4 ms·

> I'm not sure how this is superior to just shooting a tank with a missile. armour underneath a tank is usually much lighter, because it's difficult to hit. Mi

> I'm not sure how this is superior to just shooting a tank with a missile. armour underneath a tank is usually much lighter, because it's difficult to hit. Missiles have to do fancy armour-penetration stuff to get through the main armour on a tank. If you can get a shaped charge stuck to the underside of a tank, you don't need to do the fancy stuff. > If you have a single payload, you have just a shitty, slow moving cruise missile. yes. exactly. Except that for the cost of a single conventional cruise missile, you now have 10,000 shitty slow-moving, intelligent, able-to-do-evasive-maneuvres missiles. > Al Qaeda was chaining RPGs in the last war together so it works then? Imagine 10,000 RPG grenades flying by themselves, able to chain-hit a target, with no human operator in sight. > A drone with a gun can sit in a location for 4 hours waiting for the tank to come, then fire the RPG when the tank comes into position. The drone is the grenade. It doesn't fire the grenade. It flies to the target, attaches itself, goes bang. Next one flies to the same point, attaches, goes bang. There's thousands of them.

dragontamer 5y ago
> armour underneath a tank is usually much lighter, because it's difficult to hit. Missiles have to do fancy armour-penetration stuff to get through the main armour on a tank. If you can get a shaped charge stuck to the underside of a tank, you don't need to do the fancy stuff. I'm not even sure if the air-pressures under a tank would allow a drone to fly under there. Let alone the myriad of anti-air defenses a modern tank has. The M1A1 Abrams tank has not only the main cannon, but also a .50 Caliber M2 Browning and two M240 machine guns. In addition, there's a general expectation that a tank would be surrounded by supporting troops and equipment (and vice versa: the tank supports the troops, as per the theory of Combined Arms) So a tank, facing a swarm of drones, probably can just fire its two machine guns and take them out. Its not like drones have any armor of any kind. Similarly, anti-personnel rifles from the supporting infantry would probably be effective against those drones. Once we start considering weapons like air-burst grenades, I'm finding it less-and-less likely that a "10,000 Swarm" makes any sense what-so-ever. The __reason__ we mix tanks-with-infantry is because a singular weapon (ex: air-burst grenade) works only on infantry (tank armor is too thick), while a Tandem-shaped charge RPG only really works on tanks (Personnel are relatively cheap and move in groups. If you kill one, the rest of their buddies gang up and kill you). ------------ Any scenario where you're just lobbing uniformly made drones into the same area just opens them up to air-burst or machine gun fire. ----------- EDIT: I had a lot of unnecessary words. Lets just point this out... I'm not sure if you understand how good machine guns are today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS We have machine guns that can autonomously aim and shoot-down a group of missiles that travel at 1500 mph (Mach 2). And you think a swarm of 10,000 drones flying at lol 100 mph has a chance? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB8d3OaFEco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB8d3OaFEco Depending on the armament: you could have up to 9000 "pellets" per shot that airburst at the expected distance to maximize the chance of hitting the target. If a missile flying at 1500mph has no chance, why do you think a drone at 100 chance or 200 mph has a chance? Israel's "Iron Dome" machine guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaqBWXM8Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaqBWXM8Ko These platforms are "portable", for a definition of portable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAw82h-IhdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAw82h-IhdQ
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I think there's a big difference between a large, hot, predictable missile and a tiny, cold, evasive drone. Area-effect weapons would have more impact, sure. But that's a lot of area to cover. A bit like flak vs airplanes - you've got to shoot a lot of metal into the air hoping for a bit of shrapnel to hit something vital. It's the "big and expensive" vs "tiny and very cheap" decision - you don't mind losing 90% of your swarm to take out one tank, because the entire swarm costs less than the tank (added bonus: there's no humans in the swarm).
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > I think there's a big difference between a large, hot, predictable missile and a tiny, cold, evasive drone. Apparently this hypothetical drone you're talking about has the evasion of a missile, and the stealth capabilities of the latest $Billion stealth aircraft, while 10,000 of them put together costs less than a single M1 Abrams tank. It can also fly at speeds to evade our aimbot CIWS or aimbot CRAM defensive guns and carries enough of an explosive payload to damage an M1 Abrams. Color me skeptical. I find it unlikely that you can make such a device for $1000ish.
    - Arrath 5y ago
      It feels disingenuous to say that the OP was implying a drone would have the same LO/stealth capabilities as a B-1 of F-22. By their nature, a drone could be harder to detect than another threat. A small drone will have a small radar return, and battery powered electric motors will generate less of a thermal signature than a rocket motor. I'm not at all saying that a CIWS or CRAM would be totally ineffective against a drone or a swarm of drones, but that they may not be the impenetrable shield, either. There are limitations to sensors, target classification, rules of engagement (will the CRAM automatically light up a drone with 50 rounds if the backstop is an office building or residential block?), and ammunition capacity. Let's take CRAM, AFAIK they are mostly installed to protect against indirect fires, so that may imply that they're tuned/configured against certain incoming projectile trajectory, speed profiles, and radar returns. Bird like radar signatures may be filtered out, or level flight trajectories that do not indicate an impact within the protected area. Nothing that can't be changed, of course, but such change might come after a few bloody engagements. In a true future war scenario it wouldn't be one hobbyist drone with a jury rigged mortar round against a CRAM installation either, I would expect there to be drones flying around blasting out wide-band EM hash, dropping lines of chaff, and using other measures to clutter the battlespace and confuse and overload defending sensors to allow offensive devices to get through and damage or destroy their targets.

dragontamer 5y ago

> armour underneath a tank is usually much lighter, because it's difficult to hit. Missiles have to do fancy armour-penetration stuff to get through the main armour on a tank. If you can get a shaped charge stuck to the underside of a tank, you don't need to do the fancy stuff. I'm not even sure if the air-pressures under a tank would allow a drone to fly under there. Let alone the myriad of anti-air defenses a modern tank has. The M1A1 Abrams tank has not only the main cannon, but also a .50 Caliber M2 Browning and two M240 machine guns. In addition, there's a general expectation that a tank would be surrounded by supporting troops and equipment (and vice versa: the tank supports the troops, as per the theory of Combined Arms) So a tank, facing a swarm of drones, probably can just fire its two machine guns and take them out. Its not like drones have any armor of any kind. Similarly, anti-personnel rifles from the supporting infantry would probably be effective against those drones. Once we start considering weapons like air-burst grenades, I'm finding it less-and-less likely that a "10,000 Swarm" makes any sense what-so-ever. The __reason__ we mix tanks-with-infantry is because a singular weapon (ex: air-burst grenade) works only on infantry (tank armor is too thick), while a Tandem-shaped charge RPG only really works on tanks (Personnel are relatively cheap and move in groups. If you kill one, the rest of their buddies gang up and kill you). ------------ Any scenario where you're just lobbing uniformly made drones into the same area just opens them up to air-burst or machine gun fire. ----------- EDIT: I had a lot of unnecessary words. Lets just point this out... I'm not sure if you understand how good machine guns are today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS We have machine guns that can autonomously aim and shoot-down a group of missiles that travel at 1500 mph (Mach 2). And you think a swarm of 10,000 drones flying at lol 100 mph has a chance? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB8d3OaFEco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB8d3OaFEco Depending on the armament: you could have up to 9000 "pellets" per shot that airburst at the expected distance to maximize the chance of hitting the target. If a missile flying at 1500mph has no chance, why do you think a drone at 100 chance or 200 mph has a chance? Israel's "Iron Dome" machine guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaqBWXM8Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaqBWXM8Ko These platforms are "portable", for a definition of portable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAw82h-IhdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAw82h-IhdQ

marcus_holmes 5y ago
I think there's a big difference between a large, hot, predictable missile and a tiny, cold, evasive drone. Area-effect weapons would have more impact, sure. But that's a lot of area to cover. A bit like flak vs airplanes - you've got to shoot a lot of metal into the air hoping for a bit of shrapnel to hit something vital. It's the "big and expensive" vs "tiny and very cheap" decision - you don't mind losing 90% of your swarm to take out one tank, because the entire swarm costs less than the tank (added bonus: there's no humans in the swarm).
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > I think there's a big difference between a large, hot, predictable missile and a tiny, cold, evasive drone. Apparently this hypothetical drone you're talking about has the evasion of a missile, and the stealth capabilities of the latest $Billion stealth aircraft, while 10,000 of them put together costs less than a single M1 Abrams tank. It can also fly at speeds to evade our aimbot CIWS or aimbot CRAM defensive guns and carries enough of an explosive payload to damage an M1 Abrams. Color me skeptical. I find it unlikely that you can make such a device for $1000ish.
  - Arrath 5y ago
    It feels disingenuous to say that the OP was implying a drone would have the same LO/stealth capabilities as a B-1 of F-22. By their nature, a drone could be harder to detect than another threat. A small drone will have a small radar return, and battery powered electric motors will generate less of a thermal signature than a rocket motor. I'm not at all saying that a CIWS or CRAM would be totally ineffective against a drone or a swarm of drones, but that they may not be the impenetrable shield, either. There are limitations to sensors, target classification, rules of engagement (will the CRAM automatically light up a drone with 50 rounds if the backstop is an office building or residential block?), and ammunition capacity. Let's take CRAM, AFAIK they are mostly installed to protect against indirect fires, so that may imply that they're tuned/configured against certain incoming projectile trajectory, speed profiles, and radar returns. Bird like radar signatures may be filtered out, or level flight trajectories that do not indicate an impact within the protected area. Nothing that can't be changed, of course, but such change might come after a few bloody engagements. In a true future war scenario it wouldn't be one hobbyist drone with a jury rigged mortar round against a CRAM installation either, I would expect there to be drones flying around blasting out wide-band EM hash, dropping lines of chaff, and using other measures to clutter the battlespace and confuse and overload defending sensors to allow offensive devices to get through and damage or destroy their targets.