Explain why not without sounding like an RTX/LMT bagholder.
>>65042567seems like a neat idea. potential problems. the positions will be open source in an hour, so if the threat has flexible guidance that can be adjusted to come in at a steeper angle or go around the fences, you would end up having to fully envelope the area, which would make launching your own shit inconvenient or impossiblealso a drone mother-ship or operative could launch FPVs to target the balloons. they could also be destroyed by missile with an airburst fragmentation warhead
>>65042567there are net systems to recover UAV's and the Ukrainians have been stringing up nets over roads. It would work if you can get enough of them.https://youtu.be/FhIgzBFHzwY
>>65042727i don't see why you couldn't, if its cruising along at 100 mph simple driving rang netting would get sucked into that exposed prop and ruin the drone would it not?
>>65042567Any dimwit in the area can roast the balloons with incendiaries, while at the same time clocking exactly which areas the dumbasses who erected that stupid idea want to protect and send a closed-sheaf.
>>65042778you have to consider not just how it will do against the existing tactics, but the response to the defenses youre proposing as well. they are already writing off half the attack fleet of drones to interception. how fast can the barrier be repaired during combat? are you going to tent the entire base? what will happen if that collapses?
>>65042915Weather balloons are extremely cheap and can be filled pretty quickly. Netting is a bit more expensive.Idk brother if it worked and was widely seen as worth while again world war prop planes I don’t see why it shouldn’t against preprogrammed drones that can’t maneuver. You could move the anchors as well, you don’t need to build a wall around Dubai but a couple of nets around an fob or something to keep the “mosquitos” out doesn’t seem like a bad idea.
>>65042567the human cost to set them up AND MAINTAIN THEM when they're damaged by weather, accidents and enemy action is far more prohibitive than jammers and AAA
>>65042870>clocking exactly which areas the dumbasses who erected that stupid idea want to protectBut what if that are fake inflatable balloon netting decoys? Checkmate! Ahahahahah! Achmwd sondumb!
>>65042567The Russians figured out how to bolt MANPADS onto shaheds. Those balloons could get popped very easily by a leading drone, poking a hole in the netting for an entire wave to go through Also you can just fly above them lmao
>>65044196>$90,000 Igla>$30 balloonIsn't that flipping the $offence/$defence script on the drones thoughever?
>>65042567First of, if you set it up like this you will get fucked by wind.You need to anchor your blimps with diagonal ropes so they cannot drift.Secondly, that's alot of very long rope and blimps can't carry shit.Some back of the envolope maths will probably invalidate the entire setup.And even if you could do it, the obvious solution is>make the drones fly 200 meters higher
>>65042915I think a net like that could be part of a larger scheme for fortifying bases. Anything being targeted with drones probably already is being assigned at least a few drones to make sure at least one gets through, so if you harden the targets so they need a multiple hits to achieve their desired result then your enemy has to double the number of drones assigned to each target, and then if you add a big net like that you could add a couple more drones needed for each target.
