Drone hunting in Yemen war

This is how air defense Should be done. Fighter aircraft as the front face. This is what other mid-East Nation should do even with Allies with more modern aircraft.

The E-3 must have been involved too to give direction to the F-15's.


Expensive ? Well there is nothing cheap against low RCS, low flying targets. It also have to be weighed on the potential damage those drones or cruise missile can cause to its target.
 
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
I sure it was AIM-120
Click to expand...

stealthflanker said:
Expensive ? Well there is nothing cheap against low RCS, low flying targets. It also have to be weighed on the potential damage those drones or cruise missile can cause to its target.
Click to expand...
Given the low difficulty engagement geometry in broad daylight, perhaps a gun kill should be attempted.

Overall though, cheaper interceptors and cheaper munitions can do the job. If a one-pixel sensor sidewinder was good enough for your grandpa....

I wonder if anyone is building cheap AAM that can be dropped out of bombers or even cargo aircraft: I'd expect that sort of thing to be needed if someone tries a saturation attack against deep targets.

AN/AWW-14(V) said:
possibly the more optimal solution in the long term using a radar line on border
network of small radars like AN/MPQ-64 and Giraffe
Click to expand...
Border radars could be attacked directly though, one would need fairly dense SHORAD and other defense coverage. Building a "great wall of AD" across significant distances is probably more expensive than planes that can coverage huge areas each.
 
shin_getter said:
Border radars could be attacked directly though, one would need fairly dense SHORAD and other defense coverage. Building a "great wall of AD" across significant distances is probably more expensive than planes that can coverage huge areas each.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, taking into account the line-of-sight factor and the uncertainty bearing of the target in radar shadows
 
There is always the F-15 automated firing gun project. But many are flying way to low to risk a precious airframe like an eagle.

But ideally HPMW will do the trick with pods underslung the wing roots as the Felon could well do already.
 

Attachments

  • Low_altitude_coverage_radar_cost_effectiveness.pdf
    306.9 KB · Views: 9
Addition on Aerostats. This is kind of rough comparison on coverage against targets at differing altitude between ground based Patriots vs Potential Aerostat or other airborne option. I'm taking Abqaiq again as example on the advantage of Airborne platform vs ground based radar.


As seen here The Abqaiq refinery. The Patriot battery cannot really provide protection to the refinery part down to 100 m altitude, where potential suicide UAV will fly.

RadarCoverage-20210331-160519.png

RadarCoverage-20210331-160616.png

In other hand with Aerostat platform.. if one can tether it to 2000 m.
RadarCoverage-20210331-160821.png

As seen. Coverage against low altitude targets are Much improved. The entire complex can now be covered down to 100 m altitude.

RadarCoverage-20210331-160857.png


On the plus side... Iran might need to think twice if they want to circumvent the Patriot's low altitude coverage if Aerostat or airborne platform is there.
 
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
shin_getter said:
Border radars could be attacked directly though, one would need fairly dense SHORAD and other defense coverage. Building a "great wall of AD" across significant distances is probably more expensive than planes that can coverage huge areas each.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, taking into account the line-of-sight factor and the uncertainty bearing of the target in radar shadows
Click to expand...
Additionally, most of the KSA is empty space with tight clusters of point targets. An airborne defense with a tight point defenses makes more sense. However KSA AD doesn't have a good anti drone point defense system. They would probably benefit from something like M-SHORAD.
 
I wish I had Raytheon stock...

but seriously, even if shooting down cheap drones with AAMs is effective in the short run, you have to wonder how long even the Saudis can withstand a prolonged campaign of cost imposition. Not that i have a solution for them, but if i were a Houthi i'd just ramp up production of these things, there's no downside to it.
 
We must be very close to a blimp with a laser on it? Power coming up the cable/tether? Might not last long in a real shooting war, but in Saudi it should?
 
The only cheap solution would be a more cost effective AAM (the US experimented with laser guided 2 3/4" folding fin rockets, which would probably work on this target class) or a ground based gun that could be cued by an aloft radar (aerostats would be more cost effective but RSAF also has the E-3s).
 
If they can sort out the HVP, you could pump out rounds at 10's of thousands of dollars from any 155 battery. Really the hard part is sorting out the ABMS which cues it. But the succesful (anti-) cruise missile test was encouraging.
 
Here are few more things to think about:

First is UAV with Radar packages. MQ-9 or RQ-4 both have radar packages and endurance for this kind of mission, the costs ought to be somewhere between AEW and balloon radars.

Second is Yemeni attempts at SEAD, as Patriots radars have reportedly been attacked by drones. Not sure what is the best SEAD strategy for Iranian backed forces with their force mix.

Third is the coverage area needed. Calculations using aerodynamic models puts Samad-3 at ~2000km range, which enables less direct routes of attack against a number of targets.
------------

A downward firing gunpod (as opposed to somewhat upward firing fixed gun) is teh solution for fighters. Can stay at attitude and shoot leisurely against a non-evading target. Double plus good if it fits on a trainer/loyalwingman class aircraft.

Only need missiles against a evading and defense saturating attacks. Laser guidance works if there is enough strategic depth, if time is constrained perhaps a cheap EOIR missile like tamir can be adapted for air launch, though sorting out massed salvos against swarms would be require development.

HVP lowers interception costs, but number of sites needed is likely the same.
 
It looks like a good opportunity to get rid of old stocks of AIM-7 Sparrows, older AIM-9 Lima or Mike models and provide fighter pilots with free targets for training. That might explain why some Israeli F-15s have been spotted with Sparrows lately.
www.thedrive.com

Israeli F-15s Were Armed With Old Missiles During B-52 Escort

Israel's F-15 "Baz" fleet is specially modified and appears to fly with an eclectic mix of air-to-air weaponry while patrolling the homeland.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Excellent idea. Nothing get wasted ! Everybody: whoever has old AAMs in storage - now you have an excellent ocasion to expend them.

Let's turn Saudi Arabia skies into giant shooting grounds !

The AIM-9L did wonders with SHARs in the Falklands. No reason it performs badly against drones, even 38 years later...

Heck, this also applies to old SAMs. Hawks, anybody ? old Sparrow systems ?

France has two Cassard frigates with antiquated SM-1 systems (even upgraded).

Tout doit disparaitre !
 
F-15 and typhoon fighters using amraams and sidewinders to dispatch drones is horrifically cost prohibitive. Even the buk/tor/pantsir systems of the ruskies has been heinous in expense.

The best way to go I think is a fusion of where some European and Russian firms are going. Smaller, cheaper missiles developed for classic shorads systems used in conjunction with 40 to 60 mm smart air burst munitions. More expensive air defense from ground and air is held as last resort.

Edited to add a postscript: brilliant idea in using stocks of older a2a missiles. Do we still have working AIM7 sparrows in stock? Even though our missiles have much better reserve capabilities than Russian and Chinese analogues, I think that even our stockpiles of older sparrows and sidewinders would be past the point of use if we do actually still have them. Now I'm going to look it up that is an interesting topic.
 
Last edited:
Well the Saudis have truckloads of oil money, so they probably don't care...
 
If cost really does matter. Lasers seems to have clear edge in cost per shot and target handling capability.

The following is my simple estimates on hypothetical laser weapon a solid state type, with 1.2 MW capability. It has 40 cm mirror telescope. and 10 Km range. It is relatively big... 2.4 metric tonne for the laser head and 2.67 Metric tonne for the required generator. I havent touch on cooling yet but it definitely needs some extreme cooling capability. Assuming 90% of heat removal it would need 1 MW of cooling capacity. The cooling equipment weight can be estimated by converting that 1 MW to KW so it would be 1000 KW and multiply it with 1.36. Thus the cooling system would be 1.36 Metric tonne.

This kind of laser can handle Aircraft with assumed hardness of 25 kJ/sqcm. In 1 second of engagement time. Thus If there is a drone or aircraft or cruise missile move at Mach 0.9. The system can handle 33 of them. With fuel requirements of about 1.72 US Gallon. of 6 liters. Costing about 6.9 USD or 2 Cents per targets.

I wonder what else can be cheaper than that.

The system can cost several millions of dollars maybe... perhaps as costly as modern SAM battery. But if one actually cares about cost per shot... 2 cents for every targets downed.. is a real bargain.

for addition.. Slower drones essentially improves matter.. the second example is drone at mach 0.1 or some 100 Knots. The hypothetical laser system can handle 196 of them. same cost per target. It needs more fuel but 39 liters is perhaps not a big deal.
 

Attachments

  • 33 targets.png
    33 targets.png
    55.9 KB · Views: 8
  • Slower drones.png
    Slower drones.png
    12.8 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
stealthflanker said:
If cost really does matter. Lasers seems to have clear edge in cost per shot and target handling capability.

The following is my simple estimates on hypothetical laser weapon a solid state type, with 1.2 MW capability. It has 40 cm mirror telescope. and 10 Km range. It is relatively big... 2.4 metric tonne for the laser head and 2.67 Metric tonne for the required generator. I havent touch on cooling yet but it definitely needs some extreme cooling capability. Assuming 90% of heat removal it would need 1 MW of cooling capacity. The cooling equipment weight can be estimated by converting that 1 MW to KW so it would be 1000 KW and multiply it with 1.36. Thus the cooling system would be 1.36 Metric tonne.

This kind of laser can handle Aircraft with assumed hardness of 25 kJ/sqcm. In 1 second of engagement time. Thus If there is a drone or aircraft or cruise missile move at Mach 0.9. The system can handle 33 of them. With fuel requirements of about 1.72 US Gallon. of 6 liters. Costing about 6.9 USD or 2 Cents per targets.

I wonder what else can be cheaper than that.

The system can cost several millions of dollars maybe... perhaps as costly as modern SAM battery. But if one actually cares about cost per shot... 2 cents for every targets downed.. is a real bargain.

for addition.. Slower drones essentially improves matter.. the second example is drone at mach 0.1 or some 100 Knots. The hypothetical laser system can handle 196 of them. same cost per target. It needs more fuel but 39 liters is perhaps not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Or a .50 cal and a radar/optical system. Just need a few more. But you would have redundancy.
 
Fluff said:
stealthflanker said:
If cost really does matter. Lasers seems to have clear edge in cost per shot and target handling capability.

The following is my simple estimates on hypothetical laser weapon a solid state type, with 1.2 MW capability. It has 40 cm mirror telescope. and 10 Km range. It is relatively big... 2.4 metric tonne for the laser head and 2.67 Metric tonne for the required generator. I havent touch on cooling yet but it definitely needs some extreme cooling capability. Assuming 90% of heat removal it would need 1 MW of cooling capacity. The cooling equipment weight can be estimated by converting that 1 MW to KW so it would be 1000 KW and multiply it with 1.36. Thus the cooling system would be 1.36 Metric tonne.

This kind of laser can handle Aircraft with assumed hardness of 25 kJ/sqcm. In 1 second of engagement time. Thus If there is a drone or aircraft or cruise missile move at Mach 0.9. The system can handle 33 of them. With fuel requirements of about 1.72 US Gallon. of 6 liters. Costing about 6.9 USD or 2 Cents per targets.

I wonder what else can be cheaper than that.

The system can cost several millions of dollars maybe... perhaps as costly as modern SAM battery. But if one actually cares about cost per shot... 2 cents for every targets downed.. is a real bargain.

for addition.. Slower drones essentially improves matter.. the second example is drone at mach 0.1 or some 100 Knots. The hypothetical laser system can handle 196 of them. same cost per target. It needs more fuel but 39 liters is perhaps not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Or a .50 cal and a radar/optical system. Just need a few more. But you would have redundancy.
Click to expand...

With about 1 km effective range.. you would need 33 of them to handle the same amount of targets the laser can handle. So the cost will have to be weighed based on how many targets you expect to come. Unlike laser, bullets have limited speed and well... that would means a burst is likely needed and burst can take time. Laser ? 1 second and it's pinpoint, with little to no diffraction. Plus it's deep magazine.
 
stealthflanker said:
Fluff said:
stealthflanker said:
If cost really does matter. Lasers seems to have clear edge in cost per shot and target handling capability.

The following is my simple estimates on hypothetical laser weapon a solid state type, with 1.2 MW capability. It has 40 cm mirror telescope. and 10 Km range. It is relatively big... 2.4 metric tonne for the laser head and 2.67 Metric tonne for the required generator. I havent touch on cooling yet but it definitely needs some extreme cooling capability. Assuming 90% of heat removal it would need 1 MW of cooling capacity. The cooling equipment weight can be estimated by converting that 1 MW to KW so it would be 1000 KW and multiply it with 1.36. Thus the cooling system would be 1.36 Metric tonne.

This kind of laser can handle Aircraft with assumed hardness of 25 kJ/sqcm. In 1 second of engagement time. Thus If there is a drone or aircraft or cruise missile move at Mach 0.9. The system can handle 33 of them. With fuel requirements of about 1.72 US Gallon. of 6 liters. Costing about 6.9 USD or 2 Cents per targets.

I wonder what else can be cheaper than that.

The system can cost several millions of dollars maybe... perhaps as costly as modern SAM battery. But if one actually cares about cost per shot... 2 cents for every targets downed.. is a real bargain.

for addition.. Slower drones essentially improves matter.. the second example is drone at mach 0.1 or some 100 Knots. The hypothetical laser system can handle 196 of them. same cost per target. It needs more fuel but 39 liters is perhaps not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Or a .50 cal and a radar/optical system. Just need a few more. But you would have redundancy.
Click to expand...

With about 1 km effective range.. you would need 33 of them to handle the same amount of targets the laser can handle. So the cost will have to be weighed based on how many targets you expect to come. Unlike laser, bullets have limited speed and well... that would means a burst is likely needed and burst can take time. Laser ? 1 second and it's pinpoint, with little to no diffraction. Plus it's deep magazine.
Click to expand...
Both options are valid, US/China maybe Europe could afford the laser, meanwhile Iran or South africa will wheel out the .50 or god forbid the old 14.5mm

I think a .50 would be effective against a drone at more than 1km?

Laser? 20 million?

.50 with radar etc - the gun would be what 5K? Radar 20K?
 
Fluff said:
stealthflanker said:
Fluff said:
stealthflanker said:
If cost really does matter. Lasers seems to have clear edge in cost per shot and target handling capability.

The following is my simple estimates on hypothetical laser weapon a solid state type, with 1.2 MW capability. It has 40 cm mirror telescope. and 10 Km range. It is relatively big... 2.4 metric tonne for the laser head and 2.67 Metric tonne for the required generator. I havent touch on cooling yet but it definitely needs some extreme cooling capability. Assuming 90% of heat removal it would need 1 MW of cooling capacity. The cooling equipment weight can be estimated by converting that 1 MW to KW so it would be 1000 KW and multiply it with 1.36. Thus the cooling system would be 1.36 Metric tonne.

This kind of laser can handle Aircraft with assumed hardness of 25 kJ/sqcm. In 1 second of engagement time. Thus If there is a drone or aircraft or cruise missile move at Mach 0.9. The system can handle 33 of them. With fuel requirements of about 1.72 US Gallon. of 6 liters. Costing about 6.9 USD or 2 Cents per targets.

I wonder what else can be cheaper than that.

The system can cost several millions of dollars maybe... perhaps as costly as modern SAM battery. But if one actually cares about cost per shot... 2 cents for every targets downed.. is a real bargain.

for addition.. Slower drones essentially improves matter.. the second example is drone at mach 0.1 or some 100 Knots. The hypothetical laser system can handle 196 of them. same cost per target. It needs more fuel but 39 liters is perhaps not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Or a .50 cal and a radar/optical system. Just need a few more. But you would have redundancy.
Click to expand...

With about 1 km effective range.. you would need 33 of them to handle the same amount of targets the laser can handle. So the cost will have to be weighed based on how many targets you expect to come. Unlike laser, bullets have limited speed and well... that would means a burst is likely needed and burst can take time. Laser ? 1 second and it's pinpoint, with little to no diffraction. Plus it's deep magazine.
Click to expand...
Both options are valid, US/China maybe Europe could afford the laser, meanwhile Iran or South africa will wheel out the .50 or god forbid the old 14.5mm

I think a .50 would be effective against a drone at more than 1km?

Laser? 20 million?

.50 with radar etc - the gun would be what 5K? Radar 20K?
Click to expand...

Well, How many bullets one would expend for every drone shot down ? Like, there are reasons why countries are lend to Smart munitions with airburst capability or "smart flak" and you can guesstimate effective range of a machinegun by dividing their caliber by 10. Thus M2HB with 12.7mm caliber have effective range of 1.27 km. Ballistically it could perhaps do more but can it hit ? or how many rounds needed to hit something small or flying high.

Iran or South Africa will surely use SAM's for this kind of threat... Iran.. they dont protect their nuclear facility with just machinegun trucks with radars.. they protect it with 200 M USD S-300PMU-2. South Africa have or used to have Cheetah missile which now "re-branded" Sky knights by Halcon.
 
stealthflanker said:
Fluff said:
stealthflanker said:
Fluff said:
stealthflanker said:
If cost really does matter. Lasers seems to have clear edge in cost per shot and target handling capability.

The following is my simple estimates on hypothetical laser weapon a solid state type, with 1.2 MW capability. It has 40 cm mirror telescope. and 10 Km range. It is relatively big... 2.4 metric tonne for the laser head and 2.67 Metric tonne for the required generator. I havent touch on cooling yet but it definitely needs some extreme cooling capability. Assuming 90% of heat removal it would need 1 MW of cooling capacity. The cooling equipment weight can be estimated by converting that 1 MW to KW so it would be 1000 KW and multiply it with 1.36. Thus the cooling system would be 1.36 Metric tonne.

This kind of laser can handle Aircraft with assumed hardness of 25 kJ/sqcm. In 1 second of engagement time. Thus If there is a drone or aircraft or cruise missile move at Mach 0.9. The system can handle 33 of them. With fuel requirements of about 1.72 US Gallon. of 6 liters. Costing about 6.9 USD or 2 Cents per targets.

I wonder what else can be cheaper than that.

The system can cost several millions of dollars maybe... perhaps as costly as modern SAM battery. But if one actually cares about cost per shot... 2 cents for every targets downed.. is a real bargain.

for addition.. Slower drones essentially improves matter.. the second example is drone at mach 0.1 or some 100 Knots. The hypothetical laser system can handle 196 of them. same cost per target. It needs more fuel but 39 liters is perhaps not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Or a .50 cal and a radar/optical system. Just need a few more. But you would have redundancy.
Click to expand...

With about 1 km effective range.. you would need 33 of them to handle the same amount of targets the laser can handle. So the cost will have to be weighed based on how many targets you expect to come. Unlike laser, bullets have limited speed and well... that would means a burst is likely needed and burst can take time. Laser ? 1 second and it's pinpoint, with little to no diffraction. Plus it's deep magazine.
Click to expand...
Both options are valid, US/China maybe Europe could afford the laser, meanwhile Iran or South africa will wheel out the .50 or god forbid the old 14.5mm

I think a .50 would be effective against a drone at more than 1km?

Laser? 20 million?

.50 with radar etc - the gun would be what 5K? Radar 20K?
Click to expand...

Well, How many bullets one would expend for every drone shot down ? Like, there are reasons why countries are lend to Smart munitions with airburst capability or "smart flak" and you can guesstimate effective range of a machinegun by dividing their caliber by 10. Thus M2HB with 12.7mm caliber have effective range of 1.27 km. Ballistically it could perhaps do more but can it hit ? or how many rounds needed to hit something small or flying high.

Iran or South Africa will surely use SAM's for this kind of threat... Iran.. they dont protect their nuclear facility with just machinegun trucks with radars.. they protect it with 200 M USD S-300PMU-2. South Africa have or used to have Cheetah missile which now "re-branded" Sky knights by Halcon.
Click to expand...
Are you a laser salesman?

I dont doubt everyone has SAM's, the question was about cheaper options, Laser is cheap per shot, not so cheap to buy yet.

.50 could be ready in a month, and built in numbers.

Laser is excellent, .50 is good, I'd go with the good, while the big forehead guys get the lasers sorted, and down in price.

And with a 50 with radar, against a dumb drone, you can steer your shots perhaps....or smart rounds.....etc.

And as a grunt, I'd rather have a trailer with a .50 on it for this, than be told there is one laser covering 50km of the front, what if someone forgets to charge it up, or we dont have the right plug?
 
Does the advent of drones bring about the return of large AA guns? A large shell with a proximity fuse would easily take a drone down, especially with modern radar and fire control systems, not to mention that guided shells are now a possibility.
 
Wyvern said:
Does the advent of drones bring about the return of large AA guns? A large shell with a proximity fuse would easily take a drone down, especially with modern radar and fire control systems, not to mention that guided shells are now a possibility.
Click to expand...
Possibly, I’m also thinking of more environmentally friendly, like nets with little parachutes,fired at them, bringing them gently down to earth.
As with all these discussions, makes m3 think the side with the largest qty of drones and counter drones will win.

basically a war of attrition.
 
Guys, don't forget this babe (double posting from the US UCAV thread):

View: https://youtu.be/Rd_4l4CFZ3w

Working as part of a layered approach to counter-drone defense, MORFIUS units will be launched at hostile drones, or drone swarms, and then disable them in close proximity, with potentially a gigawatt of microwave power — or, as Lockheed put it, a million times the power of a standard 1,000-watt microwave oven.
Click to expand...

Drones Vs. Drones: Lockheed MORFIUS Uses Microwaves To Kill Swarms - Breaking Defense

Crucial to the promise of MORFIUS is its ability to zap many drones at once in mid-air, far from the friendly vehicles, buildings, or people actively being defended.
breakingdefense.com

www.lockheedmartin.com

MORFIUS

When threats like drone swarms evolve at the speed of commercial innovation, defensive technologies that combat these challenges must evolve even more quickly. That’s why Lockheed Martin has worked across multiple services to rapidly develop and prove a key Counter-Unmanned Aerial System...
www.lockheedmartin.com www.lockheedmartin.com
 
www.washingtoninstitute.org

Yemen’s “Southern Hezbollah”: Implications of Houthi Missile and Drone Improvements

As the Iran-backed rebels make further range leaps that bring them closer to reaching Israel and other countries, the United States needs to start viewing them as a proliferation challenge beyond Yemen’s civil war.
www.washingtoninstitute.org www.washingtoninstitute.org

Some news on Yemeni developments:
Houthi artillery rockets have progressed from the Badr-1 (unguided), to the Badr-1P and Badr-F (guided with a claimed circular error probable of 3 meters), to new variants called Sair, Qasim, and Nakal (the Houthis claimed to use a Sair in the March 25 strike).

Use of Sammad-4 unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). A bomb-dropping UCAV variant of the Sammad like the one shown at the exhibition...

The Quds-2 cruise missile, the Houthi name for Iran’s 430-mile-range Ya-Ali missile...

The range jump from Burkan-2H (650 miles) to Burkan-3 (900 miles) was a worrisome 38% increase. Eilat, at the southern tip of Israel, is just 1,100 miles away from certain Houthi launch areas, and the rest of Israel (along with various parts of Egypt and Jordan) are within 1,250 miles. In other words, with an additional range increase of just 20%, Houthi missiles (or Sammad drones) would be capable of striking Israel...
Click to expand...
Nothing forces development like the fires of war I guess. Precision rockets combined means ground defense batteries will have a very exciting life if it is deployed in close blockade.

I wonder if Sammad-4 can dive Bomb or at least maintain some level of precision outside of small arms reach.
 
stealthflanker said:
This is how air defense Should be done. Fighter aircraft as the front face. This is what other mid-East Nation should do even with Allies with more modern aircraft.

The E-3 must have been involved too to give direction to the F-15's.


Expensive ? Well there is nothing cheap against low RCS, low flying targets. It also have to be weighed on the potential damage those drones or cruise missile can cause to its target.
Click to expand...
hmmmm no cheap way against low RCS low flying targets.

electric drone..jpg
electric drone 2.jpg
electric drone 3..jpg
microwave gun.jpg
microwave gun 2..jpg

Re-usable electric drone and microwave guns, quad packed pantsir missiles are still undergoing testing. Rather if microwave guns and electric drones are meme magic there are other developments to lower costs https://tass.com/defense/1252147

"Тор-М2" получит недорогую малогабаритную ракету для борьбы с дронами

Зенитный ракетный комплекс "Тор-М2" получит новую ракету для борьбы с беспилотными летательными аппаратами. Уже выполняются работы по созданию относительно дешевой малогабаритной ракеты
rg.ru rg.ru

"The Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system will receive an inexpensive small-sized missile to combat unmanned aerial vehicles. The Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, General of the Army Oleg Salyukov, told about this in an exclusive interview with the "RG" correspondent .

Speaking about combat and reconnaissance drones, he noted that the Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system is the most effective in the fight against them. But the cost of its anti-aircraft guided missiles significantly exceeds the price of small drones.

Therefore, work is currently underway to create a relatively cheap small-sized rocket for this complex. They can be used against drones."
 
tequilashooter said:
stealthflanker said:
This is how air defense Should be done. Fighter aircraft as the front face. This is what other mid-East Nation should do even with Allies with more modern aircraft.

The E-3 must have been involved too to give direction to the F-15's.


Expensive ? Well there is nothing cheap against low RCS, low flying targets. It also have to be weighed on the potential damage those drones or cruise missile can cause to its target.
Click to expand...


Re-usable electric drone and microwave guns, quad packed pantsir missiles are still undergoing testing. Rather if microwave guns and electric drones are meme magic there are other developments to lower costs https://tass.com/defense/1252147

"Тор-М2" получит недорогую малогабаритную ракету для борьбы с дронами

Зенитный ракетный комплекс "Тор-М2" получит новую ракету для борьбы с беспилотными летательными аппаратами. Уже выполняются работы по созданию относительно дешевой малогабаритной ракеты
rg.ru rg.ru

"The Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system will receive an inexpensive small-sized missile to combat unmanned aerial vehicles. The Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, General of the Army Oleg Salyukov, told about this in an exclusive interview with the "RG" correspondent .

Speaking about combat and reconnaissance drones, he noted that the Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system is the most effective in the fight against them. But the cost of its anti-aircraft guided missiles significantly exceeds the price of small drones.

Therefore, work is currently underway to create a relatively cheap small-sized rocket for this complex. They can be used against drones."
Click to expand...


If you bother looking at the whole thread... you will see Laser which also a form of directed energy weapon as the HPM. Offer cheapest cost per shot for multiple target engagement.
 
Wyvern said:
Does the advent of drones bring about the return of large AA guns? A large shell with a proximity fuse would easily take a drone down, especially with modern radar and fire control systems, not to mention that guided shells are now a possibility.
Click to expand...

Already. You see the development of SmartShell and those new 35mm shells for Skyranger system.

However in terms of cost per shot.. once you put the smart part in the shell.. they stop become cheap. Especially if one is talking about Air target which can maneuver.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom