A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I know Patriot missiles are relevant to traditional airframes... But aren't they completely irrelevant when it comes to drones? I'm pretty sure each missile costs at least 1000x the price of what it's most likely to be aimed at.
Edit: at four million a missile it's closer to 10000 or 100000x
Patriots are part of a layered air defense system that focuses on more valuable targets, whereas smaller air defense systems and units intercept UAVs.
Example
These aren't for the small disposable drones. They're for other missles and large aircraft. For the missles in particular, you should also factor in the potential cost of the damage they'll cause if not intercepted.
4 000 000 a missile, 100 000x times more expensive than a military drone? what military drone costs $40?
I don't know what models are in use today, but a Bayraktar TB2 costs 4 million.
The Ukrainians and houthis are having successful attacks with consumer drones that have hand grenades or ieds taped to them. You don’t need a “military grade” drone to fly an explosive where it shouldn’t be
You aren’t going to take out an arms warehouse, a bridge, or anything of tactical meaningfulness with a grenade drone.
They are good for taking out soft targets but that’s about it. Their use is extremely limited as grenades are only good as anti-personnel weapons.
Comparing them to Patriot missiles is silly. Different uses.
They wouldn’t use Patriot missiles on targets where grenades are effective.
A block of c4 is as easily taped to a drone as a grenade and that will take out the targets you mentioned.
A block of C4 would put maybe dents in the type of targets that Patriot missiles are designed for.
You also need to be within vicinity of your target to be able to operate a drone, which a missile doesn’t need.
Drones can be easily jammed. Missiles aren’t easily jammed, not with the same tech stack needed for drone jamming.
Apples and oranges. Different targets, different engagements, different applications entirely.
I’m not saying they replace Patriot missiles, obviously that’s not the case. I’m just saying you can cause a lot of damage with a $100 dollar drone and some c4, pretty similar damage to a $400,000 missile. The missiles aren’t really showing their cost-impact ratios to be good if what the Russians are spending on Ukraine is to be taken as evidence
Don't forget scouting. Giving soldiers in the field the ability to poke one over a hill can be useful. A $25 FPV drone off Amazon can do that job if that's all you can afford.
Not that you'd use a Patriot against that, either.
soft targets
now that's a multiple meaning I can get behind. soft, pudgy, vodka filled targets.
Both Russia and Ukraine are heavily reliant on consumer drones from the likes of DJI. Those run in the 1000-4000 dollar range.
Great news for the industrial militar complex.
Does Russia even have 1000 operational aircraft at this point?
I think it's more about how wide the area to defend is.
Yeah, but I wanted to make a joke at the RuAF's expense.
Oh...my bad.
They are also used against hypersonic missiles the Russians have (kinzal etc.) and ballistics like s300 and s400.
You might want to put the hypersonic part in quotes, they're basically just really expensive ballistic missiles that fly slightly faster. Considering their price tag, Russia would have probably been better off never developing them anyways
Yes, but afaik the hypersonic term applies to weapons over mach 4. NATO also adds additional requirements for hypersonics, such as manourerability. But they have enough speed to qualify.
One could argue that, sure but if only the speed is important the nazi V-2 would qualify as a hypersonic
Yes exactly, also each icmb would qualify (during re-entry they also pickup "some" speed).. but it seems like hypersonic is sort of a marketing sticker thing, like "green" and "low fat".
The NATO hypersonics that are being worked on should be able to make evasive manouvera at speed, will be interesting to see.
The S-300 and S-400 are anti-aircraft missile systems.
Yes they are, but in this conflict the Russians reconfigured some of them and use them in a ground to ground attackrole.
They had shortages of other tactical weapons and apparently a nice stockpile of these missiles.
Missile on missile violence?
Defending everywhere requires more units than attacking anywhere.
Yeah they are totally losing
Kinda feels like we should add a 0 to that, given the jiggery-pokery that China is also getting up to these days. I’m sure Taiwan wouldn’t mind a few shipments of the anti-ballistic variants.
10,000 missile x 4 million dollars = 4 billion dollars. Maybe this is why I stopped checking how expensive war is, it makes it more depressing when we talk numbers.
1.5x Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity projects or 160 million flu shots.
Nope, it's 40 billion dollars, 4 billion as it stands rn.
Taiwan has seven Patriot batteries. For reference, Ukraine initially got two Patriots, and a third one in December. They have to cover a lot more territory than Taiwan, but they've basically shut down Russian missile attacks. Including Russia's hypersonic missile, which is a very important datapoint for military planners to know.