Shooting down cheap drones not cost effective for US Navy

[Slater]

You pretty much have to run what you brung until some other systems can be brought to bear.

"The cost of using expensive naval missiles — which can run up to $2.1 million a shot — to destroy unsophisticated Houthi drones — estimated at a few thousand dollars each — is a growing concern, according to three other DOD officials. The officials, like others interviewed for this story, were granted anonymity to describe sensitive operations and internal deliberations.

“The cost offset is not on our side,” said one DOD official.

Experts say this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and urge DOD to start looking at lower-cost options for air defense.

“That quickly becomes a problem because the most benefit, even if we do shoot down their incoming missiles and drones, is in their favor,” said Mick Mulroy, a former DOD official and CIA officer. “We, the U.S., need to start looking at systems that can defeat these that are more in line with the costs they are expending to attack us.”


https://www.yahoo.com/news/2m-missil...190000271.html

[hotbiggun42]

How would they defend themselves if there were 1000 drones?

[Krazykarl]

So the bean counters want to control front line decisions and put at risk US personnel? History is circular.

[SteyrAUG]

edited

[Diamondback]

Simple cheap solution: massed machinegun/autocannon fire. Even a WWII Fletcher-class destroyer has better close-in air defense, though one would think that you could automate fire control so you only need people out on deck hooking up fresh belts of ammo.

[SteyrAUG]

So the bean counters want to control front line decisions and put at risk US personnel? History is circular.

It isn't hard to spend an enemy over the cliff.

Saddam was doing that, he'd threaten the US and we'd start ramping up a US response and then he'd stop being a threat. But the effort still cost the US military millions of dollars. That was the point.

In this instance, low cost drones can quickly raise the cost of defensive operations into multi million dollar amounts. I don't think this is a case of bean counters not wanting to protect lives but the realization that we need a more cost effective solution to the problem. Not everything needs a super sophisticated high tech solution, especially low tech threats.

Those 2 million dollar missiles were designed to deal with things like enemy fighters and incoming missiles.

[SteyrAUG]

Simple cheap solution: massed machinegun/autocannon fire. Even a WWII Fletcher-class destroyer has better close-in air defense, though one would think that you could automate fire control so you only need people out on deck hooking up fresh belts of ammo.

I think you are gonna need something faster, but yeah something like ship mounted radar / gps targeting rotary guns probably need to be looked at.

[TAZ]

Since when has any government entity done things in an efficient and cost effective manner??

They need to be able to protect themselves, so I have zero issues with whacking the drones. Might be better to whack the shooters but that’s a political CF in normal days much less now.

We just need to up production. Maybe reroute some of that wasted foreign aid $$$ to places like Asscrackistan, and God knows what other useless places we but money at into production.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ABNAK]

The Navy's experience and solution will be paid close attention to (at least hopefully) by the U.S. Army's ADA units. The war in Ukraine has shown just what 21st Century full-on warfare is like, and drones make up a significant part. The Army has already learned and adopted the Navy's experience by using the C-RAM during OIF, which is basically a land-based Phalynx system. I'm sure they are still in use at our forward deployed bases now.

[hotbiggun42]

Thank you SteyrAUG