4 ms·

Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false.

by ajuc 2y ago

verdverm 2y ago
Who's advertising this? The military or the journalist?
- gwill 2y ago
  it's the headline of the article we're discussing
  - verdverm 2y ago
    Correct, the journalist is stating it "is a replacement" without providing source
riku_iki 2y ago
> Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false. it could replace in that specific scenarios: fighting against cheap but slow drones.
- ajuc 2y ago
  If you're shooting at a cheap drone with a million-dollar-missile - it's because you don't have anything more appropriate at the right place to defend a high-value target. The appropriate solution right now is AA artillery (Gepard or ZS-23-2 or -4, etc.) or electronic jammers. You don't have them near the high-value target right now because it's simply too expansive to build enough of these to cover all the thousands of kms of frontline and thousands of high-value targets all over the country. So you put them where they are most needed and cover the rest with long-range missiles. I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device. If you can't build enough AA to defend against drones now - you won't be able to build enough RFDEW either. Yes operating costs will be lower, but initial cost will be higher, so you still won't have enough of them. So you'd still need to use the long-range missiles to deal with the drones that slipped through the gaps. BTW I do hope they can improve the range, but as is it's not going to replace long-range missiles.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    > I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device I suspect AA cannon may suffer in accuracy on such ranges trying to target small moving target, because too much physics is involved (wind, bullet drop), from another hand those beaming devices will have near 100% accuracy.
    - verdverm 2y ago
      yup, they need to be highly mobile for an environment like Ukraine, where they put flak AA on technicals and use phones on 6' polls to locate shaheds This seems like a good, ship mounted, close range AA option
  - verdverm 2y ago
    > If you're shooting at a cheap drone with a million-dollar-missile - ... to defend a high-value target. The cost of the drone is less important than the price of what you are protecting
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> see, for example, the US$1.3-2.5 million Sea Viper missile used to take out a US$20,000 drone
- verdverm 2y ago
  That is an example of a $1M+ missile But where is the connection to that this missile is the one intended to be replaced? Where is the military saying this? I suspect they talk more in terms of expanding the available types of fires they can use depending on the circumstance
saltcured 2y ago
Whether this phrase bothers you or not seems entirely to depend on whether you think replacement means not having to have such missiles on hand at all, versus not having to waste them on specific tasks and therefore not have to manufacture replacements as frequently...?

Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false.

by ajuc 2y ago

Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false.

verdverm 2y ago

Who's advertising this? The military or the journalist?

gwill 2y ago
it's the headline of the article we're discussing
- verdverm 2y ago
  Correct, the journalist is stating it "is a replacement" without providing source

riku_iki 2y ago

> Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false. it could replace in that specific scenarios: fighting against cheap but slow drones.

ajuc 2y ago
If you're shooting at a cheap drone with a million-dollar-missile - it's because you don't have anything more appropriate at the right place to defend a high-value target. The appropriate solution right now is AA artillery (Gepard or ZS-23-2 or -4, etc.) or electronic jammers. You don't have them near the high-value target right now because it's simply too expansive to build enough of these to cover all the thousands of kms of frontline and thousands of high-value targets all over the country. So you put them where they are most needed and cover the rest with long-range missiles. I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device. If you can't build enough AA to defend against drones now - you won't be able to build enough RFDEW either. Yes operating costs will be lower, but initial cost will be higher, so you still won't have enough of them. So you'd still need to use the long-range missiles to deal with the drones that slipped through the gaps. BTW I do hope they can improve the range, but as is it's not going to replace long-range missiles.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device I suspect AA cannon may suffer in accuracy on such ranges trying to target small moving target, because too much physics is involved (wind, bullet drop), from another hand those beaming devices will have near 100% accuracy.
  - verdverm 2y ago
    yup, they need to be highly mobile for an environment like Ukraine, where they put flak AA on technicals and use phones on 6' polls to locate shaheds This seems like a good, ship mounted, close range AA option
- verdverm 2y ago
  > If you're shooting at a cheap drone with a million-dollar-missile - ... to defend a high-value target. The cost of the drone is less important than the price of what you are protecting

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> see, for example, the US$1.3-2.5 million Sea Viper missile used to take out a US$20,000 drone

verdverm 2y ago
That is an example of a $1M+ missile But where is the connection to that this missile is the one intended to be replaced? Where is the military saying this? I suspect they talk more in terms of expanding the available types of fires they can use depending on the circumstance

saltcured 2y ago

Whether this phrase bothers you or not seems entirely to depend on whether you think replacement means not having to have such missiles on hand at all, versus not having to waste them on specific tasks and therefore not have to manufacture replacements as frequently...?