4 ms·

> So I think ray guns are going to be more widespread as anti-missile defense systems The issue as highlighted by the situation in UA is that the highest-tech

> So I think ray guns are going to be more widespread as anti-missile defense systems The issue as highlighted by the situation in UA is that the highest-tech weapons cannot be deployed to the front lines where they are needed, as they might fall into the enemy's hands and be reverse engineered. I am much more interested in hacked low-tech solutions. For example, walls of anti-air racing drone style quadcopters which can seek out an Iranian drone and just ram it. I am a little surprised that we have not seen these yet.

dsq 4y ago
Laser defense is fundametally short range, so it's best use case is probably behind the front lines, to defend your air force bases and keep the air power active. Also to defend ships. Critical infrastructure such as fuel depots, power stations. Anything up to a few kilometers. This also means your lasers are connected to power lines. The best idea is to keep your rear echelons free from missile and drone harrassment, so you can focus your attention on the offensive. Drone swarms are an interesting idea as well.
- consumer451 4y ago
  > Drone swarms are an interesting idea as well. I am curious if the US defense industry is up to the task of delivering such systems at a cost level which can be implemented in places like UA. Otherwise the most significant systems may be developed by other sources. This honestly scares me a bit, as given the alternatives, I am a fan of the predictability of Pax Americana.
  - pksebben 4y ago
    mmmm. ah dunno bout that. I'll take pax Europa a lot quicker.
    - consumer451 4y ago
      I'm OK with that as well! Should be even better. The only problem is that this project is about 40 years behind in budget and political will in most European countries. It's a travesty which is being paid for in Ukrainian blood as we speak.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    A Switchblade-300 is $6k. Phoenix Ghost is a few hundred dollars. Both easily within range of Ukraine.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> For example, walls of anti-air racing drone style quadcopters which can seek out an Iranian drone and just ram it. I am a little surprised that we have not seen these yet. Quadcopters can’t carry much, are slow and can easily be stopped by a marksman with a rifle or a fixed SCG. They are a lot more useful for recon than as offensive weapons. Plus drones are a lot more nimble and can fly at height where a quadcopter becomes useless.
- consumer451 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is wrong on nearly every count. A moving quad is really hard to hit by gun, see the yearly DARPA challenges. A racing style quad is way more nimble than any winged aircraft I have ever flown or seen. A quad tasked with knocking out an Iranian winged style drone just needs to foul the propulsion, no need to carry anything aside from some trailing weed trimmer cord or durable plastic sheet. The only practical limit on quad max altitude is the FAA/DJI control limitation which is easily bypassed on my quad. Also, all the cruise missiles style winged drones fly relatively low. The only real challenge is getting in the flight path of said Iranian drone. I really hope someone is working on this as we have been told that we can take out freaking airliners with cheap drones, on accident, for a long time now.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    > A moving quad is really hard to hit by gun A properly trained human with a military rifle can hit a quad easily. A FCS controlling a military gun does mince meat of them. > A racing style quad is way more nimble than any winged aircraft I have every flown or seen. That has zero carrying capacity. Even then, you clearly haven’t flown or seen much if you are impressed by the manoeuvrability of a quad. A fixed wing drone will just toy with it. Quads, even racing quads, are unbelievably slow. That’s inherent to their design. > The only practical limit on quad max altitude is the FAA/DJI control limitation which are easily bypassed on my quad. You are confused about what kind of altitude we are talking about here. > The only real challenge is getting in the flight path of said Iranian drone. The only real challenge to going to the Moon is jumping high enough. There is a reason quads are not used offensively and it’s not because no one thought about it.

dsq 4y ago

Laser defense is fundametally short range, so it's best use case is probably behind the front lines, to defend your air force bases and keep the air power active. Also to defend ships. Critical infrastructure such as fuel depots, power stations. Anything up to a few kilometers. This also means your lasers are connected to power lines. The best idea is to keep your rear echelons free from missile and drone harrassment, so you can focus your attention on the offensive. Drone swarms are an interesting idea as well.

consumer451 4y ago
> Drone swarms are an interesting idea as well. I am curious if the US defense industry is up to the task of delivering such systems at a cost level which can be implemented in places like UA. Otherwise the most significant systems may be developed by other sources. This honestly scares me a bit, as given the alternatives, I am a fan of the predictability of Pax Americana.
- pksebben 4y ago
  mmmm. ah dunno bout that. I'll take pax Europa a lot quicker.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    I'm OK with that as well! Should be even better. The only problem is that this project is about 40 years behind in budget and political will in most European countries. It's a travesty which is being paid for in Ukrainian blood as we speak.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  A Switchblade-300 is $6k. Phoenix Ghost is a few hundred dollars. Both easily within range of Ukraine.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> For example, walls of anti-air racing drone style quadcopters which can seek out an Iranian drone and just ram it. I am a little surprised that we have not seen these yet. Quadcopters can’t carry much, are slow and can easily be stopped by a marksman with a rifle or a fixed SCG. They are a lot more useful for recon than as offensive weapons. Plus drones are a lot more nimble and can fly at height where a quadcopter becomes useless.

consumer451 4y ago
I'm sorry, but this is wrong on nearly every count. A moving quad is really hard to hit by gun, see the yearly DARPA challenges. A racing style quad is way more nimble than any winged aircraft I have ever flown or seen. A quad tasked with knocking out an Iranian winged style drone just needs to foul the propulsion, no need to carry anything aside from some trailing weed trimmer cord or durable plastic sheet. The only practical limit on quad max altitude is the FAA/DJI control limitation which is easily bypassed on my quad. Also, all the cruise missiles style winged drones fly relatively low. The only real challenge is getting in the flight path of said Iranian drone. I really hope someone is working on this as we have been told that we can take out freaking airliners with cheap drones, on accident, for a long time now.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > A moving quad is really hard to hit by gun A properly trained human with a military rifle can hit a quad easily. A FCS controlling a military gun does mince meat of them. > A racing style quad is way more nimble than any winged aircraft I have every flown or seen. That has zero carrying capacity. Even then, you clearly haven’t flown or seen much if you are impressed by the manoeuvrability of a quad. A fixed wing drone will just toy with it. Quads, even racing quads, are unbelievably slow. That’s inherent to their design. > The only practical limit on quad max altitude is the FAA/DJI control limitation which are easily bypassed on my quad. You are confused about what kind of altitude we are talking about here. > The only real challenge is getting in the flight path of said Iranian drone. The only real challenge to going to the Moon is jumping high enough. There is a reason quads are not used offensively and it’s not because no one thought about it.