• xrellx
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Conventional ammo is their answer to a modern drone swarm? I thought Rhein was better than that. Like, cool, you took out eight stationary drones. Now do a half mile wide swarm of eighty thousand coming around the ridge at speed.

    • Cleverdawny
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Idk man, if I was going to try to shoot down a drone, I’d just use birdshot.

      And assuming each of the eighty thousand drones costs $200 each including ordnance, that’s a very significant expenditure on an attack. And I’m not even sure if it would be feasibly possible given limited bandwidth to control them.

      • Bread@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t know mate, that’s only 16 million. The price of an F-22 is $150 million. Spending a ninth of a jet to win a war by strategically targeting the capital seems pretty cheap to me. Bring it up to the full cost and you have 750,000 drones. You are going to get overwhelmed by drones no matter how much ammo you have. It is too much.

        • Cleverdawny
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh, if you’re talking about drones which can operate over long distances you’re talking about $20,000 drones, or more expensive. You’d need satcoms and that isn’t cheap or lightweight.

          • Bread@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I am talking about small commercial drones that act like suicide bombers. They go one way and can be real cheap. Just deploy somewhat locally.

            • superkret@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If you’re talking cheap drones, that means you have to transport them to the capital first, which means you already control the country or at least its airspace.
              At that point a modern conventional war is already over.

              • Bread@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Not necessarily. A semi truck full of drones could be parked in an isolated area, set up and take off. A single semi could take down a capital. You could realistically either smuggle it in the country or build them there. A lot of parts can even be 3D printed.

            • Cleverdawny
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              More expensive and less useful than you might think.

          • oatscoop@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Tech gets cheaper each year and software becomes more advanced. You don’t need wireless control when each drone can autonomously navigate to and identify a pre-programmed target.

            The block II tomahawk cruise missile had that 40 years ago. That image processing and satellite communications capability is available in modern smartphones.

    • takeda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They move much slower than missiles, there videos where people were able to shut them down with regular weapons (you don’t see that with missiles) so why automated system using conventional weapons wouldn’t be effective?