3 ms·

I've become a big fan of the /r/combatfootage subreddit since the war started and every time there's an anti-air rocket video there's a big discussion about the

by dmix 4y ago

I've become a big fan of the /r/combatfootage subreddit since the war started and every time there's an anti-air rocket video there's a big discussion about the utility of sending a $1 million S300 anti-air rocket to take down a $100-250k Iranian kamikaze drone. Or a $100k stinger missiles for a surveillance UAV. Or even worse economics once the Patriot system vs anything, etc. The newbie argument is always to point out how wasteful it is to do that. But every time people have to point out that Ukraine's power going out for 6hrs or some civilian loss of life or protecting some military deployment zone is way more expensive/valuable in the long run. Asymmetric warfare always requires a more expensive solution. Until affordable solutions are adapted to the problem.

Animats 4y ago
If your enemy can make you use up your expensive weapons by attacking you with something cheap, eventually you run out of the good stuff. Then they can hit you. This has already happened in Ukraine, in both directions. Early in the war, there was a video of a Russian helicopter firing off many flares to counter heat-seeking missiles. The Ukrainian attacker waited until the flares were exhausted, then fired one heat-seeking missile and shot down the helicopter.
cm2187 4y ago
> But every time people have to point out that Ukraine's power going out for 6hrs or some civilian loss of life or protecting some military deployment zone is way more expensive/valuable in the long run. That's missing the point. The point is that you will run out of $1m missiles much faster than the ennemy will run out of $100k projectiles (I think the iranian drones are even cheaper than that). It's not just money, it's supply.
- pksebben 4y ago
  I think what they meant by asymmetric warfare is that it's already not a supply issue; that's just not where the bottleneck is. The whole reason it's called asymmetric is that you're not going blow -for-blow, so you have to optimize for different things like information, allies, and maximizing hitting power per soldier
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > The point is that you will run out of $1m missiles much faster than the ennemy will run out of $100k projectiles That depends. Even though there is a 10:1 gap to overcome it is still very well possible that the wealthier country (presumably the one wielding the $1m missiles) is going to be more than 10:1 wealthier and that to them the missiles appear cheaper than the $100k projectiles do to their opponent.
unity1001 4y ago
> $100-250k Iranian kamikaze drone They actually cost $25k apiece. Cheapest Soviet era SAM costs ~$500,000. Any Western counterpart to them costs $1m and above. Things are how they are now, you can overwhelm your foe entirely by raining cheap Iranian drones on them. And getting your enemy destroy them with SAMs looks much more devastating to your enemy than you actually hitting your targets...

by dmix 4y ago

Animats 4y ago

If your enemy can make you use up your expensive weapons by attacking you with something cheap, eventually you run out of the good stuff. Then they can hit you. This has already happened in Ukraine, in both directions. Early in the war, there was a video of a Russian helicopter firing off many flares to counter heat-seeking missiles. The Ukrainian attacker waited until the flares were exhausted, then fired one heat-seeking missile and shot down the helicopter.

cm2187 4y ago

> But every time people have to point out that Ukraine's power going out for 6hrs or some civilian loss of life or protecting some military deployment zone is way more expensive/valuable in the long run. That's missing the point. The point is that you will run out of $1m missiles much faster than the ennemy will run out of $100k projectiles (I think the iranian drones are even cheaper than that). It's not just money, it's supply.

pksebben 4y ago
I think what they meant by asymmetric warfare is that it's already not a supply issue; that's just not where the bottleneck is. The whole reason it's called asymmetric is that you're not going blow -for-blow, so you have to optimize for different things like information, allies, and maximizing hitting power per soldier
jacquesm 4y ago
> The point is that you will run out of $1m missiles much faster than the ennemy will run out of $100k projectiles That depends. Even though there is a 10:1 gap to overcome it is still very well possible that the wealthier country (presumably the one wielding the $1m missiles) is going to be more than 10:1 wealthier and that to them the missiles appear cheaper than the $100k projectiles do to their opponent.

unity1001 4y ago

> $100-250k Iranian kamikaze drone They actually cost $25k apiece. Cheapest Soviet era SAM costs ~$500,000. Any Western counterpart to them costs $1m and above. Things are how they are now, you can overwhelm your foe entirely by raining cheap Iranian drones on them. And getting your enemy destroy them with SAMs looks much more devastating to your enemy than you actually hitting your targets...