Do we even have cost-effective anti-drone and anti-missile defences?

Do we even have cost-effective anti-drone and anti-missile defences? It seems like blowing a bunch of air-to-air missiles on cheap drones and cruise missiles is attritionally unsustainable.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes yes I've seen this before m00t show me new stuff

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >cost-effective anti-drone

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty neat but obviously unreliable. Imagine how many stoppages it would have in an environment that's not pristine.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Laser guided missiles like Hellfire and APKWS Hydra, or something far better like the Raytheon Coyote Block II.
    The shahed is so mediocre that nobody is wasting time to develop something specifically for that niche of slow and not so small drones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      laser guided missles are not the buzzword. COST EFFECTIVE

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how easy would it be getting your hands on some anti-drone tech for civilian use these days? a-asking for a friend

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They said they were going to haul out the Iron Beam prototype for this recent Gaza happening. Wonder if it stretched its legs last night.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it already intercepted rockets in the north

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Should be "Steel Beam"

      Steel beams melt jet streams.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >That laser beam in the sky

      Holy shit that's kino. Imagine 50 of these all targeting various drones independently. Would be like a rave night.

      https://i.imgur.com/RqxQGc4.jpg

      Do we even have cost-effective anti-drone and anti-missile defences? It seems like blowing a bunch of air-to-air missiles on cheap drones and cruise missiles is attritionally unsustainable.

      It will come as when any tech gets a big advantage.

      >Drones/missiles prove to be cost-effective
      >Suddenly the incentives to make more cost effective counter measures are there

      Think of it as anti-tank weapons got better, counter measures got better too. It's always a constant battle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they rushed a prototype into service when this war started, im wondering if theyre rushing to production since they said it worked

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        War in 20 years is just going to be ground forces lobbing spotters and network repeaters into the air with artillery and rockets, then autonomous batteries spamming out highly accurate fire missions.

        You'll have a high volume of incoming because you'll have to overwhelm the other side's interception umbrella, targeting the AD assets first. So, many different types of munitions in coordinated fire to get through.

        Whichever side has its umbrella go first will probably retreat, rout, or surrender, since there is no point fighting when the other side can just send drone direct fires on to you non-stop from BVR.

        But before this you will have a cool laser show/ mini Midway tier air battle as both sides vie for control of the airspace around them and attempt to knock out the other sides AD.

        I can imagine a world in 20-30 years where, like police, soldiers rarely use their service weapons. Combat will get longer and longer ranges and even if you do see a target you'll use your optic to tell a UGV to blast with with an HMG, mortar, or grenade rather than risk revealing your position.

        Of course, this will also make warfare focused on small, elite groups, sort of like the middle ages, which will probably be shitty for civil rights since elites no longer need the public to win wars the same way.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Unfortunately, the lasers are not visible to the naked eye. Sucks, I'd love to see that light show.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >not visible
          True but the laser heating up the object + air along the path might be visible enough. Won't be star wars blaster rave party but it'll light up a night sky

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They said they were going to haul out the Iron Beam prototype for this recent Gaza happening. Wonder if it stretched its legs last night.

      >That laser beam in the sky

      Holy shit that's kino. Imagine 50 of these all targeting various drones independently. Would be like a rave night.

      [...]
      It will come as when any tech gets a big advantage.

      >Drones/missiles prove to be cost-effective
      >Suddenly the incentives to make more cost effective counter measures are there

      Think of it as anti-tank weapons got better, counter measures got better too. It's always a constant battle.

      https://i.imgur.com/ZcZY84M.jpg

      they rushed a prototype into service when this war started, im wondering if theyre rushing to production since they said it worked

      With enough of these in service they can phase out the Iron dome missiles and devote those materials/resources to ABMs like Arrow and David's sling, and genuinely nullify their enemy's missile threat. Hamas and Iran's awareness of this development most likely factored in to the timing of Oct 7, on top of the diplomatic progress with the Gulf kingdoms.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        theyre never phasing out ID, a single ID battery can take out a whole squadron of mig29s while this laser can barely damage a single one before the mig takes it out

        the whole idea if the laser thing is you can move it more easily than a classical air defence battery so you can move it up behind the tanks in a war to defeat enemy artillery

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Iron Beam is only 100kw. The US is already readying for 500kw lasers, with the potential of 1MW lasers being deployed as well.
      A 1 MW laser on a US aircraft carrier, powered by those nuclear reactors will significantly beef up CSG defensive posture.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    SPAAGs. EW. Eventually DE.
    >cheap drones and cruise missiles
    Drones still cost some thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Cruise missiles aren't cheap at all.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cheap FPV suicide drones are like 300 dollars a pop. They're by far the cheapest most effective method of close strikes right now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tiny drones like that can be and are already cost-effectively countered at a price of a single M855.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Combined arms, b***h. Mortar fire is suppressing you RIGHT NOW.
          At the same time, there's MG fire going above you overhead, and a dozen FPV drones on their way to film your cruel demise.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here's an idea;
            >mount some m855 on a turret
            >let turret shoot down drone

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Of course, why didn't I think of this first. I'll take a billion.
              You have a billion units for sale right? What could possibly be holding up your production of such a simple and effective design?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A billion's not gonna get you through the first meeting, you think we're just giving these away? We'll need atleast 99,999997% gross margin on these, like is common for military contracts

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A billion UNITS. Do you take me for an amateur? I has unlimited taxpayer monies

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We might be willing to look at plans for starting a workgroup to think about initiating plans on exploring options to applying for permits to build the plant within the next 20 years if the client wants to make a binding order for the next century.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              here you go anon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So now we need to factor in the cost of mortar fire, MG fire, and a dozen FPV drones against a single target. What's more, these drones don't come with munitions and have limited carrying capacity. Maybe a single 40mm grenade.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >a single 40mm grenade.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >that webm
            Jfc as if getting droned wasn't stupid and cruel enough, they play with their targets. Can't even imagine the levels of stress he's experiencing.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When you factor the value of the targets in question yeah. Most of these comparisons are stupid because expending a million dollar interceptor against a drone that costs a quarter of that or whatever is worth it when you protect a multi-billion dollar warship, or a valuable asset. It's difficult to assign money value to a person but that also factors too, as well as the purpose of a facility in question. If you spend 250 million in interceptors to defend an airbase vital to operations, even if you "lose" the in raw cost with potential damage to aircraft and facilities factored it might be worth it to you know, still have a base to operate from.
    tldr buttmad thirdies are devastated the missile attack did frick all and can't into cost benefit analysis.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      Anons citing only the value of projectile VS value of interceptor are only looking at a partial picture of the real cost.
      It is a data to take into consideration, sure, but only if the enemy can massively outproduce you.

      Shaheeds and the like can be intercepted by fricking CIWS if needed and those are cheap to operate : it's just that their range is shit so you would need a lot of them to begin with. It's currently cheaper to spend a few missiles when needed than to build thousands of CIWS stations to protect areas that probably won't be targeted but might be.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This doesn't address the point whatsoever. The threat is not 'making one side spend more' so much as those vastly disparate spends indicate the possibility that one side might be capable of completely saturating and overwhelming the other in the event that both bring their full arsenals and industrial capacities to bear

      It would be gauche to point out that the USA could produce their own Shaheeds that fly faster or further for a given distance or speed, are quieter and more reliable with better performance characteristics, and have a CEP an order of magnitude smaller while producing three or four times as many without a significant investment on our part.

      Lmao - obviously the USA could produce better drones but your head is in the clouds if you think that 3x 4x could be made without significant investment. Decades of egregiously irresponsible defence spending have gone straight to lining the pockets of shareholders and hav grossly inflated the cost of production WELL beyond what is reasonable and necessary. The major US defence manufacturers are bloated, red-taped, inefficient, incestuously nepotistic, stinking rich, and highly influential in politics. The DOD is completely at the mercy of the fatcats. 'Here's 87 billion dollars. Can you speed it up pretty please?' meanwhile over in Iran they'll pay you what they pay you and cut off your head if you get caught skimming off the top. You could run a whole Iranian factory for the same cost of the salary of the HR manager at the logistics sub-contractor who delivers the paint they put on a patriot interceptor.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >could
        we have a private company successfully building reusable space marine drop ships that is what is next the drones we made twenty years ago and have now

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This doesn't address the point whatsoever
        he asked if there was cost effective missile defense. I said it can become cost effective when you consider the target value and worth of human beings, I'm not sure what else you want anon

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If only we still had ww2 40mm cannons still. At least until powerful lasers come out.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unironically 40mm Bofors with an upgraded fire control such as a thermal scope.....

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All projectiles fall to earth. Lasers less so.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unironically 40mm Bofors with an upgraded fire control such as a thermal scope.....

      Been saying this for the past year already. I don't believe for a second that the old school concept of a wall of Flak coupled with prox fuze, airburst functions while using radar slaved guns wouldn't be effective against basically anything nowadays.
      >Shreds ASM's
      >Shreds regular guided missiles
      >Shreds these lawnmower drones
      >shreds helicopters
      >possibly shreds a decent number of ballistic missiles as well
      Firing missiles at missile only makes sense for certain sizes. If we're talking about dorito's or other similar shit use a cannon round.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't shasneeds cost like a quarter million dollars per unit or is that just the ones they sell the Russians?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes those are “just the ones” sold for gold bullion they ripped the Russians off on. Their actual cost is likely not even 1/4 of that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There was that big info dump that alleged russia was paying a frick load for them yes. I've seen news headlines claim Iran can make them for 20,000, the source is allegedly an "analyst" for IISS. The leaked documents claimed a single shaheed was like 350,000 and that Russia apparently negotiated a lower price for a bulk buy. Two different extremes so really hard to say accurately. I think it best to just assume they really are 20,000k and plan accordingly. Even if Iran makes them for 100k that's not terrible.

      Cheap and effective AD is what’s needed against the mass proliferation of cheap drones. Even hobby-tier trash can’t be ignored, they must be intercepted, but the trick is doing so without degrading important AD assets. That’s where EW shines, stopping the huge majority of such drones and super-cheap SHORAD like Skygaurd and Pantsir shine. So you have EW of different types covering the theatre and SHORAD covering at a tactical scale. Northrop’s ballistic system might be the way to go allowing the Army to utilize existing ammo stockpiles. These Sidewinder-based systems aren’t great because of how expensive those things are but there is a lot of them in stockpiles.

      EW is real good at fricking with the commercial shit in Ukraine yeah. IIRC both sides said EW is a massive hindrance and fratricidal jamming has also been an issue specifically complained about in Russian telegram. I think the most cost effective approach to drone proliferation is going to be EW/HPM/DEW systems but 20-57mm gun based systems will still be needed to compliment them. There's been some work into real small missiles like the MHTK which allegedly is less than 20k to build and was part of the EMAM program but I haven't seen much since 2018 - though the program is still listed in 2023 army budget documents.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, energy weapons.
    You're not measuring the cost of the shot against the drone. You're measuring the cost of the shot against what the drone would destroy.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, many.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Use the drones as bait for an air defense trap. Fire your drones and place some anti-aircraft guns and people with MANPADS along the flight path. Launch during the day taking away the advantage the more advanced western forces have. I don't care how stealthy a F-35 is it's still visible during the day and it's still vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns and MADPADS.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yeah its called Lippisch P.13a

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG)

    We're going to see a mass re-deployment of these since they were previously thought useless, now we need them. The only reason UAVs seem powerful is because they exploit a gap in our air-defense systems, which are designed for a few high speed objects rather than a lot of slow moving objects. Shahed are just mass produced cheaper cruise missiles.

    Now that we know cruise missile and UAV spam is a doctrine of war, SPAAG will be mass produced and shut them down easily. I only hope Taiwan is getting the message and deploying hundreds of them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The only reason UAVs seem powerful
      they are? Russia seem to lob them in hundreds with little to no effect

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        cause russia uses them to bomb civilian apartment complexes and supermarkets that have little to do with the war effort

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think you understand how many Mykolas are driving around technicals in the Ukraine countryside to down all these shasneeds.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you can counter them with technicals then that weapon sucks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nah. Bullet intercepts are fundamentally inefficient. It's why the US navy is replacing Phalanx with missiles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The only reason UAVs seem powerful
        they are? Russia seem to lob them in hundreds with little to no effect

        They only get shot down because the entirety of Ukraine and Israel has to mobilize to shoot them down. That is a huge amount of effort versus rewards. They're still big deals and we need layered defenses, with the missile air defense system being the last resort.

        UAV spam is going to be a thing moving forward, so gun based air defenses and flak cannons will make a return. It's the best most cost efficient method, and they can save the missiles as much as possible for bigger threats like balistic or hypersonic missiles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        anti arcraft cannons do not shoot bullets
        its a cannon round, its gonna fricking shred whatever is near when the proximity fuse blows

        a missile is literally more comparable with a bullet in this scenario

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *flies an unpredictable and non linear path*
          *flies over your cities*
          Nothing personell kid.

          Those AA artilleries were good for shooting down high flying slow and linearly moving bombers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lmao you have such an infantile understanding of the subject

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Then explain to me why those artillery cannons weren't used in second world war in close proximity, but multi barrel machine gun AAs.

              Bonus: Explain how irregular paths by bombers didn't royally frick with the efficiency of anti air.

              There was a good documentary on the issue on youtube.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >weren't used in second world war in close proximity
                because the tech didnt even exist yet LMAO
                stop posting you absolute gorilla Black person, what a fricking embarrassment you are

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >anti air artillery did not exist in wwii
                There's so much moronic shit going on in your brain, you might wanna get that checked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Then explain to me why those artillery cannons weren't used in second world war in close proximity

                They were, actually.
                And as early as WW1.

                In WW2, most had a range of 5-20 km, with a ceiling of 5-15 km.
                The altitude at which the shell would detonate was variable, depending on the intended use.
                But the basic idea was the same : saturate the sky with fragmentation rounds along the expected path of the enemy aircrafts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's not in conflict with what I know. I believe everything below 3 km distance was not done with such artillery.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                3 km linear distance, it certainly was done :
                That's about 15 seconds of flight for the fastest non-jet aircraft in WW2.
                So while not ideal (or effective), if you knew their corridor of approach and altitude enough in advance, you could prepare your fire for that distance.
                You wouldn't fire a lot of shots that mattered but as said, it was about saturation here : you know the aircrafts will pass through the area of the sky you are targeting and so you intend to at worst interdict that area and at best to cripple whatever's flying through.

                3 km ceiling might have been a bit harder to pull against fast aircrafts if they are nearly on top of you and keep changing headings.
                But if you were firing from a long enough distance, then a 3 km ceiling isn't an issue
                It's all about how many of your buddies are firing too... because at you are not going to be very effective if you are alone at 10-20 rounds per minute.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Their slow, low flight means they won’t have time to deviate a lot. They are smaller targets but probably only require a small amount of shrapnel to be destroyed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Autocannons are the new 88 anti everything gun

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >since they were previously thought useless
      lol no
      They were put into storage due to budget cuts.
      They are nice to have, but not nice enough for a peace time army.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What threats would make them considered as valuable as “nice to have” in the last few decades (before Ukraine opened peoples eyes regarding drones)?
        Would they work against cruise missiles?
        I thought that they weren’t considered useful against anything that flew after propeller planes stopped being a threat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We stopped making them and were phasing them out because we felt they had been replaced by precise missile interception systems. On paper, these are in fact better, but we never thought that cruise missile spam would be a thing so now SPAAG make a lot of sense for our layered defense system.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no, we need to go back to the bomb.
      Let's see a massed formation survive this bad boy.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's only cost ineffective right now because anti air systems were designed for large missiles and aircraft. You just have to build systems with smaller anti air missiles that are cheaper to produce.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >attritionally unsustainable.
    The subhumans firing these things are poor beyond comprehension so no you fricking moronic homosexual

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The USA
    >cost effective

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A kid is throwing rocks at you, and you try to hit every rock mid air with your own rocks.
    It must be clear that the one defending must have more skill and put in much, much more effort to do so. In particular if the kid realizes you'll throw a rock every time he throws anything, so now he's not only throwing rocks but also gravel and leaves in the hopes of emptying your stack of rocks.

    There can't be a "cost effective" way to deal with it. Well, besides stopping to aim for the kids rocks, and rather by looking for a more sustainable way to getting the message across.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Except you're only throwing rocks at the ones coming at you and you know would be about to hit and are constantly developing new equipment to defend against new kinds of attacks. They're not sitting on their asses.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not saying it's impossible to get very good at it. I'm saying the one trying to knock down the rocks mid air has a much harder task than the attacker, which of course means it's literally impossible to defend against an attacker like that in a "cost effective" way.
        The investment (money, skill, effort) of the defender must always vastly outweigh the investment of the attacker, if the defender wants to be safe like that, and that literally means there can't be a cost effective solution to the given problem.
        Rationalize it however you want.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This.
        The best way to address this is still to hit the kid back, as hinted by

        A kid is throwing rocks at you, and you try to hit every rock mid air with your own rocks.
        It must be clear that the one defending must have more skill and put in much, much more effort to do so. In particular if the kid realizes you'll throw a rock every time he throws anything, so now he's not only throwing rocks but also gravel and leaves in the hopes of emptying your stack of rocks.

        There can't be a "cost effective" way to deal with it. Well, besides stopping to aim for the kids rocks, and rather by looking for a more sustainable way to getting the message across.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    shasneeds are like $300000 each though
    not very cheap for iran to produce

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They threw all kinds of shit, half of which costs a fraction of a shaed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Source, a lot of it looked like fricking cruise missiles which are assuredly more than 300k

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What did they use that cheaper than Shaheeds? They’re already about as simple as they can be for something that can make it to Israel from Iran and contain a bomb.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'd assume that ballistic rockets gotta be more affordable. Maybe I'm wrong.
          Also the news said something about drones, so I assumed they used some quadrocopter chink drones as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah if you’re talking about hamas-style rockets it might be cheaper, I didn’t consider those because I assumed those very small, simple ones didn’t have that kind of range.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. The problem is that these weapons were so effective that they completely eliminated obsolete technologies like prop driven slow-flying paper mache aircraft so that it eventually became unnecessary to even field these weapons because nobody is fielding the prop driven slow-flying paper mache aircraft they're designed to kill.

    The challenge that drones pose today is how to combat them without having to field a WW2 anti air artillery battalion, not how to combat them in general.

    I expect we will see radar-targeted anti air artillery coming back, like the Otomagic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't even think it'd be that difficult to repurpose a lot of hulls of vehicles nations (should) have plenty of to use to anti drone defenses. Of course I'm no weapons manufacturer or electronics producer but the fact remains that it probably isn't an impossible thing to do, you have all sorts of smaller caliber cannons to use. I would assume the hardest part is getting a radar system that can actually pinpoint something like smaller drones and a fire control system that can go after larger drones if need be without needing more expensive systems to neutralize the drones.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The answer is simple - whatever weapons system can be deployed every 2km or so around cities, and concentrated around, say, power plants, and that expends either programmable rounds, mass volleys of standard rounds, or energy.
    Anything that is not missiles.
    It's all about cost effectiveness and ease of production and maintenance at this point. You can expend a thousand rounds, the drone is slow and easy to track, probably even by a fricking Raspberry PI running Python CV, if the field of view is wide enough. And you are still in the green money-wise. Rounds are quick and cheap to make, in comparison to even a single missile.
    The main problem is that nobody was in a rush to develop cost effective solutions, and were only going for beefy wunderwaffens instead of the "just fire more bullets, bro", as those are the ones that get the military contracts.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now think what would happen if we used same tactic (mass cheap drone attack) against those goat frickers without any functional anti air def.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You’d do a lot more damage than they did for sure but wouldn’t significantly affect their ability to build new cheap shit to send

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its called roadrunner.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Airborne laser or airborne high power microwave is likely your best bet for drone defense.

    A concept I always think of is a shaft powered VTOL that uses it's excess power in forward level flight to power such a weapon.
    Innovations in lighter generators might be a big enabler for this kind of thing.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://alert5.com/2015/07/24/u-s-army-developed-50mm-bushmaster-cannon-as-c-ram-weapon/
    would this be cost effective enough?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      probably not against those cheap mavic drones but against shaheds and lancets absolutetly. 35mm from

      https://i.imgur.com/U9mG1H3.png

      is 1800€ per burst and that's AHEAD ammo

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        soldiers always seem to fire more than they need to with 35mm and it is shocking how scarce the ammunition is due to EU privatised arms industry. 3-4 bursts of 35mm AHEAD sounds imo less cost effective than 3-4 50mm air burst which also has the option to be course corrected. What is most strange about this is why dont they use 57mm Naval ? why do they have to make a brand new cannon and calibr.. it doesnt sound cost effective at all and upsets me!

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It really says a lot that the thread legitimately entertaining the "muh cost" cope was cooking during peak-non-western hours of the board.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this post convinced me that ship defense from drones is actually cheap&sustainable, and not a ridiculous boondoggle for moronic "firstie" nations at sea

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Glad you learned something.

        Costs are an important metric for military shit, Black person.
        I bet you unironically have an iphone.

        >iphone.
        I'm not a white woman, anon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Costs are an important metric for military shit, Black person.
      I bet you unironically have an iphone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Costs are an important metric for military shit, Black person.
        They are.
        A chance that developped countries can afford to pay extra bucks for hardware that is working as intended and don't have to worry about quantity because :
        A) Developped countries aren't fighting other developped countries.
        B) Thirdies cannot produce enough of their cheap weapons for them to be an issue.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    autonomous airburst warhead fpv drones

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >dont get a plate
    >a single bullet is cheaper by orders of magnitude
    >its not cost effective

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is actually a very good allegory.
      Much shorter to explain it that way.
      Thank you, anon.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Do we even have cost-effective anti-drone and anti-missile defences?
    Depends on what you mean by cost-effective. Less than an order of magnitude more expensive than the drone per kill? No.
    >It seems like blowing a bunch of air-to-air missiles on cheap drones and cruise missiles is attritionally unsustainable.
    Yup.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It seems like blowing a bunch of air-to-air missiles on cheap drones and cruise missiles is attritionally unsustainable.
    Short term, you intercept the drones as best as you can.
    Long term, you've bombed the shit out of your enemy until they cannot produce enough drones to match your own production of interceptors.

    Drones aren't yet a real problem for NATO so we can afford to just intercept with off-the-shelves systems.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's called lasers, especially airborne ones. They're a few years out from really being good. I suspect NGAD will have monstrous power generation capability and will be the go to anti drone platform

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >lasers
      lmao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not that anon, but... living under a rock? British company revealed the previous week they're supplying Ukraine with prototype laser defense. Not to mention all the other western companies already working on laser air defense, IIRC United States already has a system fielded and working on like three other types?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          US has claimed it has shot down loitering surveillance drones at sea with lasers. Not the same as attack drones targeting those same systems.
          >prototype laser defense
          field footage or gtfo

          https://i.imgur.com/ZUZQ9qa.jpg

          Soon(tm)

          >muh CGI shit
          literally popular mechanics tier

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, please learn to shut the frick up before you embarass yourself on the internet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That isn't CGI. That's it. It's real. It's already deployed in theater for real-world testing.
            >https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-strykers-with-50-kilowatt-lasers-in-centcom-for-experiment-army-no-2-says/

            If you're already coping about a 50kw laser on a Stryker, wait till you see our 300kw on a HEMTT.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >300kw on a HEMTT
              literally doesn't exist
              https://www.businessinsider.com/army-tests-first-vehicle-mounted-laser-system-2013-12

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Thirdies learned to use Google
                >They still have to learn about reading the date of the articles
                You are quoting an article from 2013
                This anon

                https://i.imgur.com/d5iRKow.jpg

                That isn't CGI. That's it. It's real. It's already deployed in theater for real-world testing.
                >https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-strykers-with-50-kilowatt-lasers-in-centcom-for-experiment-army-no-2-says/

                If you're already coping about a 50kw laser on a Stryker, wait till you see our 300kw on a HEMTT.

                is talking about 2024

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why did he post a picture from 2013 then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Original pic is even older.
                Doesn't prevent the equipment from improving over time.
                Same as if we post a F-16 picture from the 80s to illustrate a discussion about the merits of the plane type : we are not discussing that specific plane as it was when the pic was taken but whole model as it is today, with its whole known operational history.

                You would know that if you weren't an thirdie incapable of abstract thoughts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >2013
                >HEL MD
                Time marches on.
                https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-09-15-Lockheed-Martin-Delivers-Its-Highest-Powered-Laser-to-Date-to-US-Department-of-Defense
                >Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) delivered to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering OUSD (R&E) a new benchmark: a tactically-relevant electric 300 kW-class laser, the most powerful laser that Lockheed Martin has produced to date.
                That was the initial unit of IFPC-HEL. LM is building more today.
                https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/10/12/ride-of-valkyries-army-getting-us-militarys-most-powerful-laser-weapons-yet.html
                300kw is alot of laser. We wouldn't even need to increase the power, but of course we will anyway. It won't be long before flying lawnmowers are more expensive to launch than to counter.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                With the added bonus that we can do a lot more with a 300kW laser than we could have in 2013, due to advances in other areas.
                So it's really an practical improvement, not just a more powerful beam.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >300kw on a HEMTT
                still literally doesn't exist lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The CG renderings of IFPC-HEL are straight from LM, who are confirmed to have delivered the system. Laser on a HEMTT.
                https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2023-10-10-US-Army-Selects-Lockheed-Martin-to-Deliver-300-kW-class-Solid-State-Laser-Weapon-System
                >Well nobody posted a RL picture of it
                Cope and seethe my brown friend.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >CG renderings
                hahahaha I told you
                >brown
                lol wrong again homosexual

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not brown
                Doubt.jpg
                >I'm just moronic
                Eh. I'll take it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                who are you quoting mongoloid

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what are the political implications of the cia tonguing my anus on a daily basis?
                their velvety smooth tongues lap at my pucker all day, and it's getting very tiring.
                how do you get the cia to put away the tongue?

                this is political because as an American citizen I have a right to a butthole free of cia tongues.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your proof that it doesn't exist is an article from 11 years ago...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Soon(tm)

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just use something like this. It's even reusable. There, problem solved.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That would be cool but then you just build some drones designed to target those planes to accompany the ones hitting the ground.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Problem, laser?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Mount mirror on drone
      >Mirror drone is now mobbed by European robins and destroyed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, you missed that part, that this could only be used in Europe.
        What about the Middle East or in Asia?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm patiently waiting for disco-ball drones dropping grenades covered in tin-foil. The future is bright.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >shasneed
    >cheap
    >when russia paid over $300k each

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      IIRC it was $191k, still much more than the $20k ziggers were screeching. Love how they kept lowering the amount with each post btw lol.
      >10k!
      >5k!
      Even if exaggerated for the purpose of trying to illustrate the point it was still hilarious.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        was it? i couldn't remember if it was 200k or 300k.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          IIRC $191k. Yeah, it would be nice if it was a round number like $200k, would be easier to calculate certain things in your head, but life is life. Probably costs around $20-50k to make, but monke is in need and Iran Man smells blood, so Iran Man told monke to pay premium. Although now Russia has its own factory though, so gotta watch out for that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Probably costs around $20-50k to make
            According to that paper it costs $50k to make, $140k was pure profit Iran was taking home

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Need extra steps to purchase parts pkz ubderstand

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > pulling numbers out of the ass
      for what purpose?
      US, Israel, Britain and France still spent 1,5 billions to stop 200 lawn mower drones and a few oldass missiles. Does it really matter if Iran spent 3 millions or 30? the israelites are safe and that's what's important.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > pulling numbers out of the ass

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >oldass missiles
        Loving this cope. Iran used missiles introduced in 2015 and still couldn't crack Israeli ABM.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          next they'll say something about how shit from 2015 is ancient even though the DF-21D/Iskander that thirdies slob on is from 2009 and 2006.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > cope
          yeah, and the shaheed costs 1 million a piece because it just is. we have a video about it!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He never mentioned the shaheed anon, are you alright?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              He used a stock image as "proof", tho. Iran doesn't mark their missiles in english, you dumb frick.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Would you like to say that again, but with less brown?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this is export version. are you moronic? probably from before the revolution, too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Boy, Iranians sure do love parading "export variants" of their missiles with Latin characters during military parades.
                >probably from before the revolution
                Like this Zolgayhar, introduced in 2017?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this is russian B.
                next thing you say is that the numbers are in english too? fricking moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Is that a Russian "D"? Can't recall that one in Cyrillic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                russian has indeed a D. you're barking at the wrong tree

                https://i.imgur.com/2VkRDPd.jpg

                [...]
                What variant of Cyrillic is this? Never seen it before.

                look, we have hypersonics! propaganda shot. way too many letters and numbers to overwhelm the public

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/xPPn0ai.jpg

                Is that a Russian "D"? Can't recall that one in Cyrillic.

                What variant of Cyrillic is this? Never seen it before.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                serial number 001. 002 never made it in production.
                maybe he's brown, but you're jet black

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Source - my bottomless cope
                Here's another "export variant'. For customers nonexistent, because it isn't for export.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                do you even know what UAE stands for, moron?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Iran
                >Exporting missiles to the UAE
                And I'm the moron?

                Here's a Simorgh btw.
                Ask me how I know that's what it's called.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                propaganda shot so the degenerate West trembles at the might of Iran satellite launching program. It means "phoenix" btw.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What do you think the propaganda value of JAKB1E is? Is this like, a cheat code to get into the Ayatollah's hidden furry porn folder?
                You know Reza, I'm starting to think the Iranians really do use the Latin alphabet. Not for export, not for propaganda. I think they use it for themselves in ID.
                And I think the boost stages littered across Israel and Jordan really are from Iranian missiles, some of their newest ones. Which all failed spectacularly. Just my little hunch.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you fricking blind? it's obviously a military parade. the literally best place for propaganda. And no, the VIP guests and journalists are not supposed to know farsi so they get latin letters and numbers instead.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't have a rebuttal for your argument brb gotta build a strawman

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Serious Question:
    Would having a similar fleet or even greater numbers of cheapass drones be also a form of cost effective defense? Kinda like MAD.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much. Or rather, not like MAD, but you raise the right question. Notice on how those muh cost effectiveness equation, it's ALWAYS about the shithole country making it so the western country runs out of money?
      When what's bound to happen is exactly the reverse. Somehow they always leave out the fact that western country can make them swallow their pill. And doubly poisoned at that. Antyhing a shithole country can shit out, the west can do it as well and swarm them with drones. And the best part is, the western countries still have the technological advantage. You know, the one that's useful for what comes after/during the saturation part. Leveling the country.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It would be gauche to point out that the USA could produce their own Shaheeds that fly faster or further for a given distance or speed, are quieter and more reliable with better performance characteristics, and have a CEP an order of magnitude smaller while producing three or four times as many without a significant investment on our part.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Mitsubishi F-3 and other next gen air superiority fighters all look to be getting absolutely huge power plants. Probably this is partly for lasers. One way to deal with the lower range is to scramble fighters and have them laser the things down. Flying the things is always expensive of course, but it's less so if they aren't using missiles.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cheap and effective AD is what’s needed against the mass proliferation of cheap drones. Even hobby-tier trash can’t be ignored, they must be intercepted, but the trick is doing so without degrading important AD assets. That’s where EW shines, stopping the huge majority of such drones and super-cheap SHORAD like Skygaurd and Pantsir shine. So you have EW of different types covering the theatre and SHORAD covering at a tactical scale. Northrop’s ballistic system might be the way to go allowing the Army to utilize existing ammo stockpiles. These Sidewinder-based systems aren’t great because of how expensive those things are but there is a lot of them in stockpiles.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    only need to worry when there's transpacific jet versions of these. or maybe cuba gets loaded with shaheds, lel

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another goncerntrolling thirdworldoid cope thread. Just like poorgays failing to comprehend how little pricetags mean to the rich.
    There's nothing unsustainable about it. How many western warships were hit in the red sea so far, what's the ETA to outproduce western industrial capacity with your imported chinese components and drone sweatshops? Can't touch this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. One attack in 70 years. Big fricking deal. Boo-hoo, 1 billion in AA rockets. Small price to mog the muzzies this hard. Pocket change, even.

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