6 ms·

Spending $100k to defeat a $500 drone. Asymmetric warfare is brutal.

willcipriano 3y ago
Brutal for the taxpayer. Heaven for the shareholders, lobbyists and politicians.
Justsignedup 3y ago
Even if it is extremely effective. This thing would need to blow up between 500 - 2000 drones (depending on drone cost, which is going down) to make itself worth the expense. Meanwhile such a vehicle might be something that can be shot down with some AA fire. Also no areal vehicle can go on say 500 missions without maintenance, that price is going to only go up. I cannot fathom the cost justification.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  I think you have to consider the opportunity cost. Spending $100k to kill a $500 drone sounds like a bad deal, but if that drone kills a soldier it could cost hundreds of thousands (or even millions) to train a new one and pay out death benefits.
  - Justsignedup 3y ago
    This is true.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Spending $100k to defeat a $500 drone Source on $500 drones being a threat to modern militaries? (Russia doesn’t have a modern, i.e. manoeuvre-based, military.)
- anizan 3y ago
  [dead]
- rasz 3y ago
  How about Israeli army? Nade drop on personnel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwNpab1DckY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwNpab1DckY (SFW) there is also video of Merkava getting damaged by bigger shell hitting its turret.
chfalck 3y ago
While I personally detest wars, the reality of them is it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. If it’s within an organization’s means to spend $100k (within means being the key part) to be able to destroy 500 dollar drones in a way that increases the ability to win compared to not having it, then purely from the war perspective, it makes sense. Of course, the entire concept of war is laden with waste and destruction, so it’s almost never in alignment with the economically and environmentally optimized choice. The largest militaries have access to such an insane amount of money that almost anything that wins better will be purchased, despite the monetary return not justifying the monetary cost. In life and death situations, a soldier backed by that money isn’t going to care how much money they wasted. Just that they remain alive and the enemy loses.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  > it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. well, you win by being cost effective. Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight, Ukraine being a good example now, but Afghanistan too of course. Tactically costs don't always matter, but the overall strategic goal has to be to trade favorably.
  - eindiran 3y ago
    Yes, but "cost effectiveness" means very different things sometimes. If, for example a hypothetical country were to have huge stores of old equipment to throw at a problem, losing material from the stockpile doesn't actually "cost" the value of producing the stuff new would. Or a hypothetical country with a massive industrial base, fighting a minor proxy war that is politically unpopular at home. Or a hypothetical country, with a tiny population and no native industry, fighting a massive power in a long-lasting guerrilla campaign using material donated from regional powers. Etc, etc. > Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight This second point is very well taken; I would extend it even further -- wars have always been contests of attrition, logistics, and political will, but this has been sharply highlighted in all the major conflicts since the turn of the 20th century.
klooney 3y ago
Couldn't you do this with bullets, too? (No idea what they cost, but... Less than 500?)
IshKebab 3y ago
This is designed to defeat Shehad drones which cost around $20k, not $500.

Brutal for the taxpayer. Heaven for the shareholders, lobbyists and politicians.

Even if it is extremely effective. This thing would need to blow up between 500 - 2000 drones (depending on drone cost, which is going down) to make itself worth the expense. Meanwhile such a vehicle might be something that can be shot down with some AA fire. Also no areal vehicle can go on say 500 missions without maintenance, that price is going to only go up. I cannot fathom the cost justification.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
I think you have to consider the opportunity cost. Spending $100k to kill a $500 drone sounds like a bad deal, but if that drone kills a soldier it could cost hundreds of thousands (or even millions) to train a new one and pay out death benefits.
- Justsignedup 3y ago
  This is true.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Spending $100k to defeat a $500 drone Source on $500 drones being a threat to modern militaries? (Russia doesn’t have a modern, i.e. manoeuvre-based, military.)

anizan 3y ago
[dead]
rasz 3y ago
How about Israeli army? Nade drop on personnel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwNpab1DckY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwNpab1DckY (SFW) there is also video of Merkava getting damaged by bigger shell hitting its turret.

chfalck 3y ago

While I personally detest wars, the reality of them is it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. If it’s within an organization’s means to spend $100k (within means being the key part) to be able to destroy 500 dollar drones in a way that increases the ability to win compared to not having it, then purely from the war perspective, it makes sense. Of course, the entire concept of war is laden with waste and destruction, so it’s almost never in alignment with the economically and environmentally optimized choice. The largest militaries have access to such an insane amount of money that almost anything that wins better will be purchased, despite the monetary return not justifying the monetary cost. In life and death situations, a soldier backed by that money isn’t going to care how much money they wasted. Just that they remain alive and the enemy loses.

Barrin92 3y ago
> it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. well, you win by being cost effective. Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight, Ukraine being a good example now, but Afghanistan too of course. Tactically costs don't always matter, but the overall strategic goal has to be to trade favorably.
- eindiran 3y ago
  Yes, but "cost effectiveness" means very different things sometimes. If, for example a hypothetical country were to have huge stores of old equipment to throw at a problem, losing material from the stockpile doesn't actually "cost" the value of producing the stuff new would. Or a hypothetical country with a massive industrial base, fighting a minor proxy war that is politically unpopular at home. Or a hypothetical country, with a tiny population and no native industry, fighting a massive power in a long-lasting guerrilla campaign using material donated from regional powers. Etc, etc. > Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight This second point is very well taken; I would extend it even further -- wars have always been contests of attrition, logistics, and political will, but this has been sharply highlighted in all the major conflicts since the turn of the 20th century.

klooney 3y ago

Couldn't you do this with bullets, too? (No idea what they cost, but... Less than 500?)

IshKebab 3y ago

This is designed to defeat Shehad drones which cost around $20k, not $500.