time to kick over sandcastles in the east again. Bigger threat to troops are consumer drones carrying frags.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > 300 kph
    these thing would be food for flak 80 years ago
    any competent nation would have zero issue dealing with them

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they dont even have more than two of the same model of stand for their drones HHAHAHAHAHAHA

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Will we see a return of the towed AAA?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a race between AA guns and AA lasers. Lasers pulled ahead with the Naval THEL but then guns pulled out the Programmable Air Burst Munitions. Now it's anybody's race.

      What a time to be alive.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *