4 ms·

It’s not theory, it’s actually military practice. Adversaries spend 100k for a military grade drone. What do shoot it down with? A 1M dollar Patriot? Whatever

It’s not theory, it’s actually military practice. Adversaries spend 100k for a military grade drone. What do shoot it down with? A 1M dollar Patriot? Whatever you choose will be orders of magnitude more expensive than the drone. Israel’s Iron Dome has the same issue. It costs massively more for defense than attack.

m3kw9 4y ago
Ain’t like 100 of ballon’s were shot down. So it doesn’t apply here
jeremyjh 4y ago
It would be an air to air missile like a sidewinder which still costs $400k. Just scrambling a couple jets would cost tens of thousands on top of that I’m sure.
- metadat 4y ago
  More than tens of thousands of dollars, military aircraft are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain. Beyond the obvious fuel costs, every hour of flight time is followed up by N hours of service. If I remember correctly, the F-22 Raptor is the champ in terms of highest ratio of service required per hour of flight (40:1). The F-35 clocks in at 4-8 hours of service per hour flown (6:1). One example from the article linked below: USMIL budgeted $39m dollars for the blue angels to fly 69 days in one year. It's up to 11 F/A-18 Hornets at once, but in my experience they only fly for a couple of minutes for a show. Plus, who knows what kind of math games the military plays in terms of budget reporting. Operating commercial aircraft is already very expensive, and military craft are an order of magnitude moreso. The planes are beautiful, though <3, and remain operationally effective. https://www.inverse.com/article/33711-military-flyover-costs-fourth-of-july https://www.inverse.com/article/33711-military-flyover-costs... Edit: Good points @elif and sandworm101, thank you!
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    Does the flight time for these operations reduce the amount of time pilots would otherwise have to spend training and staying current?
    - projectazorian 4y ago
      Flight hours are flight hours, and it’s very rare to do any type of offensive air-to-air operation outside of an exercise, so I’m sure it was a great training opportunity. Less thrilled about it as someone who happened to be on a flight transiting nearby airspace last night, and who is familiar with incidents like KAL 007.
      - sandworm101 4y ago
        Maybe not actually launching a missile, but 99% of the pilot job comes before the missile is launched. Going up to fight against other aircraft, doing everything up to actually launching a missile, is a daily thing at any fighter squadron. The great thing about not launching a missile is that you can practice dozens of engagements rather than the one or two oppertunities during a live fire event.
  - elif 4y ago
    Ya but surely responding to an alarm counts as credit for some training drill that would have otherwise been scheduled. It's not like they leave their best toys in the toybox all year.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Military flying is way more complicated than man-hours per flight. For instance, ground servicing people also need to be trained. So double or triple the minimum man hours needed to accomidate those people being trained on the job. Military people also have a host of training/admin/command costs spread across the entire military complex. Then per-hour numbers dont accomidate the periodic maintenance not done at the home squadron but at a support facility elsewhere. Other costs are less a function of hours than duty cycles, paticularly engines. And aircraft like the f22 are irreplaceable, meaning their depretiation costs are more a matter of policy than simple math. Fighter squadrons are generally given a budget in dollars, but also airframe hours to accomidate fleet costs. Boiling everthing down to a per-hour budget is totally impractical.
sandworm101 4y ago
Missiles have a finite lifespan. They use the older ones first. Firing one the day before it has to go back for refurbishment might save money. You won't have to ship it back. Fired missiles are also generally not replaced, under the assumption that a new stock of better missiles will likely be ordered in a few years anyway. And the cost of the plane is also complex. This pilot/aircraft renewed some quals on this flight, reducing training needs. The aircraft was likely going flying that day anyway. So the net cost of the operation was likely minimal.
anonymousiam 4y ago
One of the oldest tricks in the (SIGINT) book is to trick the enemy into activating their radar and/or trigger a response to an incursion to collect all of the resulting signals intelligence.
- projectazorian 4y ago
  Kind of have to wonder if after the last shootdown the PLA sent out a more specialized collection platform in the hopes that the US would take the bait yet again. I’m sure that NORAD doesn’t use their most advanced sensor platforms in such a circumstance, but there could be all kinds of interesting close range data to collect on the aircraft and weapons systems used to respond.
  - anonymousiam 4y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure that NORAD doesn't use their "most advanced" sensor platforms. How would they be able to determine whether or not the threat was "real" before turning on their sensors? Are you suggesting that they have two tiers of sensor networks, and hold the "good" ones back for "real" threats?
- leucineleprec0n 4y ago
  Absolutely. This is the primary reason those “UFO’s” AKA balloons and drones are concerning: Signals intelligence (and/or radar jamming in the same vein which the DOD reported has occurred off the coast of Virginia). It’s alarming many leaped to suggest LEO satellites obviate the need for balloons/drones/spy planes because it really isn’t true; there are some things for which a proper resolution and capture is simply only possibly with proximity, at least more than a satellite has. In fact that’s why we still use U-2 spy planes (upgraded) and did for the balloon. Given the number of unidentified drone/balloon incursions reported by the Pentagon in the last few years near ships and air force bases I do wonder what’s been exposed about our radars and or datalinks. It also doesn’t necessarily matter that the data is encrypted (a weird refrain I saw) because the operating frequencies and behavior of the emitters on our aircraft, ships is in and of itself valuable information.
Stevvo 4y ago
Drones are constantly being shot down by ZPUs and other obsolete AA guns mounted on technicals. Costs even less than the drone you are shooting.
- John23832 4y ago
  You cannot shoot down a drone at 40k feet with an anti aircraft gun.

m3kw9 4y ago

Ain’t like 100 of ballon’s were shot down. So it doesn’t apply here

jeremyjh 4y ago

It would be an air to air missile like a sidewinder which still costs $400k. Just scrambling a couple jets would cost tens of thousands on top of that I’m sure.

metadat 4y ago
More than tens of thousands of dollars, military aircraft are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain. Beyond the obvious fuel costs, every hour of flight time is followed up by N hours of service. If I remember correctly, the F-22 Raptor is the champ in terms of highest ratio of service required per hour of flight (40:1). The F-35 clocks in at 4-8 hours of service per hour flown (6:1). One example from the article linked below: USMIL budgeted $39m dollars for the blue angels to fly 69 days in one year. It's up to 11 F/A-18 Hornets at once, but in my experience they only fly for a couple of minutes for a show. Plus, who knows what kind of math games the military plays in terms of budget reporting. Operating commercial aircraft is already very expensive, and military craft are an order of magnitude moreso. The planes are beautiful, though <3, and remain operationally effective. https://www.inverse.com/article/33711-military-flyover-costs-fourth-of-july https://www.inverse.com/article/33711-military-flyover-costs... Edit: Good points @elif and sandworm101, thank you!
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Does the flight time for these operations reduce the amount of time pilots would otherwise have to spend training and staying current?
  - projectazorian 4y ago
    Flight hours are flight hours, and it’s very rare to do any type of offensive air-to-air operation outside of an exercise, so I’m sure it was a great training opportunity. Less thrilled about it as someone who happened to be on a flight transiting nearby airspace last night, and who is familiar with incidents like KAL 007.
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      Maybe not actually launching a missile, but 99% of the pilot job comes before the missile is launched. Going up to fight against other aircraft, doing everything up to actually launching a missile, is a daily thing at any fighter squadron. The great thing about not launching a missile is that you can practice dozens of engagements rather than the one or two oppertunities during a live fire event.
- elif 4y ago
  Ya but surely responding to an alarm counts as credit for some training drill that would have otherwise been scheduled. It's not like they leave their best toys in the toybox all year.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Military flying is way more complicated than man-hours per flight. For instance, ground servicing people also need to be trained. So double or triple the minimum man hours needed to accomidate those people being trained on the job. Military people also have a host of training/admin/command costs spread across the entire military complex. Then per-hour numbers dont accomidate the periodic maintenance not done at the home squadron but at a support facility elsewhere. Other costs are less a function of hours than duty cycles, paticularly engines. And aircraft like the f22 are irreplaceable, meaning their depretiation costs are more a matter of policy than simple math. Fighter squadrons are generally given a budget in dollars, but also airframe hours to accomidate fleet costs. Boiling everthing down to a per-hour budget is totally impractical.

sandworm101 4y ago

Missiles have a finite lifespan. They use the older ones first. Firing one the day before it has to go back for refurbishment might save money. You won't have to ship it back. Fired missiles are also generally not replaced, under the assumption that a new stock of better missiles will likely be ordered in a few years anyway. And the cost of the plane is also complex. This pilot/aircraft renewed some quals on this flight, reducing training needs. The aircraft was likely going flying that day anyway. So the net cost of the operation was likely minimal.

anonymousiam 4y ago

One of the oldest tricks in the (SIGINT) book is to trick the enemy into activating their radar and/or trigger a response to an incursion to collect all of the resulting signals intelligence.

projectazorian 4y ago
Kind of have to wonder if after the last shootdown the PLA sent out a more specialized collection platform in the hopes that the US would take the bait yet again. I’m sure that NORAD doesn’t use their most advanced sensor platforms in such a circumstance, but there could be all kinds of interesting close range data to collect on the aircraft and weapons systems used to respond.
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure that NORAD doesn't use their "most advanced" sensor platforms. How would they be able to determine whether or not the threat was "real" before turning on their sensors? Are you suggesting that they have two tiers of sensor networks, and hold the "good" ones back for "real" threats?
leucineleprec0n 4y ago
Absolutely. This is the primary reason those “UFO’s” AKA balloons and drones are concerning: Signals intelligence (and/or radar jamming in the same vein which the DOD reported has occurred off the coast of Virginia). It’s alarming many leaped to suggest LEO satellites obviate the need for balloons/drones/spy planes because it really isn’t true; there are some things for which a proper resolution and capture is simply only possibly with proximity, at least more than a satellite has. In fact that’s why we still use U-2 spy planes (upgraded) and did for the balloon. Given the number of unidentified drone/balloon incursions reported by the Pentagon in the last few years near ships and air force bases I do wonder what’s been exposed about our radars and or datalinks. It also doesn’t necessarily matter that the data is encrypted (a weird refrain I saw) because the operating frequencies and behavior of the emitters on our aircraft, ships is in and of itself valuable information.

Stevvo 4y ago

Drones are constantly being shot down by ZPUs and other obsolete AA guns mounted on technicals. Costs even less than the drone you are shooting.

John23832 4y ago
You cannot shoot down a drone at 40k feet with an anti aircraft gun.