>shooting missiles from manned jets that get frequently downed by debris or pilot error
>cheaper than a >$40k drone
...

>>64883332
Retard

>>64883332
Monkey

File: photo-usaf-incident-stats.jpg (130 KB, 1189x820)

130 KB JPG

>>64883332
why doesn't russia publish incident/flight hour statistics?

>>64883405
>Class A Mishaps
Is there also an official statistic for Class B oopsies?

File: the-united-states-will-se(...).jpg (1.3 MB, 1500x1125)

1.3 MB JPG

>>64883332
>frequently downed by debris or pilot error
Maybe if you're Russian.
>shooting missiles from manned jets
>manned jets
Who decided that? Not US!
Turns out Hydra 70 rockets are so simple you can mount them on anything and the laser designators already have infantry mobile versions.

>>64883306
>>64883332
There's an argument to be had.
Flying a jet or a chopper is costly by itself. We are talking about 25-30k $US per flight hour for an F-16.
So assuming each sortie is taking out one (1) drone, it evens out.
If we factor accidents and failed interceptions, then it might be more costly.
Then there's the fact that we might not be able to deploy enough such plateforms to intercept the volume of drones the enemy can launch.
But for small volumes, yeah, F-16 are good enough and that's usually the whole point of defensive measures : you get selective about what you are going to protect.

>>64883405
>>64883420
For reference
>Aviation Class A Mishaps: The U.S. Air Force defines Class A mishaps as a mishap resulting in direct cost totaling $2 million or more, fatality or permanent total disability, or destruction of a DoD aircraft.
https://www.safety.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001964321/

>>64883429
Counterpoint, you can fire an APKWS from the ground.

>>64883420
gotta wait for the biannual class b and c whoopsie doodle report

>>64883306
Sounds suspicious, what's the cost per drone killed when you include operational cost of the jet and pk value of the weapon?

>>64883452
less than letting the drone hit whatever it was aimed at

>>64883429
>>64883332
You are both retarded. The cost you count is the cost of rebuilding whatever it was the enemy were trying to destroy.

>>64883424
While true, there's the problem of range, line of sight and projection.
An F-16 can quickly reach any point hundreds of kilometers away from its base in a matter of (dozens of) minutes, allowing it to cover a wide area against intruders.
A ground-based interception system can only travel a few kilometers in the same duration and will be limited by terrain.
It is unable to pursue if the drone change direction and so has a very short interception window against a very narrow amount of threats.
It is cheap but you would need hundreds to cover the same ground as a single F-16.
It is good to defend against large volume, though.

>>64883457
>You are both retarded. The cost you count is the cost of rebuilding whatever it was the enemy were trying to destroy
Yeah, that's what is said, with more nuance than you did :
>that's usually the whole point of defensive measures : you get selective about what you are going to protect.

>Kek
stopped reading there

>>64883452
Depends on how long the jet takes to find a drone, how many drones get shot down, if the jet finds other targets like drone controllers, if you're using an F-16, a super tucano, or a Toyota Hillux with delusions of grandeur, and what kind of drone you're shooting down.

>>64883469
If a Shahed costs $50,000 to build and $30,000 to launch, and an APKWS costs $20,000, and an F-16 sortie costs $30,000 in direct expenses plus an additional $30,000 in amortized risks, then it's worth it to shoot down every Shahed. Even if it's $60,000 worth of risk, it's worth it to shoot down every Shahed aimed at a target worth over $30,000, which is all of them.

>>64883461
If we assume all this then we can expect F-16s to be going through most of their payload with each sortie. Entirely plausible since APKWS isn't a drone-only weapon.

>>64883500
Do you have enough F-16 to intercept every launch before it reaches its target ? If yes then you are correct to limit analysis to interception-vs-drone cost.
If not, you have to choose which target is protected and which doesn't. In this, this anon >>64883457 is right in using cost of interception-vs-target.
Hydra pods are cheap ans plenty.
Launching plateformes aren't and the range of hydra rockets means you need a lot of plateforms.
It doesn't invalidate the cost-effectivness of the rocket but it does create a bottleneck to its strategic usefulness.

>>64883454
That isn't the claim, it's that it's less than the drone
>>64883493
So do you people even know the cost per launch and pk or is this thread just a bunch of circle jerking

>>64883505
It can be true.
I don't have data proving they do or disproving they do and to what extend.
You are free to share if you do.
What we know is that Russia is launching about 150-170 shaheed-like drones per day and that Ukraine has less than 10 F-16. It can fire hydra rockets from other plateforms but as said earlier, ground plateforms have their own limits.

>>64883543
Got tired of people being retards, low effort but assuming Google is correct you're looking at 25000-35000 per apkws with a claimed 93% pk, if launched from an f-16 you're looking at operating costs of 20000-27000 per hour. Assuming 1 hr of flight time and going off of averages that's around $55,600 per drone. Cost can be massively decreased though with using cheaper launch platforms. In conclusion, while much cheaper than some alternatives it is definitely not cheaper than most drones and not cheaper per drone than spaags or dew.

>>64883306
>$22k per unit
>another ~$20k in fuel and flight hour maintiance

I have never made the economic argument because it's stupid to act as if $20k is the same to Somalia as it is to Germany but the production argument is very real.
BAE is at 100% current capability producing 25,000 APKWS per year, Ukraine is producing ~2.4 million drones per year at current rate.

File: Coyote Block 3.webm (2.16 MB, 640x360)

2.16 MB WEBM

>>64883306
>mogs your explosive warhead

>>64883565
Russia's own numbers are $50,000 per drone and $30,000 per launch. "Most" drones are much cheaper in the sense that most drones are tiny FPVs that aren't being engaged with APKWS anyway.

>>64883461
>but you would need hundreds to cover the same ground as a single F-16.
And you could buy hundreds for the same price as an f-16

And anyways, you only need to distribute the launchers, detection is far less

Plus you will be taking random attrition doing that much low level flying fight jets

>>64883457
Wrong, you're describing something completely different. The OP is describing what should be built to counter drones. This needs to consider cost of product vs cost of whats being destroyed. What you're mixing up is when something is already produced and in place and it see's a threat. At that point, when the situation is
a) defend the target of the drone
b) don't defend the target of the drone
That is when you compare the cost of the target vs cost of the defensive item. The two situations are similair to a macro/micro situation.

>>64883623
>This needs to consider cost of product vs cost of whats being destroyed
This needs to consider the cost of what's being produced vs the cost of the drone that needs to be destroyed *

>>64883572
>BAE is at 100% current capability producing 25,000 APKWS per year, Ukraine is producing ~2.4 million drones per year at current rate.
Why do people always do this thing where they call everything drones and then claim that every drone countermeasure is useless because it can't defeat them all simultaneously? "Your missile/SPAAG/jammer/DEW is worthless because it can't shoot down 2.7 million autonomous AI fiber optic supersonic high altitude ultramaneuverable quadcopter drones per year."

>>64883632
I never said what the strawman in your head did, I simply pointed out production rates matter, it's what made the US a superpower during WW2.

>>64883642
China makes more sandals than the US makes ships, so clearly China would win a war against the US. Why is FPV production any more relevant in comparison to APKWS than sandal production compared to shipbuilding?

>>64883655
I have a cognative test for you anon, do you think Shahed or APKWS production can be scaled faster?
Do you think a Shahed like threat could be produced at home as RC pilots have been doing for decades?
Do you think a APKWS like interceptor could be produced at home by hobbiests?

>>64883543
>So do you people even know the cost per launch and pk or is this thread just a bunch of circle jerking
It's basically impossible to tell because of all the outside factors. If we don't count the launch vehicle then we're down to $20k to $30k per rocket. Percent kill is harder to calculate because APKWS are still new and everybody has incentive to lie.

>>64883671
>I have a cognative test for you anon, do you think Shahed or APKWS production can be scaled faster?
APKWS
>Do you think a Shahed like threat could be produced at home as RC pilots have been doing for decades?
Yes, in similar numbers to manned ultralights.
>Do you think a APKWS like interceptor could be produced at home by hobbiests?
Depends on what you mean by "produce." If that just means screw a tiny mass-produced guidance kit into surplus Hydra 70s, then yes.

>>64883703
>Yes, in similar numbers to manned ultralights.
Why do you beleive drones that have literally been powered by lawnmower engines and could easily be fabricated from wood would be so hard to rapidly scale production?
I get they need a GNSS / INS chip and without Chinese imports that would be the huge bottleneck for any country but as it stands today I don't see China sanctioning anyone who's checks clear.

>Depends on what you mean by "produce."
Oh you are an office worker that doesn't build things, that explains a lot.
So to produce something like APKWS you need to extrude an aluminium tube, machine it to final diamentions, produce servos / actuators / rocket propellant / INS / targeting gimbal / sensor ect.

>surplus Hydra 70
Russia started their war not worried about production rates because they had so much surplus laying around.

>>64883726
>Why do you beleive drones that have literally been powered by lawnmower engines and could easily be fabricated from wood would be so hard to rapidly scale production?
How do you think ultralights are built?

>So to produce something like APKWS you need to extrude an aluminium tube, machine it to final diamentions, produce servos / actuators / rocket propellant / INS / targeting gimbal / sensor ect.
Can you at least pretend to research the things that you're arguing about? APKWS is an add-on guidance package for Hydra 70 rockets that are produced in the millions. They have no INS, it's just a laser receiver and a couple of moving fins. They're a lot closer to a hobby drone than something like a Shahed is.

>Russia started their war not worried about production rates because they had so much surplus laying around.
Russia started the war with a fraction of American military production capacity

>>64883801
>How do you think ultralights are built?
>They're a lot closer to a hobby drone than something like a Shahed is.
Ok, so you don't do anything about production at all.

I'm making the case we are headed towards large scale conventional conflicts and need to be thinking more De Havilland Mosquito production rates when talking about counter drone systems instead of Messerschmitt Me 262.

APKWS is a decent stopgap but not some grand solution as the OP claimed. We need to be looking at section level counters to FPVs and Platoon level counters to Shaheds.

>>64883332
>that get frequently downed by debris or pilot error
Go back to /pol/, fucking retard.

>>64883429
You type out all that psued-int bullshit. Here's a simple thought that completely invalidates any of your stupid-fucking babbling. The cost of getting the plane in the air & firing a missile will be infinitely cheaper than the drone hitting its intended target and causing damage or potentially killing someone.

Literal reddit tier psued int retards.

>>64883429
Counterpoint, you can fire an APKWS from an air tractor which costs barely anything to fly for an hour and can loiter for 12 before needing to land.

>>64883542
APKWS II can be mounted on Apaches, OA-1Ks, Humvees, some random Nissan shitbox, etc

Isn't the LPWS capable of fulfilling this role?

>>64883332
>$40k drone
the sad part is Shasneed aren't all that cheep - the gps antena alone is 16k.

>>64883838
>Ok, so you don't do anything about production at all.
What are you on about? I'm pointing out that a cottage industry in building inexpensive, lightweight aircraft powered by lawnmower engines that can carry a 150-200 lb payload already exists. It's not the hobby drone market.
>I'm making the case we are headed towards large scale conventional conflicts and need to be thinking more De Havilland Mosquito production rates when talking about counter drone systems instead of Messerschmitt Me 262.
APKWS is as far to the Mosquito side of thing as it gets. It's among the cheapest guided munitions in existence anywhere on the planet, the only cheaper option is spraying lead. Which, for various reasons, is not an optimal solution for dealing with Shahed style drones, but is being worked on for countering cheap FPVs.
>APKWS is a decent stopgap but not some grand solution as the OP claimed. We need to be looking at section level counters to FPVs and Platoon level counters to Shaheds.
We don't need platoon level counters to Shaheds because they're not a platoon level threat. Regardless, we have it anyway with MANPADs like Stinger and we'll likely see a proliferation of VAMPIRE style vehicle mounted launchers in the near future.

>>64883886
>some random Nissan shitbox
Traditionally, Toyotas are used as technicals.

>>64883919
You got a sawzall and a surplus minivan, you got a technical. Remove the rear 2/3 of the roof. Those third row seats go hard.

>>64883912
>It's not the hobby drone market.
Fair.
>It's among the cheapest guided munitions in existence anywhere on the planet
As I said all the way back here >>64883572 my issue isn't the price but the production rate. 25k a year isn't enough.
>because they're not a platoon level threat
Not when the attacker is as poor as Russia, a richer country will glady use something similar to drop 50kg of HE on platoon command.
>MANPADs like Stinger
Once again how many can you make a year?

File: automation.png (455 KB, 1600x900)

455 KB PNG

>the west
>produce
ror
rmal even
just buy chinese and don't upset the one supplier that makes 70% of all physical things on Earth.

>>64883306
so what is it?

>>64883671

>a hobbyist can make a wooden table at home
>a hobbyist can't make a ballpoint pen at home
>conclusion: making a ballpoint pen must be harder for a factory than making a wooden table

>>64883957
>counters are complex
>production rates are low
>we should reduce complexity to increase production rates

>>64883926
China wouldn't be making anything if not for the United States.

The russians keep adding shit to the shaheeds and making them more complex, plus a ton of variants to support. The simple cheap argument for shahed is not as strong now as when they came directly from Iran.

>>64884009
Russia is a joke but a more competent nation could shit out a heap of cheap drones that fly too high for AAA / MANPADs.

>>64883925
>As I said all the way back here >>64883572 # my issue isn't the price but the production rate. 25k a year isn't enough.
25k a year is a lot for peacetime. And Hydra 70 production is already far more than that. Production of APKWS could be ramped up significantly without needing to increase the production of rocket motors (which are also exceptionally cheap, it's a smokeless powder rocket in an extruded aluminum tube with spring loaded fins) or warheads.

>Not when the attacker is as poor as Russia, a richer country will glady use something similar to drop 50kg of HE on platoon command.
And how many Shaheds per year do you imagine this richer country could produce without opponent could make without significantly affecting their war effort in other areas? Remember, they'll also need to be producing interceptors to deal with American LUCAS drones that are half the cost of Shahed or Geran, as well as strike munitions ranging from JDAM and Hellfire on the low end to JASSM and HACM at the high end.

>>64883964
What complexity do you imagine is being increased?

>>64883605
If op means a certain specific model of drone that's contemporarily popular then he needs to specify that.

>>64883964

>we should build more factories to increase production rate

Ftfy

>>64883332
>from manned jets that get frequently downed by debris or pilot error
That's when jets try to use a gun.
APKWS is fired from ranges preventing that.

>>64884131
The weapon pictured in the OP is APKWS, which is primarily used for destroying Shahed/Geran drones in Ukraine. Now you know.

>>64883332
>manned jet
So put them on a drone, retard.
>>64883461
>Can only travel a couple miles in half an hour
Maybe under the absolute worst conditions. Also; Shut the fuck up, ESL scum.

>>64883429
The entire fucking point of using jets is that they are fast enough to take out more than one drone per sortie
Stop and actually think about what you are seeing retard, the F16s that ingest drone debris and crash are doing so because they are shooting drones with guns and they are shooting drones with guns because they run out of guided rockets and they carry 42 guided rockets at a time
This means that any F16 we see engaging drones with a gun has already shot down at least 42 other drones in that sortie alone, which is more than enough to outweigh the cost in flight hours

I was curious so I went and looked up some prices. In 2024, unguided Hydra 70 rockets cost $1010.70 per unit, and APKWS 2 (the fire and forget version with infrared terminal guidance) kits cost $30,499.88 per unit. I don't see a unit cost for the basic APKWS. The average unit cost for both together was about $5000 less, but that doesn't mean much without the exact number of each that was procured.

>>64883924
>Minivan
Oh, I thought you were talking about the Sedans. Honestly, you could probably attach the rocket pod to the roof since they don't produce a lot of recoil. Just don't take any sharp turns.

>>64883405
No but they recently added 24 planes to their destruction/cannibalizing yard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnzVfZhDYc

>>64883306
These rockets are a brilliant cheap way to hit drones of you can get jets up in the air and in their flight path on time.

>>64885113
https://govtribe.com/award/federal-idv-award/indefinite-delivery-contract-n0001919d0026

2.68 billion dollar contract for 125k APKWS2 comes out to 21,500 each.

>>64886533
Wait, does that included the price of the surplus hydra 70s or commission new hydra 70s?

...Then again, that only adds maybe $3k to the price tag.

>>64883429
Counter-argument
You're nothing but a vatnik

>>64887082
It's guidance kits only, the rockets are $1000 each for new production.

>>64883726
>So to produce something like APKWS you need to extrude an aluminium tube, machine it to final diamentions, produce servos / actuators / rocket propellant / INS / targeting gimbal / sensor ect.

This is the single dumbest argument I've read on this board in a long time. Do you think you shape the fiberglass of the Shaheed and the rest of the components magically teleport themselves into place? Do the engines, guidance package, steering controls and various other parts on a Shaheed just pop into existence through the power of brown seethe?
>but you can just buy them from China
Wrong, given how many of the recovered ones have good old fashioned Texas Instrument chipsets in them that have to be purchased through third parties and then smuggled into Russia/Iran, but also the APWKS is an addon package screwed into the existing stock of Hydra rockets, which really betrays how fucking little you know and why you're making such retarded assumptions. The only specialized part of the APWKS is the sensor package at best, which is very easy to scale production of, but the best part is that you're such a fucking retard that you're talking about 1st world warfighting being attritional instead of a quick affair.

Did you miss how quickly Gulf Storm, Gulf Storm 2: Electric Boogaloo, and Afghanistan were, and even Israel's slapdown of Iran and the opening days of Ukraine vs Russia? Modern warfighting by a 1st world nation is not like what we see in the drunk slav bumfight using NATO's tablescraps vs the Soviet Union's rotted legacy with trenchs and trying to outlast. Wars are fought quickly, efficiently, and explosively, if you'll pardon the pun. Once air supremacy is decided, production no longer matters because your factories will be smoking craters if they're a problem and the war effectively over before production matters if they're not worth bombing.

>>64883457
You're missing the meta
If i hit your battleship, yes you would lose a billion dollar vessel, so 40k is worth it
For you

But for me, if my missile costs 10k, i destroy 30k from your economy just by firing it. The operating cost becomes the target, the 1b battleship is just leverage that i never even need to actually destroy. As long as i have at least 26% of your economy i will eventually win by attrition when you cant afford to fly your jet anymore

>>64883926
>chinkshill has to jump into the convo and pretend his opinion matters
kek, 70% of all plastic garbage, sure.

>>64888336
What about when you spend $30,000 launching a $55,000 Geran and then I spend $22,500 plus a fraction of an F-16 flight hour shooting it down with an APKWS2?

>>64888422
>what if different numbers though
I guess id be sad about it not hitting anything, but i wouldnt shoot a $55k missile to waste 20k of fighter costin the first place, because 55k is more than 20k. If the attack costs more than the defence you dont use the attack as a pressuring tool unless you have some form of brain damage

The point of the cheap missile is that you have what, a 30 min loiter time? So i stagger fire at irregular intervals to force you to cycle planes, build up maintnence time and eventually either score a hit with my shit rocket, force you to withdraw to rearm, create an opening for my 55k missile, or send you bankrupt and win by default

>>64888461
I can provide reliable sources for each number I cited. There's no way to rationalize Russia's Geran usage from a cost/benefit standpoint, just like there was never any way to rationalize the invasion in general that way. It's all just grasping at straws. Maybe this drone will be the one that happens to get through and happens to hit the power substation that happens to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

>>64888336
The defenses only need to keep the carrier up long enough to bomb the shahed factory

>>64887220
>and even Israel's slapdown of Iran
So quick the BBC shitposting died for more than a week. Curious.

>>64888941
>If the attack costs more than the defence you dont use the attack as a pressuring tool unless you have some form of brain damage
I thought i was clear before, i dont care if the specific example you've hyperfixated on is valid or not. I only care about the viability of the strategy in the abstract

>>64888964
If you're using the same interceptors as bombers then firing missiles reduces your strike capability so i still want to do it. Besides, everything is countered by "i bomb the infrastructure". We can go back and forth forever about if my imaginary countermeasure is stopped by your imaginary counter-countermeasure, but so long as i still have the weapon the cost-benefit analysis remains valid