5 ms·

That's a good point. I always considered this in the opposite direction though. Once you have a sufficient number of drones I don't think any conventional aircr

That's a good point. I always considered this in the opposite direction though. Once you have a sufficient number of drones I don't think any conventional aircraft will have sufficient weaponry to deal with them effectively. Use the Sidewinder missiles as an example. You're going to run out of munitions very quickly and be left with far poorer capabilities.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
I just don't see a drone swarm sufficient to the task of taking down a single jet fighter in disputed territory as being economically feasible (for the reasons I outlined previously). Maybe it could be done defensively over territory you controlled, but the 'drone swarm' in this instance really does just sound like a ground-to-air missile.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. The smaller your drone the lower its effective range or loitering time. Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. The transport vehicle usually also has much better sensors so that it can effectively search for targets. Guided weapons receive additional targeting data from the transport vehicle even after they have been deployed and are heading toward the target. When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. For the cost of a F-35 the US can buy 100 tomahawk missiles. I still remember that attack where 60 cruise missiles were launched from a single navy vessel at a military airport in Syria with essentially no risk of counterattack.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. Most drones are cheap civilian toys. Military drones have had much greater endurance for decades. > Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. If you are using short-endurancd drones for some reason (e.g., missiles), the carrier can just be a long-endurance drone. > When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. That they already exist and are cheap and effective is proof of the point, not an argument against it.

scoopertrooper 6y ago

I just don't see a drone swarm sufficient to the task of taking down a single jet fighter in disputed territory as being economically feasible (for the reasons I outlined previously). Maybe it could be done defensively over territory you controlled, but the 'drone swarm' in this instance really does just sound like a ground-to-air missile.

imtringued 6y ago
I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. The smaller your drone the lower its effective range or loitering time. Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. The transport vehicle usually also has much better sensors so that it can effectively search for targets. Guided weapons receive additional targeting data from the transport vehicle even after they have been deployed and are heading toward the target. When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. For the cost of a F-35 the US can buy 100 tomahawk missiles. I still remember that attack where 60 cruise missiles were launched from a single navy vessel at a military airport in Syria with essentially no risk of counterattack.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. Most drones are cheap civilian toys. Military drones have had much greater endurance for decades. > Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. If you are using short-endurancd drones for some reason (e.g., missiles), the carrier can just be a long-endurance drone. > When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. That they already exist and are cheap and effective is proof of the point, not an argument against it.