4 ms·

> The chance of any sort of aerial dogfighting happening in a war are next to zero. I am not so sure. Fundamentally, bullets are cheaper than missiles. A singl

> The chance of any sort of aerial dogfighting happening in a war are next to zero. I am not so sure. Fundamentally, bullets are cheaper than missiles. A single AIM-9X Sidewinder missile comes at $400k, about the price of a brand new Cessna. A fixed wing drone under $100k is not inconceivable (drones don't have to support pilots, so all sorts of failure modes are acceptable, as opposed to what's ok for a Cessna). It would be within the capabilities of many nations' armed forces to send swarms of thousands of such drones. Shooting them down with missiles will be both expensive and impractical. The only realistic way to defend against swarms of cheap drones is to use your own cheap(ish) drones that can out-dogfigth them.

bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. Still have to fear the EMP though.
- nradov 5y ago
  The only way to generate a significant EMP is with a nuclear weapon, at which point you have bigger problems than drone swarms. Non-nuclear EMP weapons do exist but the effects don't extend very far.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. I don't know why people insist on flying grenades with lots of electronics. That is very expensive. It would be more logical to use the drones for physical target acquisition and surveillance and then use an actual grenade launcher or other conventional weapons to do the killing blow.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    You're right. But if the target is on the fourth floor of an eight story building, a drone (or human) might be the only way to get the weapon there. Slaughterbots provide better leverage of air superiority than current missile-based options.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  > I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. Maybe you're thinking of sub-$1000 quadcopter-type drones. I'm thinking of fixed wing drones, something like the Houthi Samad [1] or the Iranian Shahed [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza
imtringued 5y ago
Where are all the bullet shooting missiles?
- credit_guy 5y ago
  There aren't. My point is, if you want to take down a cheap drone that comes at you with a 500 pound gravity bomb (and could make your day quite unpleasant), you can't afford to spend a missile on that, but you can afford to send another drone with a 50 cal machine gun or a 20mm cannon. But that means dogfight.
  - VectorLock 5y ago
    How about if instead of a machine gun it just explodes when it gets close? Looks like we're back to missiles.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      Yes, but then it's not cheap anymore.
      - VectorLock 5y ago
        Are guns cheaper than explosives?
        credit_guy 5y ago
        No, guns are more expensive, but they are reusable. You can fire north of 10000 rounds with a gun. The individual rounds are very cheap in the dollar range. A drone that carries and explosive and meets another drone and blows up is quite an expensive solution. You'd prefer a gun any day.
        VectorLock 5y ago
        Seems like then you're at cross purposes where you want an expensive gun on an inexpensive, vulnerable/disposable vehicle.
VectorLock 5y ago
And what are those cheap drones supposed to do? Fire even cheaper missiles? Fire bullets at aircraft far faster, higher and more maneuverable than them?
- XorNot 5y ago
  Persistent-loitering ground support would be one idea. Keeping air support hanging around for ground forces is a big problem, and "more is better" is essentially the order of the day. So your enemy gets to have a problem: if they do nothing, then you rain close-air down with impunity for your ground forces. But if you start shooting at drones with all your high-tech missiles, you're both spending a lot more per kill then they are per loss, and giving away the location and position of your ground-based anti-air assets (as well as forcing them to commit their high tech anti-air assets to the offensive - and they have pretty limited AA payloads). People need to stop thinking in terms of single-branch military, because the order of the day for any modern military is combined arms - air power is in support of some objective, not "just because".
  - VectorLock 5y ago
    >air power is in support of some objective, not "just because". Thats called "air superiority" which then trickles down to "ground support."
    - XorNot 5y ago
      In a conflict between equivalent militaries, the idea of establishing air superiority doesn't exist - otherwise you've already won.

bigbizisverywyz 5y ago

I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. Still have to fear the EMP though.

nradov 5y ago
The only way to generate a significant EMP is with a nuclear weapon, at which point you have bigger problems than drone swarms. Non-nuclear EMP weapons do exist but the effects don't extend very far.
imtringued 5y ago
>But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. I don't know why people insist on flying grenades with lots of electronics. That is very expensive. It would be more logical to use the drones for physical target acquisition and surveillance and then use an actual grenade launcher or other conventional weapons to do the killing blow.
- mLuby 5y ago
  You're right. But if the target is on the fourth floor of an eight story building, a drone (or human) might be the only way to get the weapon there. Slaughterbots provide better leverage of air superiority than current missile-based options.
credit_guy 5y ago
> I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. Maybe you're thinking of sub-$1000 quadcopter-type drones. I'm thinking of fixed wing drones, something like the Houthi Samad [1] or the Iranian Shahed [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza

imtringued 5y ago

Where are all the bullet shooting missiles?

credit_guy 5y ago
There aren't. My point is, if you want to take down a cheap drone that comes at you with a 500 pound gravity bomb (and could make your day quite unpleasant), you can't afford to spend a missile on that, but you can afford to send another drone with a 50 cal machine gun or a 20mm cannon. But that means dogfight.
- VectorLock 5y ago
  How about if instead of a machine gun it just explodes when it gets close? Looks like we're back to missiles.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    Yes, but then it's not cheap anymore.
    - VectorLock 5y ago
      Are guns cheaper than explosives?
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        No, guns are more expensive, but they are reusable. You can fire north of 10000 rounds with a gun. The individual rounds are very cheap in the dollar range. A drone that carries and explosive and meets another drone and blows up is quite an expensive solution. You'd prefer a gun any day.
        VectorLock 5y ago
        Seems like then you're at cross purposes where you want an expensive gun on an inexpensive, vulnerable/disposable vehicle.

VectorLock 5y ago

And what are those cheap drones supposed to do? Fire even cheaper missiles? Fire bullets at aircraft far faster, higher and more maneuverable than them?

XorNot 5y ago
Persistent-loitering ground support would be one idea. Keeping air support hanging around for ground forces is a big problem, and "more is better" is essentially the order of the day. So your enemy gets to have a problem: if they do nothing, then you rain close-air down with impunity for your ground forces. But if you start shooting at drones with all your high-tech missiles, you're both spending a lot more per kill then they are per loss, and giving away the location and position of your ground-based anti-air assets (as well as forcing them to commit their high tech anti-air assets to the offensive - and they have pretty limited AA payloads). People need to stop thinking in terms of single-branch military, because the order of the day for any modern military is combined arms - air power is in support of some objective, not "just because".
- VectorLock 5y ago
  >air power is in support of some objective, not "just because". Thats called "air superiority" which then trickles down to "ground support."
  - XorNot 5y ago
    In a conflict between equivalent militaries, the idea of establishing air superiority doesn't exist - otherwise you've already won.