Head of Ukraine’s national foreign intelligence service – “We have studied…the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. We are aware of Russia’s long-term plans…at least until 2030.”
Equipment, too. The US DoD was looking at a new tank, but axed it. They don’t exactly give out their reasons why, but a good guess is they saw what drones were doing in Ukraine and decided the design would have been obsolete before the first one came off the assembly line.
They are coffins on tracks now. The tank, the warship, the aircraft carrier. All exceptionally vulnerable to $10k drones and thus: all obsolete. Until some sort of anti-drone minigun on AI enters service, the tank sits, the warship barely floats, and the aircraft carrier is 500km away.
But: attaching some sort of infrared and visible spectrum 360 camera to a processing unit isn’t beyond the pale already. It won’t be long until these units are all back in action. Stealth drones already? Hypersonic missiles? Good old fashioned AT launchers? Reactive armour? Spaced hulls? Laser interception? Gauss canons?
We’re in an accelerated arms race right now indeed
Don’t agree with the aircraft carrier bit. The point of aircraft carriers has always been that they can sit way the hell back, because the aircraft are projecting all the firepower. The F-35 and Super Hornet for example have a combat radius of well over 1000km.
They have always been vulnerable in the sense that it doesn’t take much to destroy them, a few torpedoes or ASMs suffice. The hard part is getting those weapons on target. That means either getting close enough in a very hostile electronic warfare and anti-air environment, or acquiring a weapons grade lock on a moving target from hundreds of kilometers away.
Both are very hard problems to solve, and $10k drones do nothing towards solving that. The threat to worry about here is not drones, but hard to intercept hypersonic missiles that are self guiding through passive electro-optical sensors that allow them to intelligently pick out an aircraft carrier to home in on.
We’ve had these for decades now. They’re called CIWS, and they’re capable of taking missiles out of the sky and turning inflatable dinghies into flotsam. They’re mounted on every aircraft carrier in the world - both US and otherwise - and we’ve fielded trailer mounted variants for at least 20 years. They were using them in Iraq to blow mortar rounds out of the air.
We have automated systems on vehicles capable of identifying a tank round traveling 1,700 meters per second via radar, figure out whether it’s going to hit or miss the vehicle, and fire an explosive at it to neutralize it if it is, all within a span of about 300 milliseconds.
The biggest issues with drones are largely man portable solutions and things that don’t send thousands of rounds of lead into the sky to rain down on a population center. Drones are small enough to fly indoors and cheap enough to be deployed in swarms. Figuring out how to counter those aspects is probably where the most energy is going to be spent.
Equipment, too. The US DoD was looking at a new tank, but axed it. They don’t exactly give out their reasons why, but a good guess is they saw what drones were doing in Ukraine and decided the design would have been obsolete before the first one came off the assembly line.
They are coffins on tracks now. The tank, the warship, the aircraft carrier. All exceptionally vulnerable to $10k drones and thus: all obsolete. Until some sort of anti-drone minigun on AI enters service, the tank sits, the warship barely floats, and the aircraft carrier is 500km away.
But: attaching some sort of infrared and visible spectrum 360 camera to a processing unit isn’t beyond the pale already. It won’t be long until these units are all back in action. Stealth drones already? Hypersonic missiles? Good old fashioned AT launchers? Reactive armour? Spaced hulls? Laser interception? Gauss canons?
We’re in an accelerated arms race right now indeed
Don’t agree with the aircraft carrier bit. The point of aircraft carriers has always been that they can sit way the hell back, because the aircraft are projecting all the firepower. The F-35 and Super Hornet for example have a combat radius of well over 1000km.
They have always been vulnerable in the sense that it doesn’t take much to destroy them, a few torpedoes or ASMs suffice. The hard part is getting those weapons on target. That means either getting close enough in a very hostile electronic warfare and anti-air environment, or acquiring a weapons grade lock on a moving target from hundreds of kilometers away.
Both are very hard problems to solve, and $10k drones do nothing towards solving that. The threat to worry about here is not drones, but hard to intercept hypersonic missiles that are self guiding through passive electro-optical sensors that allow them to intelligently pick out an aircraft carrier to home in on.
We’ve had these for decades now. They’re called CIWS, and they’re capable of taking missiles out of the sky and turning inflatable dinghies into flotsam. They’re mounted on every aircraft carrier in the world - both US and otherwise - and we’ve fielded trailer mounted variants for at least 20 years. They were using them in Iraq to blow mortar rounds out of the air.
We have automated systems on vehicles capable of identifying a tank round traveling 1,700 meters per second via radar, figure out whether it’s going to hit or miss the vehicle, and fire an explosive at it to neutralize it if it is, all within a span of about 300 milliseconds.
The biggest issues with drones are largely man portable solutions and things that don’t send thousands of rounds of lead into the sky to rain down on a population center. Drones are small enough to fly indoors and cheap enough to be deployed in swarms. Figuring out how to counter those aspects is probably where the most energy is going to be spent.
Did not save the Moskva. Then again, it helps if you keep things in working order…