America Downs Cheap Drones with Million-Dollar Missiles. A Fix Is in the Works(www.wsj.com)
7 pointsby JumpCrisscross8 hours ago3 comments
  • foxyv6 hours ago
    I suspect we will see something similar to CRAM that is a little less aggressive for these drones. CRAM uses a huge stream of rounds because it has to target supersonic munitions. But a drone doing 200-300 knots could be taken out with a proxy fused shell shot from a computerized turret on a HMMWV.

    In addition you will probably start seeing FIM-92k missiles (Stinger) on loyal wingman style Predator, Reaper and Viper drones using link 16 guidance from F-35 and E-3. There has already been an air to air kill with the Reaper.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a23320374...

  • fakedang7 hours ago
    Loitering munitions are all low-altitude, low-flight hovering weaponry. The best solution is to simply just use aircraft sorties or even helicopters to shoot them down with their autocannons/machine guns, but obviously you can't build a military industrial complex around that.
    • fragmede7 hours ago
      You can't? Lockheed Martin's new drone attack helicopter would like to have a word.
      • fakedang3 hours ago
        Drone attack helicopters aren't single-use disposable like these interceptors built by the startup are.
    • 1attice7 hours ago
      Yes everyone knows a billion dollar F-35 flying at stalling speed is the best approach here
      • Tostino7 hours ago
        ~100M*, but your point stands.
        • 1attice7 hours ago
          Not if you factor in the R&D
          • Tostino7 hours ago
            That's roughly the export price for them I've seen reported, which I would assume would cover some of the R&D.
            • 1attice5 hours ago
              Good lord, that is not how geopolitics works. You are supposing a normal market, not conditions of statecraft and network effect.
      • fakedang4 hours ago
        Disingenuous much?
  • 1attice7 hours ago
    By 2045 expect a couple dozen drones and anti drone missiles with your happy meal. :)

    In all seriousness, I wonder aloud if blowing things up might be intrinsically cheaper than shooting down the means of said up-blowing.

    I would wager that the floor is lower for s2s than s2a simply because there is so much s(urface)

    • ElevenLathe7 hours ago
      Maybe we can come up with an atoms-vs-atoms way of making cheap drone interceptors, but IMO the smart money is on lasers. We finally have the technology we only assumed would shortly materialize when we started the Strategic Defense Initiative. We also finally have an economic (rather than "merely" political) rationale for doing so, which is an important precondition to birthing something new in a society ruled entirely by the market.
      • 1attice7 hours ago
        I think the smart money is always on "nope" but that has more to do with the laws of thermodynamics :)

        Attenuation is going to be wild at any reasonable distance, and you can always just be reflective (or highly and harmlessly absorptive, eg self ablating paint).

        Lasers are good for jamming sensors though, which could I suppose, matter, although fibre optic drones or swarmwork could make that less useful as well

        • Tostino7 hours ago
          I have seen reports of high-powered lasers being used to sweep an area, cutting through the fiber optic cables on drones that have passed by but not yet reached their targets.

          But yeah, they do seem to always be future tech that just doesn't materialize as a reliable weapon system.