3 ms·

If they can't see the target, how do they shoot missiles at it? I've wondered the same as the GP: Why not just send a wall of metal at the drone from one of th

If they can't see the target, how do they shoot missiles at it? I've wondered the same as the GP: Why not just send a wall of metal at the drone from one of these things? If not that, why not traditional anti-aircraft fire, with projectiles that explode in shrapnel clouds?

ethbr1 3y ago
> Why not just send a wall of metal at the drone from one of these things? If not that, why not traditional anti-aircraft fire, with projectiles that explode in shrapnel clouds? If this had been the 1950s or early 60s, every advanced military on the planet would have been able to do exactly that. However, both aircraft (MiG-19+) and missiles were speeding up. At some speed, it becomes impractical to solve a high-speed aircraft or missile problem with a gun. [0] Consequently, development from the 70s on turned to missiles capable of dealing with these threats. Which left the only remaining systems mostly consequences of failure to upgrade (e.g. the German Gepard). As the saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes... [0] See: M19 (1945) > M42 (1953) > MIM-46 (1960-63, cancelled) > M-163 (1965) > MIM-72 (1967) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M19_Multiple_Gun_Motor_Carriage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M19_Multiple_Gun_Motor_Carri... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46_Mauler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46_Mauler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The drones used by terrorists are homemade and slow moving.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    But those weren't the primary threat military defense of ~1965-2020 was designed against. (Higher then) Lower, faster, and/or stealthier were the worries. And aside from the economically-mobilized war that Ukraine is fighting (and Russia is gradually shifting to), it's unclear if capability or cost need to be optimized. For every conflict economically less than that, capability wins. I expect the FPV quadcopter grenade-on-a-drone solution will be looked back on like the Toyota Hilux tactical -- effective when introduced, but superceded and dominated by specialized systems produced by military industry.
- Gravityloss 3y ago
  There were still helicopters and slower ground attack aircraft to do gun defense against, and self propelled anti aircraft guns (SPAAG) like Tunguska, Marksman, Pantsir. New advanced anti-drone guns like Skynex seem to be expensive and have expensive shells. Yet the range is quite small. Could work for high value targets, not to defend a country against large amounts of inexpensive drones?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >There were still helicopters and slower ground attack aircraft to do gun defense against The biggest reason why gun systems are avoided nowadays is simply range. You are mostly unable to fling slugs out beyond 10 miles, while a Patriot and friends can reach out and ruin a day at 100 miles. The helicopter itself likely has a weapon that will ruin YOUR day out to about 12 miles. That means the helicopter safely murders you, and you cannot defend against it. Also MANPADS take up the 10 mile air defense slack nowadays, which is why nobody developed anything further into SPAAGs, right up until everyone had the same "oh god time to re-learn how to skeet shoot against small drones" idea

ethbr1 3y ago

> Why not just send a wall of metal at the drone from one of these things? If not that, why not traditional anti-aircraft fire, with projectiles that explode in shrapnel clouds? If this had been the 1950s or early 60s, every advanced military on the planet would have been able to do exactly that. However, both aircraft (MiG-19+) and missiles were speeding up. At some speed, it becomes impractical to solve a high-speed aircraft or missile problem with a gun. [0] Consequently, development from the 70s on turned to missiles capable of dealing with these threats. Which left the only remaining systems mostly consequences of failure to upgrade (e.g. the German Gepard). As the saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes... [0] See: M19 (1945) > M42 (1953) > MIM-46 (1960-63, cancelled) > M-163 (1965) > MIM-72 (1967) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M19_Multiple_Gun_Motor_Carriage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M19_Multiple_Gun_Motor_Carri... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46_Mauler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-46_Mauler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral

WalterBright 3y ago
The drones used by terrorists are homemade and slow moving.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  But those weren't the primary threat military defense of ~1965-2020 was designed against. (Higher then) Lower, faster, and/or stealthier were the worries. And aside from the economically-mobilized war that Ukraine is fighting (and Russia is gradually shifting to), it's unclear if capability or cost need to be optimized. For every conflict economically less than that, capability wins. I expect the FPV quadcopter grenade-on-a-drone solution will be looked back on like the Toyota Hilux tactical -- effective when introduced, but superceded and dominated by specialized systems produced by military industry.
Gravityloss 3y ago
There were still helicopters and slower ground attack aircraft to do gun defense against, and self propelled anti aircraft guns (SPAAG) like Tunguska, Marksman, Pantsir. New advanced anti-drone guns like Skynex seem to be expensive and have expensive shells. Yet the range is quite small. Could work for high value targets, not to defend a country against large amounts of inexpensive drones?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >There were still helicopters and slower ground attack aircraft to do gun defense against The biggest reason why gun systems are avoided nowadays is simply range. You are mostly unable to fling slugs out beyond 10 miles, while a Patriot and friends can reach out and ruin a day at 100 miles. The helicopter itself likely has a weapon that will ruin YOUR day out to about 12 miles. That means the helicopter safely murders you, and you cannot defend against it. Also MANPADS take up the 10 mile air defense slack nowadays, which is why nobody developed anything further into SPAAGs, right up until everyone had the same "oh god time to re-learn how to skeet shoot against small drones" idea