It seems like SHORAD systems like the avengers is pretty outdated, will we see a replacement in the future?
When will the US get a new anti air system?
It seems like SHORAD systems like the avengers is pretty outdated, will we see a replacement in the future?
>will we see a replacement in the future
no
Is there any effective system that can reliably take out very small drones yet? Like, single hand grenade dropping drones.
They are called jammers anon.
which is why AI with the authority to kill is coming very soon.
A serious issue with even functional drone defense is range and volume. Drones can crash or deliver munitions from a long distance above, and multiple drones simultaneously or in sequence can deplete or overwhelm anti-drone systems. Volume is achievable by low costs.
lasers
>Light fog blocks your path
>drones are are purely optical guidance
Your wife gave me and the other 55 guys herpes
also
https://www.unmannedairspace.info/counter-uas-systems-and-policies/us-army-tests-raytheons-coyote-block-3-non-kinetic-counter-drone-device-defeats-swarm-of-drones/
"non-kinetic effector" is most probably High Power Microwave. Miniature version of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project
And if the drone non susceptible to microwaves smack them with kinetic warhead.
>And if the drone non susceptible to microwaves smack them with kinetic warhead.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/04/13/army-short-range-air-defense-laser-prototypes-take-down-drones-at-yuma/
Yes, multiple militaries are already fielding them or are in the process of introducing them. Skyranger, Kongsberg CUAS, DE M-SHORAD. Also EW platforms.
Medium term every vehicle that can fire programmable ammo will be integrated into the CUAS network.
Israel basically made a mini-Gepard system using an assault rifle mounted to an automated firing system.
Yeah a marlet.
just you wait
mental omega wannabe
are you just pretending to be retarded?
yeah
Generals and Zero Hour were ahead of their time, they depicted a DEW Avenger with that unit.
The sacred triad is RA2/YR, Gen/ZH and TW/KW, before it haven't their full potential, after it was the fall.
>what's America's new anti-air system?
pic-rel
Nah these look really cool. Let the fancy anti drone vehicles the marines have take over this role and relegate the avengers to point defense of a shopping mall or something
I honestly thought this thing shot unguided rockets at ground troops for the longest time
M-Shorad is the new system they basically jerryrigged hellfires to work as beamrider SAMs and TOWs since they were so plentiful plus a 30mm and stinger pod.
Basically a AA plus can do infantry support.
don't you already have these posted around your cities?
>will we see a replacement in the future?
No, we will not see a replacement in the future, because the replacement started already. Stryker SHORAD was ordered in fall 2020 and in limited service by spring of 2021, with the current contract for 144 expected to finish delivery by 2025.
I wish people did some research before posting
OP was probably just shitposting. MSHORAD is cool, they're putting 3 batteries in each Divison based on the 2030 reform, 36 units total. Enough to attach one battery per maneuver brigade. Looking at around 600-700 baseline if they wanna follow their plans. IFPC/Enduring Shield/MML is in a weird spot. IIRC they wanted one battery per MSHORAD/Patriot but who knows now.
I wish the chaparral returned, but with 4 AIM-9X's for fun and to blow away a shit ton of money
The MML/IFPC is supposed to be able to fire sidewinders. Tamir, stringer, MHTK are all apparently weapons it can handle which is pretty neat
the chap was a garbage stopgap vehicle created when the Mauler program failed. it never should have existed to begin with and should have been phased out much earlier than it was
>should have been phased out much earlier
and replaced with what?
There is nothing wrong with Chaparral actually. Cheap and effective. It's smaller Soviet brother, SA-13, was the main A-10 killer during Desert Storm. And Chaparral is much better than SA-13 it has missile with much more powerful warhead.
Another case of the US dumping all funding into the USAF
Phalanx on tank chassis
>patriot
>shorad
other countries make shorad
we make NGAD
>9 figure stealth fighter to counter 4 figure quadcopters
no
yes
its fucking badass and no one else on earth can do it
Is there any idea of what is the optimal light aa against drones? Are missiles too expensive for the task?
EW.
Are there any videos or stories of Ukrainians successfully using these jamming anti drone guns they got sent? Seems like a dud compared to traditional air defense.
Yes: they said they preferred more lethal options such as MANPADs, because disrupting a drone merely makes it fall down or activates its go-home autopilot, in the latter case it'll survive to come back. They prefer to knock it out for good. So the anti-drone guns they were given were regarded as the absolute last resort.
This is the nth time I'm posting this graphic here
Yes anon, lasers have no downsides and will totally invalidate all other forms of aa.
>what is reading comprehension
Okay mr raytheon, show me the missile that can take down drones, and is cheaper than the drones it's supposed to counter.
>what
>is
>reading
>comprehension
Ps: look at anons image
Where is the cost effective destruction of a drone in that image?
Jesus Christ you really are that new.
That's right. I'm the boss of this board now bitch.
Embarrassing.
>show me the missile that can take down drones, and is cheaper than the drones it's supposed to counter.
Coyote block 3.
Yes.
I respect your attitude mr chad, but what will you do if it's bad weather?
Increase energy output.
Mind, you do have a valid objection, but you need to keep current with technological breakthroughs in the area. The US Army isn't stupid, and "all-weather capability" is one of the stated requirements for their laser systems.
I guess you could somewhat mitigate the energy problems by changing the wavelength, although getting a reasonable energy efficiency at some partcular wavelength might be tricky. However, there is still the issue that simple rubber paint will defeat most laser weapons. I don't think lasers will be cost effective anti drone weapons.
>changing the wavelength
As I understand it, it's all about power output. DEW is said to be quite energy intensive, but they are doing it.
>simple rubber paint will defeat most laser weapons
No
Like I said, you have to keep up with the times.
Also, DEW doesn't have to destroy the weapon body to disable the weapon. They can also target onboard sensors and burn them out, which is a lot less energy intensive.
I am afraid that if they're trying to brute force their way through dust/sand/rain then the current laser tech will be another delusional brass moment. Although you're right about the sensors.
One of the bigger advantages of laser based DE is the exteme precision. With the absolutely mad improvement in software right now I am not worried about lasers not being able to hit joints and lenses and control surfaces. Even a theoretical meme paint can’t cover everything
>but what will you do if it's bad weather?
Use a wavelength that is less susceptible to atmospheric effects from unfavorable weather conditions, and have adaptable optics/mirrors. You know how scientists bounce a laser off the atmosphere, and measure the distortion effects on the laser beam by the atmosphere, to then distort their optical telescope's mirror(s) to correct for the atmospheric distortion? Just like that.
>Exactly how this was done is something that Boeing is keeping close to its chest, but it’s likely that it involves using a reference laser beam to probe through, for example, the fog so that computers could analyze how the atmospheric conditions were distorting the laser. The optics in the HEL-MD would then refocus the weapon beam, so the distortion, instead of spreading it or bending it off course, puts it back into the right shape.
https://newatlas.com/boeing-laser-directed-energy-weapon-fog/33672/
It’s hard posting with retards
Cost of a defense system is not that important - as long as the expenditure is less than the cost of what it defends it’s broadly speaking fine. It’s also quite frankly not a big deal to overspend - war isn’t an rts gay.
Lasers are probably the least interesting for of DE but they are also probably the best form of SHORAD and as a C-RAM/Phalanx replacement long term. Twitch reflexes, deep magazines, mobility.
The point of heckin lazers!! isnt to replace missiles and munitions but to supplement them.
The US is developing and deploying other SHORAD systems.
Layering capabilities is good
high energy microwaves have a wide range of uses and applications, and are viewed favourably because they can be used to disrupt, damage or degrade as well as destroy
DE includes EW.
You can, if you aren’t a turd world shithole, jam specific frequencies and areas and technologies without disrupting your own operations
The point of SHORAD is to be local and not area or strategic
You can’t completely defeat drones and chasing that is for retards. The point is to degrade their effectiveness using multiple systems and strategies and technologies such that they aren’t decisive, and to minimise their impact generally.
Drones won’t obsolete everything. And possibly anything
Drone weapons are probably the least impactful drone technology in war
Small drones are themselves severely impacted by weather
Drones however make for a great asymmetrical warfare tool and insurgent weapon
Lasers are a supremely shit man portable weapon and a supremely shit anti personnel weapon.
Most important: you can just fucking read about what the US is developing and deploying and what technologies they think will have what capabilities in the future. It’s not even hard to find this shit
>as long as the expenditure is less than the cost of what it defends
No
The cost of defence has to be less than the cost of attacking
There have been far fewer delusional brass moments than there have been baseless naysayers mouthing off without knowing jack shit. Literally every single major US defence procurement item since the 70s has been described as the absolute death of the US Armed Forces.
It's not actually as easy as that. Targeting was also a major hurdle. Don't forget, until not too long ago a hit-to-kill missile was the absolute pinnacle of precision. A laser beam is substantially smaller than an interceptor missile warhead.
>The cost of defence has to be less than the cost of attacking
Wrong-trump.png
Why?
Simple example
You have a US marine. He is worth approximately nothing but it cost a lot, let’s say a million, to potty train him and it took 19 years to grow him from his goblina’s womb to now
He gets shot at by a hajji with a shitty rifle he got for 1 goat (50 USD, and the most prized puss in the valley) using 50 rounds of ammunition that cost him, say, 20 bucks.
If said marine is saved by a… let’s say 500 USD plate. Then that plate was a good investment even though it cost more than the rifle and bullets.
On a larger scale, imagine a super-carrier. Imagine a missile coming towards it. Or just some hajjis on rafts with bombs. If you can destroy that threat at five times the cost of the threat, it’s worth every penny as it saves your carrier which costs a lot more.
But let’s get away from cost - the carrier is worth protecting because of the capabilities it gives you. The marine is worth protecting because coffins are expensive and someone has to bang Korean hookers. You protect important assets as best you can, and layer various capabilities to achieve dominance in any given domain. Because the point of war is to win.
This example demands that the carrier face only one singular missile. What if it faces a large number of anti-ship missiles which are cheaper than the anti-missile missiles? Given two armies of equal budget and assuming no production bottlenecks, the attacker obviously has the advantage.
If you can’t understand why your thinking is stupid on its face then idk what to tell you. You should probably read actual military history and various books on military theory and operations and weapons systems, because you sound like a retarded HOI player
If you can't explain why, you probably don't know the answer, so maybe you should take your own advice.
>Given two armies of equal budget and assuming no production bottlenecks, the attacker obviously has the advantage.
Complete the scenario:
>at five times the cost of the threat
>This example demands that the carrier face only one singular missile. What if it faces a large number of anti-ship missiles which are cheaper than the anti-missile missiles? Given two armies of equal budget and assuming no production bottlenecks, the attacker obviously has the advantage.
The problem with this scenario is that it only works as an hypothetical.
Even assuming no production bottlenecks, if the carrier survives the missile spam it *will* create production bottlenecks.
The other side will notice the attrition through cost and work on degrading your ability to missile spam. You cannot assume a nonreactive opfor in your plans.
>Targeting was also a major hurdle. Don't forget, until not too long ago a hit-to-kill missile was the absolute pinnacle of precision. A laser beam is substantially smaller than an interceptor missile warhead.
A missile has to steer itself into a target while fighting against extreme aerodynamic forces at several times the speed of sound. A laser is literally point and shoot.
That's propulsion and manoeuvreing. I was talking specifically about targeting.
>if the carrier survives the missile spam it *will* create production bottlenecks
and the carrier doesn't come free either, right? you assume the other side doesn't have assets as well?
>The other side will notice the attrition through cost and work on degrading your ability to missile spam
Correct. And so the Great Game goes on. My point is simply that cost is a very important factor for planning each stroke and counter-stroke. Eventually, the side which runs out of cash first, wins. This should not have been lost on the country which won WW2.
>You cannot assume a nonreactive opfor in your plans
I'm not, but I think you are.
>it only works as an hypothetical
It's extremely real for all other NATO countries not the USA, because we don't have the world's largest economy and so many defence dollars that you don't even have to THINK about the cost effectiveness of the exchange.
Seriously, you guys have to stop acting like Richie Rich, you may actually face opponents with the ability to throw around super-expensive counters to your weapons in future .
>That's propulsion and manoeuvreing. I was talking specifically about targeting.
And my point is that targeting is much more complicated when you need to worry about the actual flight of the missile. A laser weapon, on the other hand, is just a straight line between the emitter and target.
>targeting is much more complicated when you need to worry about the actual flight of the missile
You're saying that missile targeting is more difficult because it impacts missile kinematics
That's a whole different part of the system, with different challenges
It's like if I said laser targeting is more difficult because it impacts laser power generation
Technically true, but irrelevant within the field of targeting per se - it's a whole different part of the system, with different challenges
You’re fucking retarded
>n-n-no u!
Have you a coherent answer, or are you just gonna sperg?
>It seems like SHORAD systems like the avengers is pretty outdated, will we see a replacement in the future?
if only this was easily answerable on the world wide web with an incomprehensible amount of information and news. There even more than one new option for SHORAD! imagine that.