How can drones fucking compete? People acting as if drones are invincible when you can just shoot it down like its a ww2 prop plane nigga
>>65455861The English channel could use some of these
>>65455861Reduce it to one minigun and give it a radar and it's a decent point defence that can be dropped on top of trenches.Until it's decided it's worth a bomb / missile then it's fucked.
>>65455875>drone sissies have to resort to risk using air assets, use traditional artillery or waste a valuable ARM to deal with a single machine gunits already over
>>65455861>How can drones fucking compete? People acting as if drones are invincible when you can just shoot it down like its a ww2 prop plane niggaThis kills the brownoid dronefag
>>65455899the ammo alone costs more than the drones that are being downed and it will be out of ammo pretty fast and then the next drone will crash into it unimpeded. air defense is a total cope.
>>65455892If you can field a radar for $300 per unit you might have a point.
>>65455927But less than the targets being hit by drones.
>>65455861>The Big Sandy Shoot in Arizona 2022This 40k-esque contraption at a static civilian shooting range in America had trouble hitting drones flying in a straight line across its field of view, and you think it's relevant to combat?
>>65455985doesnt matter, when the next wave of drones is already being set up but with one cram less now impeding them. strike drones are being spammed in the hundreds every week. the winning move is what the americans did in iran. bomb the drone factories, bomb the storages, bomb the launch sites.
>>65455861Look at the ammo expendature per UAV? Now imagine there's a thousand more behind that. The power of UAVs is that they are cheap cruise missiles and easy to mass produce. It is not unthinkable that in a current combat situation, a shit may be under threat by 1000+ UAVs and USVs at once. Oh and subs. Once they master subs then we're beyond screwed at sea. The limiting factor is control and awareness. They would need full autonomous AI to have a proper unmanned sub. The result will be a functional torpedo that can drive itself to wherever you want, maybe 1000km away. Or a torpedo boat that sits under the water with 2-4 torpedos, and fires, then returns home.
>>65455985This shit again. It's flawed reasoning unless the difference in value is made up by the offensive or economic output of whatever is being defended. This is fundamentals of warfare 101: The only purpose of defence is to enable offense because offense is the only path to victory. If your defence costs more than the attack it defeats then it's a self defeating defence absent enabling an attack over a limited window of time.I refuse to believe you aren't some clueless Yuropoor whose absolute garbage take on this is some kind of extended rationalisation about his country's lack of credible military.
>>65455875Make it a chaingun instead. Simpler, wastes less ammo, still gonna do just fine against a drone.
>>65455861>shoots down droneOk? So? There's no drone funerals, no drone wife and kids to receive the folded flag, no drone comrades to Press F to pay respects. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? Drones allow attackers to go all out without fear of casualties or even getting the drones back safely. Whomever can make more drones, wins. No need for strategies, tactics, guile, bravery, honor. Just simple arithmetics.
>>65455861What I can't fathom is why they haven't made a shitload of... well, land-based CIWS. Just something cheap and plentiful that can provide short range protection for oil refineries, military bases, airfields, and other relatively small targets (as opposed to entire cities), while also having the option for a mobile version that can protect artillery and other military assets closer to the front.What's the obstacle here?Sure, you have the Gepard Flakpanzer, but I'm talking considerably smaller, simpler and cheaper. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be plentiful and better than trying to shoot down drones manually.
>>65456033>lack of credible military.but enough about america
>>65456095They have; but CUAS turrets are less effective than people want to think, get immediately ganged up on and die, and it's more effective to go after the drone pilots than the drones.
>>65456095>land-based CIWSOne problem is that the bullets have to land eventually, and you don't want to dome a child playing in the street two miles away
>>65455861drones are cheap and numerousThink zerg-rush
>>65455892you have to have lights on the drone to even have a chance at tracking it.STILL MISSESKEK
>>65456006>bomb the drone factoriesthe avvg 15yo kid can build an ELR(40km 1way) 5kg payload drone in under an hour and store them in his basement. Whatcha gone do rabbi, kill all the kids?
>>65456033Defense just has to last long enough for your counterattack to land.
>>65455861
>>65455861Imagine being the ammo janny for this thing.
>>65458924Why not it'll work faggot. One day some ones going to run into some one not fighting from a place of moral superiority. Do you think the AI will care about your age?
>>65455861>it costs 400,000$ to fire this weapon for 12 seconds
>>65455861It may as well be a money gun
Use the jewish drone optics put them on a cheap sentry with 100 boolets put the sentry everywhere a 556 boolet can be as cheap as 20 cents you can fuck a 1000$ drone for pretty cheap and the air does not provide a lot of cover while the sentry just has to be there and power up when the drone detector thing acts out or even just add a microphone like these waiting dronesI sense the future of stationary warfare to just be an arms race of the smartest mine that will fuck any attempt to move more than a hair by anyone
>>65456112>nerve struck>n-n-no U ;_;You have to do better than that.
My favorite clip is the dude hiding in a shack popping a shotgun out the door and skeeting a passing drone.
>>65456095>What's the obstacle here?Tankfags hubris.See in every thread here they go full denial about drones capabilities and threat.Same thing when European generals prepared for cavalry charges.>Russo Japanese war?>ahaha some Asian monkeys fighting SURELY it WILL NOT happen in the real European war with REAL European militaries>ACK
>>65460846Yeah! Just like RPGs and ATGMs made tanks obsolete!oh wait...
>>65460850Show me RPG with 10km inderect range and $600 price tag.
>>65456185Make bullets that lose speed and fall on the ground tumbling
>>65455875>Until it's decided it's worth a bomb / missile then it's fucked.We ve seen manned machineguns take down cruise missile in ukraine.PGMs and missile could be dealt with M2 in ww2, we have opto electric tracking now, and laser ranging which is far better than radar
>>65455861Should've told the IDF about this anon
>>65459096Fuck Israel.
>>65461061>>65461038>random seething about israelyou're emotionally compromised so i can't really take any of your arguments seriously, go grab a tissue first.
>>65460852show me an RPG that can be taken out by a personal firearm with slightly modified anti-drone rounds lol.
>>65461068I mentioned IDF because supposedly they were the best equipped and trained military who recently faced against FPV drones. Everyone on /k/ have dismissed the drone threat in the past claiming that Russians, Ukrainians were just inept and lacked proper gear and training. So unless the IDF are just as inept as the Russians and Ukrainians or NATO/US have secret gear hidden in some bunker for countering drones, then they're a real threat that needs to be taken seriously.
>>65461069>>65455861
>>65461079>supposedlyaccording to who? your strawman?>they were the best equipped and trained militarythey aren't.>everyone on /k/ have dismissed the drone threatwrong, this is you using another strawman again, you kick and scream and you say this exact thing every time people laugh at your notion that drones have obsoleted everything.no, drones are not getting dismissed, retarded disingenuous faggot, they're just not as invincible as you keep shilling them to be.>russians, ukrainians were just ineptpartially that, partially the fact that they're poor and don't have a lot of industry, but more important is the initial conditions the war developed from including the level of fortification and pre-sighting as well as the amount of frontline compared to troop density.you are once again being disingenuous and attacking strawmen that don't exist.>so unless the IDF are just as ineptsome might be, but you're also making a direct comparison as if the tiny handful of clips you've managed to accrue so far holds a candle to what's happening in ukraine, the IDF are doing significantly better under threat of FPV drones than either of those countries judging by the incredibly tiny amount of clips of IDF soldiers getting droned.>they're a real threat that needs to be taken seriouslyNOBODY.HAS.EVER.SAID.OTHERWISE.NIGGER.they just reject your specific fantasy land version of events where drones are doing all the work, they're not, and as it turns out an incredibly slow drone can be countered by incredibly slow and cheap interceptors, which everyone is now working on.>>65461083>doesn't answer the questioni accept your concession.
>>65461069Any RPG, just shoot RPG armed soldier, lol.That is the point, you can easily defeat any direct fire weapon with this simple trick>just shoot them lolWith drones target is 100 harder to see and shoot down>>65461038and even you able to do so, you shot down $600 easily replaceable drones that is cheaper than single round of ammunition (AT4 is $4000).Soldier that operated this drone is safe.
>>65461137>another papyrus roll size post denying drones threatAnd this is why Western tankfags will never ever deploy drones counters >>65456095, until they themselves personally lose all their tanks to drones first. Only then they will get the memo(but many will still be in the denial, like battleships fags still to this day cry that aircrafts can't sink battleships because *papyrus size roll of copes why WWII battleships fate is not relevant*
>>65461172>no answeri accept your concession, drones are significantly easier to intercept with built-to-purpose C-uas than RPG projectiles are.>with drones target is 100x harder to see and shoot downwith traditional sensor systems, and traditional air-defenses, which will now be fielded alongside specialized C-UAS defenses, which can see drones and quite easily take them out because they are incredibly slow and have zero protection.a HPM can literally cook the unprotected electronics of an entire swarm of drones in one second and then move on to the next with an essentially infinite ammo supply, many are in development and some are already being fielded in low numbers.>that is cheaper than a single round of ammunitionthey aren't cheaper than the things that will be shooting them down (HPM, lasers, 20 mm cannons, even cheaper and lighter short-range interception FPV's)
>>65461178>N-NOOOOOO YOU'RE DENYING THE DRONE THREAT!!!!wrong and a strawman, you need to stop blatantly lying, it's pretty embarrassing, i did no such thing.>t-tankfagsoh it's you seething again, you are the only person who uses this word and nobody else has adopted it despite how hard you keep pushing for it lol.there is no such thing as tankfags, they don't exist, there's just you, the dronenigger, trying to classify the wall of people who make fun of your delusions.>will never deploy drone countersthey are currently being deployed in small numbers and massive amounts will be developed and built over the coming 10 years, so no.>u-until they personally lose all their tanks to drones firstwrong, because C-UAS is already happening.>b-battleship fags>i-if i just make this incorrect historical comparison for the 50th time in my 6th shill thread it will finally stop being silly!it won't.
>>65456033>unless the difference in value is made up by the offensive or economic output of whatever is being defended.Yes, this is exactly what will happen, why do you thirdies think that we won't shoot back at you lmao
>>65461178Protip: When you play the ol' feign illiteracy card as an out, you've basically forfeited the argument and exposed yourself as an assclown. Not that (You) were ever arguing in good faith to begin with.
>>65461212>drones are significantly easier to intercept with built-to-purpose C-uas than RPG projectiles are.You can kill any RPG soldiers walking to your tank with existing tanks weapons no problems.Detecting and intercepting drones with existing tank sensors and weapons? ROFLMAO!!! >>65460925
>>65461217>another papyrus rolls of copes explaining why tanks don't need antidrone CIWS
>>65461299>detecting and intercepting drones with existing tank sensorsnot the argument, the argument was about how easy it is to intercept the projectiles.cheap as fuck drones are slow as fuck and have no real defense against anything that fries the electronics or does even minor damage to the frame.as a result, they will now be intercepted by extremely cheap interception methods like HPM.>>65461301>why tanks don't need anti-drone CIWSi argued the opposite, my brownoid friend, you keep using this strawman and then crying when people don't take you seriously.you need to stop lying when people know you are lying, it doesn't work in white boards.
>>65461316>not the argument, the argument was about how easy it is to intercept the projectiles.Argument is stopping your tank from been hit. It's actually very easy to stop enemy soldier armed with RPG from walking 10 clicks from his dugout to your tank. Just shoot him with coax or even M4 when he is walking to you. Practically it's practically impossible for enemy grunt to walk 10 km like that to your tank platoon and achieve hit with his RPG.On the other hand for soldier is extremely easy and safe to launch FPV drone from his dugout, fly drone to tank and hit from above, and practically impossible for tanks crews to see drone and stop this from happening with their weapons.And
