counter this right now

D-don't let the tips touch like that

>>63861609 (OP)

>gets defeated by a .50 HMG with an infra-optical sensor and an automatic targeting algorithm

>>63861622
>so expensive they only produce like six of them
Not a real counter when every single km of frontline is under drone threat.

>>63861609 (OP)
ERA and Slat armor (including cope coupola), flak vest w/ neck shoulder and groin protection, along with an extra insert in the chest to stop anything that cant be stopped with flak alone.

If they are wireless, jam them, brute force works ok, but finding the right frequency would be much better. Otherwise, shooting them down is probably the best counter, as if it is a fibre-optic drone it will likely be unjammable. MG remote turrets already exist, just add visual tracking, ranging, and perhaps a small radar and signal detector to provide general bearing and elevation. Everything else could be semi or fully automated.

>>63861622
>One rounds costs more than FPV drone they supposed to counter

>>63861609 (OP)
tiny net

>>63861796
>>63861609 (OP)
A 5.56 minigun would work very well, with a large volume of fire, small round, and small size. Perhaps this could be mounted along with an M230 autocannon would be a great solution. 7.62 would also be a good calibre, but would have less ammo and could be seen as overkill for simple drone screening.

>>63861637
Can you show us practical example?

>>63861798
>One plate costs more than the bullet they're supposed to counter

>>63861631
I don’t think shotguns are a great counter to drones. They aren’t a great anti-human weapon in general, especially if you keep them loaded wih birdshot (low ammunition capacity, short range, heavy shells, more recoil, etc.), so you either have some guy carrying 2 long guns and their ammo (and being encumbered a lot) or some guy carrying only a shotgun (and being much less effective at regular fighting).

Also, most people probably get hit by drones when not aware that they are even coming, in which case the shotgun does nothing. Even if you see the drone coming, you still have to drop your rifle if you have one, draw the shotgun, aim, and fire, which is difficult. Even if you have the shotgun ready when the drone comes, a drone traveling at even 60 kph will cross effective shotgun range in 3 seconds, giving you little time to aim and fire.

Shotguns probably aren’t completely useless against drones, but their practicality is not great and their effectiveness is probably very limited.

>>63861798
Not how cost-benefit analysis works, brainlet.

>>63861812
>he thinks cope plates counter bullets

>>63861825
>runs out of ammo in the first day of war
>get raped FPV drones

>>63861609 (OP)
laser

>>63861609 (OP)
belt fed machine-shotgun

>>63861609 (OP)
SPAA with thermals, laser / radar ranging and airburst rounds.

>>63861825
If the cost of defending X is less than the strategic value of X then it's a good deal.
Lets say you spend $100m installing AD around US nuclear enrichment facilities and it costs $50k to bring down a single $300 drone is that worth it?
The answer is how much do you value remaining a nuclear power?

>>63861849
One 35mm AHEAD round is about $1500
30mm Air Burst time fuse is like $3000 (prox for sure even more expensive).
No airburst ain't viable.

As lowest level tactical air defenses only viable solution is 5.56/7.62 remote weapon station with FCS good enough to handle drones. Everything bigger is economically unfeasible.

For dealing with recon drones that require 3-5-10 km intercept range it's relatively cheap guided interoceptors like Coyote or unnamed Ukrainian FPV drone interceptors.

"Final Solution" is energy weapons: laser and high power microwave.

>>63861805
>>63861609 (OP)
I feel the chinese solution of colume of fire against drones. It will likely work against anything big or small (especially in a larger calibre). However, due to the lack of motorbike sized suicide drones, I feel any calibre higher than 7.62 is too high, and further, I feel 5.56 or a something slightly bigger such as a 6mm cartridge.

Volume of fire is the easiest and most technologically sound solution, as we have the capability to automatically identify, track, and often are even given a lead indicator. 5.56 will give more ammo and allow for larger bursts due to a smaller cartridge.

>>63861819
>They aren’t a great anti-human weapon in general, especially if you keep them loaded wih birdshot

There is a reason there are multiple men in a squad. Generally, someone other than the MG gunner is responsible for carrying extra shit, so why not equip him with an smg and shotgun? Birdshot works well against drones (whatever retards say), though I would feel more comfortable with a higher gauge of birdshot, as composites/plastics are pretty strong against smaller projectiles and may not cause enough damage b4 it is too late. Shotguns can also be used in CQB environments (urban places, forested areas, trenches) with high gauge buckshot or slugs, so not too much would be sacrificed. It could prove beneficial in a war full of close infantry combat.

>>63861858
See >>63861853 the value of the incoming munition and the counter don't matter all that matters is the value of the target being defended.

>>63861805 (You)
>>63861609 (OP) (OP)
I feel the Chinese solution of volume of fire against drones. It will likely work against anything big or small (especially in a larger calibre). However, due to the lack of motorbike sized suicide drones, I feel any calibre higher than 7.62 is too high, and further, I feel 5.56 or a something slightly bigger such as a 6mm cartridge would be the best solution.

Volume of fire is the easiest and most technologically sound way to solve the issue, and we already have the capability to automatically identify, track, and often are even able to provide a lead indicator. 5.56 (or slightly larger) will give more ammo and allow for larger bursts due to a smaller cartridge.

>>63861819
>They aren’t a great anti-human weapon in general, especially if you keep them loaded wih birdshot

There is a reason there are multiple men in a squad. Generally, someone other than the MG gunner is responsible for carrying extra shit for the MG, so why not equip him with an smg and shotgun aswell? Birdshot works well against drones (whatever retards say), though I would feel more comfortable with a higher gauge of birdshot, as composites/plastics are pretty strong against smaller projectiles and may not cause enough damage b4 it is too late. Shotguns can also be used in CQB environments (urban places, forested areas, trenches) with high gauge buckshot or slugs, so not too much would be sacrificed. It could prove beneficial in a war full of close infantry combat.

>>63861622
Fly low enough and fast enough so the targeting sensors are getting interference from shit on the ground

Now what

>>63861833
They actually do, my brown friend

>>63861609 (OP)
30x113mm gun firing XM1211 proximity air burst cued by both the onboard APS radars and whatever other detectors it can be networked

The better counter is to break the killchain by killing both the operators and especially the operators of the observation drones that are invariably cueing the FPVs (but also many other kinds of fires). These observation drones are really the most dangerous part of the current drone paradigm, as they detect nearly any concentration of forces and result in mass fires that make any size attack a lethal proposition. Ukraine kept Russia back before the advent of the FPV drone by way of these, artillery ATGMs, and bomber drones just fine.

The way to do this is intelligence collections on (sigint, visual/IR, tracking of drone movements to and from launch points) and targeting of operators with fires, and then a number of of interceptors and SHORAD systems for direct force protection- the same kind of radars mounted on western SHORAD are the backbone of Ukraine's current FPV interceptor program.

>>63861877
Radars and sensor will still be faster than drones

>>63861884
The calibre is too high. A 5.56/intermediate calibre microgun would be better.

>>63861871
It matters because you can't afford to cover your frontline with short range guns and ammo stocks for them when every round costs more than drone they supposed to counter.

>>63861889
It's about versatility. Those Skyshield turrets can fuck up not only FPV drones.

>>63861834
>he thinks every drone will make it the last layer of defense

>>63861880
Tell this to all troops killed by small arms in Ukraine lol.

>>63861896
This could be true when your enemy has the same economic output and production capability, when was the last time the US went against a nation with more than a quarter the US's GDP?
Also factor in the fast that the US Army estimates it costs ~$60k to train each man and add on the ~$1m it costs per year to deploy him and suddenly dropping ~$5k in AAA shells to defend him isn't such a bad idea.

>>63861897
The utility of ballistic air defence is questionable for modern militaries. The only niche it currently has is against smaller drones. Otherwise, MANPADS work fine. I doubt you would even catch a helicopter, much less a jet with conventional ballistics.

>>63861882
For observation drones, you've got some of the higher caliber AAA, rockets like the APKWS or interceptors like the Coyote + much cheaper versions, but also lasers and microwave weapons.

HPMs are also pretty well suited for shutting down FPVs as they kill very fast and can be targeted towards low flying targets, and even run continuously if needed.

>>63861898
Longer range interoceptors are even more expensive per kill.

That is so tiresome. West would everything to avoid making 7.62 anti drone RWS. They send entire NATO artillery stocks to Ukraine only for them to die from Lancet drones. They whine and cry but adamantly refuse to make real solutions. Instead they try selling ideas of "anti drone" guns with $5000 rounds >>63861882

>>63861905
the overwhelming majority of them isn't killed by small arms, my retarded brown friend, and when are it's often when they get complacent and stop wearing armor actually (or they're executed by russians after being captured)

>>63861914
>The utility of ballistic air defence is questionable for modern militaries.
Are you retarded?

>>63861609 (OP)
At least they are now dropping some actual ordnance instead of designed to maim frags.

>>63861910
So what happens when the enemy has the same output?

>>63861915
HPMs are very promising in this regard, already fielded by the US Army and scalable enough to get into a feasible format that'd fit on a rooftop RWS.

>>63861927
Then you bomb their output.

>>63861910
This way of thinking lead to USA having literally no cards in Ukrainian war and Trump surrendering to Putin.

What can US send to Ukraine to turn tides? Literally nothing, US can't stop Russia.

>>63861917
>>63861917
The difference between a 7.62 bullet and a 1-2 meter proximity airburst is well worth the cost, as you aren't likely to kill anything with non-airburst shell unless it's right on top of you. You actually get MORE stowed kills because dumb rounds waste so much ammunition. C-RAM/CIWS fires conventional shells and wastes hundreds per kill because of it.

>>63861931
Sounds like there isn't a cost-effective counter to drones if the proposed solution is to simply prevent their production

>>63861923
Are you? Let me know how often an airplane or helicopter will be caught either in range or in direct LOS of the damn battery, retard kun. There is a reason the US military hasn't had a direct fire system until now.

Modern attack helicopter doctrine generally emphasizes distance and concealment from the enemy via the horizon (or other obstacles). Aircraft are almost always beyond cannon engagement ranges (unless it is a shitty surveillance drone, or you are fighting Iran).

>>63861919
>the overwhelming majority of them isn't killed by small arms
Yes. But I am asking about those who did.
Cope plate covering 15% of the body ain't gonna save you. If you are lucky to catch bullet by plate you would be just shot again.

>>63861932
While Trump is a fucking idiot the EU is stepping up as the next superpower while the US kills their soft power. Already approved spending increases = 1.2 times the US military budget.

>>63861936
Correct, there also isn't a cost effective counter to bullets if you only account for the cost of the ordinance and the cost of the protection yet every western military and the chinese still issue plates.

>>63861938
>US military hasn't had a direct fire system until now
to clarify I mean the M-SHORAD, pic rel, before that it was the M163 VADS. That was retired 30 years ago now. M-SHORAD was procured only recently.

>>63861914
>The only niche
Drones are no longer a "niche"

>>63861834
>run out of ammo
In the last hundred years, this has only ever happened to brown countries.
>rape mentioned
Yep, definitely brown-coded.

>>63861941
>there also isn't a cost effective counter to bullets if you only account for the cost of the ordinance and the cost of the protection
Sure there is, artillery

>>63861950
So $3k to $10K for a single HE to stop a single $0.50 bullet is a good trade?

>>63861952
Think more proactively, stupid.

>>63861947
Should have clarified smaller drones. They definitely fill a niche that is well countered with lower calibre CIWS systems. I doubt that solely light calibre remote weapon stations would be looked at very fondly, as it would give up too much stopping power for people sized targets (not something the size of a basketball/yogaball).

Pic rel, the dood would likely be better served with a larger calibre to ensure their death, while the drone could be taken out via large amounts of lower calibre ammo.

>>63861956
But ~$5k in AA to stop a $300 drone is a bad trade right?

>>63861939
My brown friend, real life isn't a video game, people don't target outside the armor protected areas, they spray bullets and hope something connects. And in this case basic bitch body armor saves thousands upon thousands. Because your torso is in fact the most common area where the random bullet would hit. I speak from experience of people whom I know personally who fight in Ukraine.

>>63861958
No, idiot. We have been over this. Look up cost-benefit analysis before posting again. You dumbass.

>>63861939
You act like soldiers in reality are the same as in your vidya games. Most soldiers arent going to shoot well enough to score multiple effective hits on target. Armor is meant to grab the strays that actually hit you and prevent them from killing you. A hit to anywhere non vital will be survivable if you aren't running around alone.

Not to mention if an enemy shoots a friendly, they will more than likely receive return fire, and regardless will probably be too nervous to fire another pot shot. If you can see the whites of their eyes, however, armor is of little consideration.

>>63861948
NATO literally run out of 155mm ammo, comrade. And 155mm guns stocks.
Ukraine in last 2 years made more SPGS then UK and France had total.

>have fancy anti drone installations
>just drive up rc cars to them
lol lmao

>>63861935
>>63861917
>>63861872
The Phalanx has a long history of letting its intrusive thoughts win and engaging things that seem target-shaped, while hosing down friendly ships with 20mm in the process. Having semi-autonomous guns scattered everywhere to deal with drones flying at head height seems like a recipe for fun, really.

>>63861968
Cost of not countering drones
>systematic destruction of all ground forces including but not limited to armour, infantry & logistics

This seems a pretty high price to me.

>>63861960
Combat bullet hits distrubtion studies show it is literally random. Only head gets statistically more hits.

ok but if they spammed dummy drones at your fancy anti-drone guns?
literally just cheap as dog shit foam drones in the thousands

>>63861983
dummy anti-drone guns

>>63861976
No auto fire zones for low angles of aim (where you can hit ground targets).

Engage semi automatically these targets (RWS tracks target and sends video feed of tracked target to operator and operator mashes "fire" button after).

>>63861917
>Conveniently ignores the part about soft-kill, electronic warfare and signature masking being part of the system

>>63861637
there was a study in Poland for i think Pilica program - to hit moving drone sized target usage of dumb munitions was in 2200-2400 rounds range and 6 rounds for airburst - both systems were radar/optoelectronically targeted...
logistical footprint of 2k 23mm rounds is much higher than 6 30mm airburst ones - on other hand utility of having dozen or so small low profile passive sensor dual barrel 23mm systems that can counter other threats like troop transports and ifvs more effectively (and can be moved by small vehicles like quads or by manpower if necessary) also cannot be overestimated...

>>63861882
Best take in this thread so far. FPVs have shitty cameras and have to be cued by the all-seeing observer drones

>>63861983
read
>>63861889
>>63861805

throw a coat over it, or develop some sort of coat-throwing weapon

>>63861995
>there was a study in Poland for i think Pilica program - to hit moving drone sized target usage of dumb munitions was in 2200-2400 rounds range and 6 rounds for airburst - both systems were radar/optoelectronically targeted...
This one?

>>63861952
Yeah and what's carrying the bullet you moron

>>63861995
>counter other threats like troop transports and ifvs more effectively
If you use programable airburst like BAE 3P you can be even more effective against ground targets than impact 23mm.

>>63862038
So men matter now but not when I pointed it out here >>63861910
You are fully convinced the best counter to drones today is weapons that are still in the prototype phase. I think microwave guns will be great in the future if they are powerful enough they aren't countered by wrapping a drone in aluminium foil but if I have to counter them today I'm using airburst AA for K-kills that can't be countered.

>>63861609 (OP)

>>63861935
>as you aren't likely to kill anything with non-airburst shell unless it's right on top of you
Good enough for FPV drones and NATO nemesis Lancet
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W18JC1-Okj4

Just imagine Russian turtle tanks have such. War would be over into 2 weeks, unironically.

>>63861609 (OP)
Even smaller and cheaper kamikaze drones.

>>63861939
Are helmets useless too?

>>63862091
Oh they uploaded presentation
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WIIQuTU3RmE
Some interesting points

>>63861609 (OP)

>>63861609 (OP)
>counter this right now
Indiscriminate bombardment of civilian population centres until drone operators how no places to return to. That outta do it.

>>63861941
>there also isn't a cost effective counter to bullets
There are a fuckton of cost effective ways to kill meatbags who carry those small arms if that's what you're saying. For example, FPV drones.
This retardation is so fucking tiresome.

>>63861948
Have you not been following the second most recent war you tard?

>>63861979
Cost of running out of ammunition before the enemy runs out of drones is the same so you're not solving the problem.

>>63862457
That isn't what he was saying, did you not read the rest of his post? He was stating that in general, bullets are extremely cheap and extremely good at killing people when you shoot them. By your logic, the West shouldn't introduce plates to their military because they might not stop bullets and there are other systems that can kill them that plates won't protect against.

Don't be retarded.

>>63861609 (OP)
By achieving full air superiority fully destroying the country's IADS, decapitating the military learship preventing their military from organising proper defense of the country and then keep bombing strategic sites of the country and decapitating both military and political leadership until the country surrenders.

>>63861939
trolling outside of /b/ is against the rules.

>>63862467
How often do you actually catch so many bullets in your plate that you have to get a new one? FUCKING NEVER
How often do you encounter FPV drones? Every single fucking day on every single feet of the front line.
It's not the same thing you retard. My god I'm getting retard exhaustion.

>>63861932
Neither do you zegroids have any cards. What are you going to do, bleed all over ukranians with your donkeys?

Agent orange cucking out has more to do that he always tacos when faced with hardship, his simp complex for his monkey boyfriend and finally his personal hatred that zelensky did not help him out five years ago

>>63862100
You mistake "useless" and "counter".
Helmets were reintroduce during WWI, they reduced casualties somewhat, but nowhere close to "counter" artillery. WWI remained meat grinder till the very end, infantry meatwaves hopelessly died to arty spam, helmets didn't help.
Same for rifle plates, they don't make you Abel to charge into machine gun fire or make small arms mostly useless.

Real counter to artillery and stalemate trench warfare meta became tank not helmet. Real armor, fully protecting from artillery shrapnel, not just cope cas.
See maneveuer WWII warfare. Not full counter but tank created new meta comparing to WWI.
Now drones counter tanks hard and we back to WWI.

>>63862521
Russia is relatively comfortable in this war. No internal conflicts that state can't squash. Russia can continue this attrition warfare as long as it's needed and sure as Hell Ukraine would bleed out first.

Russian version of "do nothing - win". (couple milions of dead Russians? surely Putin doesn't care about them)

>>63861609 (OP)
Seven! Seven suicide drones, ah ah aah!

>>63861819
The people on the ground say they are decent. Double barrel, because you can load two different pellet sizes, for longer distance, and wider spread if you miss and it's closing in.

>>63861798
But less than target drone would destroy.

>>63861609 (OP)
>counter this
Don't have to, those pigs won't fly.

>>63861932
>What can US send to Ukraine to turn tides? Literally nothing, US can't stop Russia.
They could stop preventing ukraine from hitting russian energy infrastructure for one, making it far harder for russia to continue financing and supplying their war

>>63862704
>Russia is relatively comfortable in this war
Yes forever wars are actually a good thing!

>>63862792
What is Russia actually loosing in this war?
Men? Nobody cares.
Quality of life? Nobody cares.
Dignity? Nobody cares.
Global influence? Ok whatever maybe someone cares a little...

>>63862823
those are the front have more soul than those living at home. those unfortunate embroidered in combat in 200 lived more than the rest, in exception the Amish. around the fur inside the fall, succour sought voyaging dead cities, weep not this is the valley of life it ruins the great suffering.

>>63861609 (OP)
>REEEEE that's not fair
>you have to be poor!!!!!

>>63861833
that is some new weird cope... so like let's fight naked if nothing stops bullets
zigurs preparing us to see footage of completely naked assault?

>>63862823
>What is Russia actually loosing in this war?
~2 million citizens, and counting. Mostly from their "sensitive" 25-45 age demographic at that. Half to war directly, half to fleeing abroad. They're really flooding Argentina at this point, year-over-year, by the way.

Also their economy. Which while not an immediate issue to Kang Monki does pose medium term difficulties for state solvency. Though that's more of a 2027/2028 kind of issue. 2026 is going to be for categorical Soviet stockpile extinction ya know.

So presuming active protection systems work at all, isnt stopping a javelin or hellfire forty times harder than stopping one of these? Arent plenty of APS equipped tanks theoretically already rather well defended?

>>63861609 (OP)
>Lights blunt

>>63861932
>>63862521
>>63861941
Firstly Trump is a cuck not because of anything involving Ukraine but because he isn't racist, if he was he could find a trillion dollar a year budgetary surplus by exiling everybody darker than milk. Secondly the US has millions or round of expired cluster munitions alone. The issue is one of political interest which was stymied long before he got back in office. Russia is all but crippled and prior to the massive zigger pileup in 2022 everybody was willing to simply drop Ukraine. Russia has proven itself to be incapable of any true power projection and thus isn't considered a threat.

>>63862694
>Now drones counter tanks hard and we back to WWI.
Only if you have no ability to SEAD and then hunt down any EM emissions, which would restrict the other side to either very brief operation of wireless units or go completely fiberoptic which have their own set of limitations namely range and maneuverability. Does it change shit? Sure but not when the opposition has a fleet of much larger UAVs constantly watching for any radio activity or thermal image then alerting an operator. Which is what the US has had for two decades now. That is the real counter, the suppression operators just as you'd suppress artillery.

>>63861858
>economically unfeasible.
Maybe if you only consider the equipment cost of the drone you're destroying instead of the training/equipment cost of the soldier you're trying to protect.

A trained soldier is a valuable asset worth a hell of a lot more than 10 grand.

Tactical churkas and Siberian mystery meat homosexuals. Fvp drones are drawn to "Russian discipline". A single tuvan sodomite could probably draw at least half of a drone swarm away from a higher value target

>>63861896
the point
your head

>>63861917
>They send entire NATO artillery stocks to Ukraine only for them to die from Lancet drones.
So true, saar.