3 ms·
100 harmful rockets for $10k is off by orders of magnitude, but that was entirely not the point. The point is that if you're in a asymmetric position where you
by vidarh 8mo ago
100 harmful rockets for $10k is off by orders of magnitude, but that was entirely not the point.
The point is that if you're in a asymmetric position where you can't do much damage directly, then whatever you can do to make the other side waste expensive resources while putting them on constant alert is a win.
You don't need a warhead, or a viable rocket, to do that. You need something that looks enough like a viable rocket to force a response, because the other side knows that x% are real.
If that thing is cheap enough for you to fire large numbers of them, you multiply the problem for your opponent. Cheap enough, and you have the potential to overwhelm the capacity of their countermeasures entirely, at which point you increase the chance that some of their real rockets will make it through.
- dgroshev 8mo agoTo "look enough" like a missile that can hit something a hundred kilometres away with enough precision to not be ignored you need a missile that can fly a hundred kilometres. This is not cheap. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just link a reply, if you don't mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389309
- vidarh 8mo ago> a missile that can hit something a hundred kilometres away At no point did I mention "a hundred kilometres away"