3 ms·

Isn't the problem with these missile defense systems that the per-unit cost is very high? And so in a longer term battle (like Russia vs Ukraine) one side can d

Isn't the problem with these missile defense systems that the per-unit cost is very high? And so in a longer term battle (like Russia vs Ukraine) one side can drain the other's defenses and $$ through the continuous use of cheap drones where the cost of the missile defense rocket far exceeds the cost of the sent drone?

nomilk 3y ago
Slow drones can be shot down even with machine guns, but missiles require expensive interceptors, and fast missiles can't (practically) be intercepted (yet). Cheap drones are evolving fast, but so too are counters for them.
dgfitz 3y ago
[flagged]
- philipkglass 3y ago
  Money-the-abstraction can be created out of thin air. The things actually needed to launch or defend against a missile attack (machines with complicated mechanical and electronic parts) need to be manufactured. They can't be created out of thin air.
- dventimi 3y ago
  Sure. "Money" is inexhaustible but political capital is not.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Fair, but you could just define the term cost as 'replacement rate', see that the replacement rate for ballistic defense missiles is way higher than the required resources to do the same for decoys, and still see the problem That said I'm super happy that we have best in class missile defense systems, I truly hope we continue to do so, solve the decoy problem behind closed doors (better detection all the way down?), and then have a similarly long if not longer period of relative peace where we get to argue about their effectiveness from our armchairs rather than on the battlefield.
Gimpei 3y ago
I’m guessing they’ll come up with cheaper solutions for shahed type drones, as they are slow and comparatively easier to shoot down.
WrongAssumption 3y ago
The next gen systems being developed are laser based. Bringing the cost per interception way down.
delichon 3y ago
The cost per unit could be dramatically lower for drones soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam A 100 kW shot is a big one. 100 kW is around $15 from the grid in Israel. Maybe double that a few times for inefficiencies, it's still a lot cheaper than an effective drone.
leetcrew 3y ago
yes and no. the difference in cost between the weapon and the countermeasure matters, but it's not the whole story. the value of the thing being defended also matters. in the absence of a viable alternative, it's easily worth burning $1-2mm per interceptor to prevent a mission kill on a $2bn destroyer or a strike on a major population center. not saying this is you personally, but people seem to view this kind of thing as being similar to RTS, where players start on even footing on a symmetrical map, and games are won or lost by stringing together resource-efficient "trades". real world conflicts aren't like that. western countries have relatively deep pockets and low tolerance for casualties (and collateral damage to an extent). as a result, they are willing to pay a premium for training, survivable equipment, and precision munitions. it's a different doctrine altogether.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  Deep pockets in the sense of "can print indefinitely or until the inflation leaks into Bitcoin", and shallow pockets in the sense of actual artillery shells and interceptors.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    Why would "inflation leaking into Bitcoin" stop governments from printing money?!? It's not as if the shady "crypto" tail wags the big dogs of the real economy, is it?
    - rokkitmensch 3y ago
      There's just never been anywhere for the coordinated inflation to leak into before. Novel territory, just keeping an eye on the future. A dollar continues to buy less of everything, be it equities or commodities.
bb88 3y ago
We've had the idea of directed energy beams, but I don't know. The US likes to spend big money at small problems. And then we're surprised when Ukraine (e.g.) uses low cost tech to make big advances.
jandrewrogers 3y ago
Yes, and this has been anticipated for a long time. The US started doing serious R&D work on dealing with autonomous swarm attacks 30-40 years ago. Recent generations of solid state lasers appear to fill that role nicely, since they are very cheap to operate. Some of the US test systems actually use white light, which I did not anticipate, which means that wavelength-selective defenses (e.g. dielectric mirrors) won't be effective.

nomilk 3y ago

Slow drones can be shot down even with machine guns, but missiles require expensive interceptors, and fast missiles can't (practically) be intercepted (yet). Cheap drones are evolving fast, but so too are counters for them.

dgfitz 3y ago

[flagged]

philipkglass 3y ago
Money-the-abstraction can be created out of thin air. The things actually needed to launch or defend against a missile attack (machines with complicated mechanical and electronic parts) need to be manufactured. They can't be created out of thin air.
dventimi 3y ago
Sure. "Money" is inexhaustible but political capital is not.
hughesjj 3y ago
Fair, but you could just define the term cost as 'replacement rate', see that the replacement rate for ballistic defense missiles is way higher than the required resources to do the same for decoys, and still see the problem That said I'm super happy that we have best in class missile defense systems, I truly hope we continue to do so, solve the decoy problem behind closed doors (better detection all the way down?), and then have a similarly long if not longer period of relative peace where we get to argue about their effectiveness from our armchairs rather than on the battlefield.

Gimpei 3y ago

I’m guessing they’ll come up with cheaper solutions for shahed type drones, as they are slow and comparatively easier to shoot down.

WrongAssumption 3y ago

The next gen systems being developed are laser based. Bringing the cost per interception way down.

delichon 3y ago

The cost per unit could be dramatically lower for drones soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam A 100 kW shot is a big one. 100 kW is around $15 from the grid in Israel. Maybe double that a few times for inefficiencies, it's still a lot cheaper than an effective drone.

leetcrew 3y ago

yes and no. the difference in cost between the weapon and the countermeasure matters, but it's not the whole story. the value of the thing being defended also matters. in the absence of a viable alternative, it's easily worth burning $1-2mm per interceptor to prevent a mission kill on a $2bn destroyer or a strike on a major population center. not saying this is you personally, but people seem to view this kind of thing as being similar to RTS, where players start on even footing on a symmetrical map, and games are won or lost by stringing together resource-efficient "trades". real world conflicts aren't like that. western countries have relatively deep pockets and low tolerance for casualties (and collateral damage to an extent). as a result, they are willing to pay a premium for training, survivable equipment, and precision munitions. it's a different doctrine altogether.

rokkitmensch 3y ago
Deep pockets in the sense of "can print indefinitely or until the inflation leaks into Bitcoin", and shallow pockets in the sense of actual artillery shells and interceptors.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Why would "inflation leaking into Bitcoin" stop governments from printing money?!? It's not as if the shady "crypto" tail wags the big dogs of the real economy, is it?
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    There's just never been anywhere for the coordinated inflation to leak into before. Novel territory, just keeping an eye on the future. A dollar continues to buy less of everything, be it equities or commodities.

bb88 3y ago

We've had the idea of directed energy beams, but I don't know. The US likes to spend big money at small problems. And then we're surprised when Ukraine (e.g.) uses low cost tech to make big advances.

jandrewrogers 3y ago

Yes, and this has been anticipated for a long time. The US started doing serious R&D work on dealing with autonomous swarm attacks 30-40 years ago. Recent generations of solid state lasers appear to fill that role nicely, since they are very cheap to operate. Some of the US test systems actually use white light, which I did not anticipate, which means that wavelength-selective defenses (e.g. dielectric mirrors) won't be effective.