I keep seeing the same thing lately:>weapon costs $10M>effective anti-weapon weapon costs only $10k rendering weapon all but uselessIt's an oversimplification but you get the gist of it. It's also BORING! So instead give me some examples of the opposite: modern-day military weapons which are much, much less expensive to use than to counter. And... go!
>>65005145JDAM?
>>65005145You keep seeing it on /pol/ and then that same equation doesn't apply to reality and the "useless burgermutt machine" kicks everyone's ass, and you respond with seething and AI videos.
>>65005177>A machete can counter hundred of peanus weanuses over its useful lifetime>Making the machete less expensive overall due to re-useTry again.
>adult costs ~18 years of raising and materials>you can just strangle then to death FOR FREEHumans are useless
>>65005145Aren't you just describing drones which can be very cheap to make but a pain in the ass to counter?
>>65005145>B-17 costs $200,000>88mm fused shell costs 80 RiechsmarkMmm surely this will stop Berlin from being bombed.
>>65005145Cruise missiles. Take Tomahawks. 2.5 million bucks a pop (FY 2026 procurement), require hundreds of millions worth of layered AD coverage to properly defend against, and can do billions in damage with a few strikes. They can also target that same AD network. All good cruise missiles really, people whine about how much a SCALP, Storm Shadow, or Tomahawk costs but one missile can knock a $50 or $100 million radar out and open a gap for more missiles to follow on. They have to be good cruise missiles too, they need the CEP to actually make the odds of succesfully striking their target worthwhile.
>>65005362There's something kind of sick about branded missiles
>>6500536820 years from now after the mergers you'll get blown up by missiles from Bayer-Raytheon-Mcdonalds after your Home Depot-Northrup Grumman system fails
>>65005368The only way it could be better is if they were sponsored by tobacco, alcohol, or ammunition and looked the part.>YWN see a Tomahawk painted to look like a .45-70 cartidge that says Buffalo Bore Big Chungus blow up a Soviet derived SAM system
The main reason drones are a pain in the ass to counter is because countering them requires systems which are more expensive than the drones themselves.The problem is the attacker advantage. Imagine 1000km of front line. The attacker can choose where to employ the drones.If you have a cheap gun system which can shoot down drones within a 5km radius, you cover 10km of frontline, so 1% of the front line. So you need 100 of such gun systems. And not everywhere does the terrain allow 5km line of sight in every direction.The way to counter drones is to negate the attacker advantage. Instead of ground based systems, you transition to airborne systems.You need high altitude long endurance drones with high capability radar, which require sophisticated high cost jet fighters and long range air-to-air missiles to be touched. You loiter these in the air to detect drones. Imagine a global hawk, but minus the MIC tax.You simply get a couple tiers of interceptor drones of various capabilities, and slap them onto mothership drones for loitering and high-speed repositioning.Mothership, imagine something like a business jet or a regional passenger jet. Turbofans or turboprops, optimized for low to medium altitude, unmanned, just shits out interceptors. You need only 10-15 to cover your entire 1000km frontline since they're very mobile and have capacity to shoot down dozens of drones, maybe 100+ on their own.If drones attack you with a couple 100km/h speed, they take a while to arrive, your long-range airborne awacs picks them up, you launch your motherships and position them at medium to low altitude where they're hard to shoot down in the optimal intercept spot, and then launch your interceptors which have low range, only terminal guidance sensors since you vector them from the AWACS, and barely enough speed to match the drone they're intercepting.
> what are FPV drones> what are Shahed cruise drones> what are stand-off guided glide bombs> what are multi-million mach 5 interceptors> what are billion radar systemsI don't know what sources OP consume, but so far the situation in real life seems to be the exact opposite.
>>65005394All of these are cheaper to counter than to launch, except for maybe glide bombs.
>>65005376>Northrup Grumman system failsYou take that back right now! This will obviously never happen.
>>65005177If you are american, jewish or muslim, your peenus weanus was countered at birth.
>>65005145M16. Or really any infantry rifle. There's a reason we field so many of them.
>>65005362The problem is most modern countries have trillions in infrastructure (plenty of which is underground) built up over decades, even with decent cost ratios you'd bankrupt yourself in half a year trying to take it all out, which is why you use your wageslav...troops to do it instead because they are a resource you have plenty of humans stockpiled for war, unlike stockpiled missiles which run out too fast.The reason slow drones are the meta right now is because they work so well against the defence missiles cost, the more cost effective the strikes the faster and more effectively you can hurt your enemy with ramped up long term manufacture.They work so well so cheaply in fact that a modern state could easily just bomb every house to rubble if they were inclined to put barely a few years of manufacture in. They are the new WMDs, all drone defences like lazers will be overhelmed by sheer numbers in the future, the only willing move is to own the most drones and mass manufacture cheap automated air defence.
>>65006055They aren't the meta, they're the cope, and that's why slow drones are getting btfo by CIWS and the burgers are laughing at you. >Muh meat waves!!!Weren't you humiliated enough by Ukraine?
>>65005362Most noteworthy "target" Tomahawk hit during current conflict is over a hundred schoolgirls.
>weapon costs $1,000>anti-weapon costs $10,000,000 and isn't effective
>>65005145a stickstick win everytime
>>65008660Cope. Drones are winning.
>>65008758What exactly are they winning? Has Ukraine or Russia won with drones? How about the US or Iran won with drones? Do speed boats filled with explosives count as drones?
>>65008758Depends on which drones. Ukrainian anti-shahed drones are cheaper than shaheds and extremely effective.
>>65008787The chink seethe levels recently have been off the fucking charts.
>>65005177>DeletedMan do the jannies hate fun.
>>65008673Yeah but that was an Iranian Tomahawk
>>65005145Pgk fuzes are pretty bitchin. First salvo hits for about 10 grand a pop. Jdam is the king of this though.
>>65009756jdams were beat by gps jamming. US uses ljdams now.
>>65008660>slow drones are getting btfo by CIWSshow the base in iraq with blackhawks and sentinel radars
>>65005339>a pain in the ass to counterIf you are a retard who shoots PAC-3s at shaheds, yes.
>>65005386Or, and hear me out on this, you put down cheap antennas used to detect transmitters which are piloting the drones and then you hit those with artillery. In addition you make sure you pair these detection devices with high-powered jamming devices which causes the drone to crash.The entire drone warfare thing is mystified and turned into some highly unimaginative one dimensional way of thinking instead of finding something which we already have and works. Why the hell would you need an expensive drone interceptor launcher mothership when you can just drop a 120mm mortar on the operators head or better yet turn on the jammer. Drones are the poor mans ATGM and any decently trained military should be able to counter their usage by traditional means.
>>65008673The school was full of American POWs.
>>65008673You were celebrating hits on schools and hospitals in Ukraine, but now that an accident hit a school and the land has no foreskins, you are suddenly humanists.
>>65010639>fiber optic drone>range 20 km>operators are sipping coffee in a cozy bunker>120mm mortar range>range 10 km>operators are shitting themselves trying to dodge incoming FPVsIt isn't that hard to figure out, anon. Drones are extremely cheap remotely operated PGMs that can be launched from anywhere and reach deep into enemy's rear. Artillery and even mortars are A LOT more cumbersome and increasingly more threatened by the drones.
>>65005147Unironically this.For all the effort that has gone into missile defense, literally none of them work against gravity or glide bombs.
>>65005362You missed the magic of cruise missiles. You can steer them specifically to fly where the weakpoint in AD coverage is instead of wasting the range in a straight line. I wouldn't be surprised if you could put them in a holding pattern to get TOT perfect.Having said that they are all too slow to be effective AShm and moving targets are also not as easy.
Musk won btw.>Everything he said about dronesVindicated.>Starlink’s importance on the battlefieldPriceless.>EVs being a necessary step away from oilCorrect-orino
>>65012940>much oilThe one thing not being talked about is that there is a single institution in the world with the infrastructure to make synthetic carbon capture fuel viable at scale. The US military.
the entire post-1970s / post-Vietnam U.S. MIC equipment procurement is vastly corrupt (as though it weren't corrupt enough prior) and delusionalNot to mention the Pentagon's 'battlespace' conceptualizations and force structure strategies
>>65006055>the reason slow drones are the meta right nowthey are not, the countries that are relying on them are losing.
>>65012940>musk won btwhe didn't>everything he said about droneswrongthe other two are correct, but droneniggers deserve to get pushed into a locker for being self-righteous dipshits who are wrong about everything 24/7
>>65005145>>weapon costs $10M>>effective anti-weapon weapon costs only $10k rendering weapon all but uselessDid it ever occur to you, that p[ossibly, that could be brown-skin bullshit of the highest order, and the super cheap anti-weapons actually only work against the bare minimum junk of the era?
>>65010639nta, I can already imagine your cheap antennas being fed bogus signal by relay drones, just to make you waste your shots while the real drones are operating with less visible signals (or wire) and destroying your costly artillery since you are shooting non-stop.>Why the hell would you need an expensive drone interceptor launcher mothership when you can just drop a 120mm mortarCause your mortar don't shot war enough and isn't anywhere mobile enough see >>65010890.>Drones are the poor mans ATGM and any decently trained military should be able to counter their usage by traditional means.Microdrone have destroyed more tanks than actual ATGM by now, and "traditional means" are not actually capable of dealing with vastly smaller, silent & suicidal aerial vehicle that ca, also operate at night.Your "traditional means" now require costly AI-powered unmanned turret capable of detecting the equivalent of a bird 24/24h 7/7dUnless you are able to mass-produce microturret that flawlessly shot down drones, they'll remain very useful. Limited in range yes, but efficient to saturate defense while your cruise missile hit higher value target.
>>65005376I would buy missiles from Home Depot
>>65005377My fucking sides
>>65005145A bullet costs less than a $1Body armor costs more than $1
>>65013317>droneniggers deserve to get pushed into a locker for being self-righteous dipshits who are wrong about everyth-ACK >*Gets his AWAC blown up by a drone*
>>65008771sounds like cope. what would you define as "winning"?>>65012940retarded. there's not strategic advantage to EVs because the resources are still coming from abroad. it's merely shifting the strategic risk from one region to another. the strategic shift would be towards a completely nuclear power grid.
>>65013152generals still fighting yesteryear's war has crippled countless nations. i'm sure that "near peer" adversary will appear any moment.>>65006055>slowrussia is starting to upgrade the gerans with mini Temu turbines. they will be much faster and harder to counter
>>65022781>the strategic shift would be towards a completely nuclear power grid.That's the point. Nuclear fuel is so energy dense that you can easily stockpile enough to last years without regular shipments. Fossil fuels are good (better than hydrogen, wind or solar for baseload) but the volume needed means that supply shocks can cripple economies.
>>65010878You where clowning on ill thought out wars of aggression until your retard in chief launched one.
Soldiers are such a fucking dumb idea, what are armies such idiots? It costs $60k for the US to train one of the retarded things and it dies to a 20 cent bullet. China can probably make that bullet for 5-10 cents so for the cost of a used pickup truck they can delete the whole US military. China has sold Iran tens of millions worth of weapons, they have enough bullets to delete the US military thousands of times over. You are all as bad at math as America is at war.
>>65023346>It costs $60k for the US to train one of the retarded thingsOne of the things where Africa is ahead.
>>65016432>roll up to the 'professionals loading area'>Sanchez's crew is getting another contractor pack of SCALPs>Forklift sets them down in the extended trailer being towed by a deleted Super Duty with a 'Guatamerican' rear window vinyl sticker>I guess that's what you call a 'missile truck'.
