4 ms·

> I suspect the future won't be "super weapons" like the F-35, but instead just "mass" weapons like tens of weaponized drones. Where the mission isn't to be inv

> I suspect the future won't be "super weapons" like the F-35, but instead just "mass" weapons like tens of weaponized drones. Where the mission isn't to be invisible but to simply overwhelming enemy defenses (essentially the World War I strategy, but without the massive numbers of dead soldiers). I think this point of view will come to be seen as anachronistic, much as the WWI strategy was not long after WWI. Why? There is a fundamental disparity between the complexity needed for a forward-operating offensive weapon, and the complexity needed for domestic defensive weapons. Offensive drones need to avoid defenses and navigate to a particular target. Defensive drones just need to interfere with the offensive drones. Any offensive strategy you can think of that depends on simple numbers, can be countered with numbers at lower cost. If it's drones, I can build more defensive drones than you can build offensive drones for the same total cost.

oconnor663 7y ago
> Any offensive strategy you can think of that depends on simple numbers, can be countered with numbers at lower cost. If it's drones, I can build more defensive drones than you can build offensive drones for the same total cost. Mobility can complicate that picture. If I have a million attack drones, and you have a million defense drones, there's still the question of where you put your defenses. If you have a hundred cities to defend, you might realistically need a hundred million drones.
- ectospheno 7y ago
  I imagine they will spot whatever you are using to transport your million drones...
  - D-Coder 7y ago
    Transport? You can't just fly them there?
    - sq_ 7y ago
      I mean, it seems like any drone cheap enough to be expendable by the millions would probably be lacking enough in range as to need a carrier/mothership of some sort.
      - animal531 7y ago
        And of course the carrier/mothership could be a cloaked bomber that drops them over the target zone, which brings back the need for cloaking.
nyolfen 7y ago
>Any offensive strategy you can think of that depends on simple numbers, can be countered with numbers at lower cost. If it's drones, I can build more defensive drones than you can build offensive drones for the same total cost. if it's so simple, why are there presently no defensive drones?
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  Because there are many less expensive ways to defend against drones than using drones. It has been considered and rejected. The cost is even more asymmetrical in favor of defense than implied by using defensive drones.
  - noodlesUK 7y ago
    I think you’ll find a certain UK airport disagrees with you significantly. This sort of asymmetrical warfare isn’t about “attack” or “defence” in the strict sense, but it’s more about a less well-funded group inflicting significant losses on a more well-funded group.
myrryr 7y ago
Only if you are attacking where the defence drones are. An attacker only needs to pick one area and overwhelm it, the defender needs to pick ALL targets and produce enough to defend all of them. Defence vs drones is a LOT more expensive than the attack.
comex 7y ago
But… We currently have offensive ICBMs versus automated defensive weapons designed to shoot them down, and it’s the offensive side that has the upper hand. In my limited knowledge, shooting down an ICBM is hard because, among other things, you have to precisely hit a small, very fast-moving object, whereas the ICBM only needs to get into the general vicinity of its target location before exploding. Now, you’re talking about planes rather than missiles, but wouldn’t many of the same principles apply?
ALittleLight 7y ago
I don't think this is true. If my low cost attack drones just fly in, aiming to explode on your infrastructure or personnel, your defensive drones will have to be able to catch and kill small moving targets that may or may not have evasive or defensive weapons. I think swarms of cheap, possibly disposable, attack drones will be a real future threat.

oconnor663 7y ago

> Any offensive strategy you can think of that depends on simple numbers, can be countered with numbers at lower cost. If it's drones, I can build more defensive drones than you can build offensive drones for the same total cost. Mobility can complicate that picture. If I have a million attack drones, and you have a million defense drones, there's still the question of where you put your defenses. If you have a hundred cities to defend, you might realistically need a hundred million drones.

ectospheno 7y ago
I imagine they will spot whatever you are using to transport your million drones...
- D-Coder 7y ago
  Transport? You can't just fly them there?
  - sq_ 7y ago
    I mean, it seems like any drone cheap enough to be expendable by the millions would probably be lacking enough in range as to need a carrier/mothership of some sort.
    - animal531 7y ago
      And of course the carrier/mothership could be a cloaked bomber that drops them over the target zone, which brings back the need for cloaking.

nyolfen 7y ago

jandrewrogers 7y ago
Because there are many less expensive ways to defend against drones than using drones. It has been considered and rejected. The cost is even more asymmetrical in favor of defense than implied by using defensive drones.
- noodlesUK 7y ago
  I think you’ll find a certain UK airport disagrees with you significantly. This sort of asymmetrical warfare isn’t about “attack” or “defence” in the strict sense, but it’s more about a less well-funded group inflicting significant losses on a more well-funded group.

myrryr 7y ago

Only if you are attacking where the defence drones are. An attacker only needs to pick one area and overwhelm it, the defender needs to pick ALL targets and produce enough to defend all of them. Defence vs drones is a LOT more expensive than the attack.

comex 7y ago

But… We currently have offensive ICBMs versus automated defensive weapons designed to shoot them down, and it’s the offensive side that has the upper hand. In my limited knowledge, shooting down an ICBM is hard because, among other things, you have to precisely hit a small, very fast-moving object, whereas the ICBM only needs to get into the general vicinity of its target location before exploding. Now, you’re talking about planes rather than missiles, but wouldn’t many of the same principles apply?

ALittleLight 7y ago

I don't think this is true. If my low cost attack drones just fly in, aiming to explode on your infrastructure or personnel, your defensive drones will have to be able to catch and kill small moving targets that may or may not have evasive or defensive weapons. I think swarms of cheap, possibly disposable, attack drones will be a real future threat.