Why aren't barrage balloons being used against drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles?
>why don't you use a static defence against something that can manouvre around it?
Actually make sense if you know where and from the drone attack is coming but the next attack they make it go around, below or above it. It is just cheaper to have some autocannon around.
>>65056605>drones, cruise missilesThey're much smaller than WWII fighters, let alone bombers (the main target of barrage balloons), fly in mostly straight lines without much maneuvering (unlike fighters, this being the main thing that'd cause fighters to snag balloons), fly in much more dispersed or concentrated formations (so either lots of space between them, or they're all in a line, minimizing their frontage), making the probability of one snagging on a wire much smaller, and if the mission planner has good intel, they can just route around them. They don't serve as much of a deterrent for modern weapons, and unlike human pilots, these weapons won't really swerve to avoid the wires, so you're not really disrupting formations (not that disrupting formations really matters, unlike WWII bombers).>ballistic missileslol
>>65056610it's like barbed wire. The enemy is not expected to touch it. What he is expected to do is to funnel into the carefully designed area you boxed with the static defenses, and once in this area, you kill him.
>>65057318Bit hard to do when the drones and missiles don't fear death, and small enough you'd need unreasonably dense barrage balloon arrays to actually deter someone from just sending them through regardless.
>>65057790Yeah retard, none of this stuff is easy. Why don't you just keel over and die bitch?
>>65056605
>>65056605Because drone interceptors are cheaper and better than balloons.>>65056928Drone interceptors are cheaper than autocannons. (If we use ukrainian drones at a cost of 1-2k per interceptor)Interceptors can cover far more distance.Cannon cucks are basically stationary, limited to field of view, and will expend more than $2000 worth of ammunition into the local neighborhood just to miss the target.Then we have to account for the cost of the cannon itself which is probably in the five to six figure range. Which makes it more expensive than even the overpriced lockmart drone interceptors. Then there’s the fact that you have to have to purchase multiple cannons for the same area of coverage because again, limited range.
The dorito shaped drones with a rear engine would actually just simply deflect the wire and pass by harmlessly.
>>65058808your idea is not hard, it's retarded
>>65056605because you just shoot down the balloon?
During World War II, bombers had advantages in deliberately flying at low altitudes, such as preventing interceptor Boom-and-Zoom attacks and rendering AA shells' time fuses ineffective.
>>65056605Drones too small. They'll just slip between the cables. Cruise and ballistic missiles can just fly over the maximum balloon height.
>>65056605This has probably been tried in Ukraine and it didn't work well
