Is it cost effective to fire missiles from jets at drones? It's too dangerous to fire at drones with the main cannon.

>>63922544 (OP)
You mean the thing that the US and Israel have demonstrated is the best way to swat shaheds?

air to air missiles are a viable tactic in this awkward period where proper anti-drone defenses are still in the works. if your country cant afford sidewinders then you just have to cope.

A tourist zigger has decided he needs to post not only several threads, but also in every thread.
Something bad must have happened in Russia.

>>63922553
You forgot that Russia is poor

>>63922544 (OP)
Why did they let them hit the tor factory or the 8th army's commander then?

>>63922544 (OP)
It helps to have a guided missile that costs less than the drone.

>>63922596
>the 8th army's commander
More like GoryACKin, amirite?

>>63922544 (OP)
>Is it cost effective to fire missiles from jets at drones?
Sometimes.
There are too many parameters for a yes/no answer.
Ask better questions anon.

>>63922632
>a guided missile that costs less than the drone
I hate calling Hydras missiles but anyway.
I think APKWS+Hydra probably costs about the same as a domestically produced Geran (without any surveillance/comms upgrades), not that it makes any real difference to the math.

>same hit from different angles
Zister...

>>63922568
>Something bad must have happened in Russia.
An air defence factory got hit, a few other places are on fire but we don't know what they are and an army commander was hit by a bunch of cruise missiles in Donetsk possibly along with some staff. UA sources have been quietly boastful while letting leaked reports through channel bloggers break the actual news. Probably not 100% certain that they got him and wanting Russia to confirm the story first.

>>63922696
>I hate calling Hydras missiles but anyway.
Honestly? I completely get you. But the APKWS is a guided weapon and imo, different enough from the Hydra to be its own separate thing (kinda like how we call them JDAMs and not BLU-117s or whatever).

>>63922649
Btw, what was a colonel doing commanding a combined arms army? (Which despite the name is really more of a smallish corps but still)

>>63922544 (OP)
There are a couple of instances where Ukraine claims jets have been lost as a result of doing close-range gun interceptions against drones and either flying into the drone or being caught by fragmentation

>>63922817
Lots of windows in moscow

>>63922789
>I completely get you.
If that were true then you'd have stopped your post there.
I didn't say it wasn't a missile, I said that I hate calling it one.

>>63922817
>Btw, what was a colonel doing commanding a combined arms army?
Donetsk is dangerous, the generals are in Moscow. The ones that are left anyway.

>>63922632
>>63922696
While they're cheap and as such a good solution this only applies to ground based fires.
If you're having to fly a helicopter up to launch these, or god forbid a jet, the cost of intercept is 10x the cost of the drone.

>>63922544 (OP)
Missiles could be as cheap as a drone. The missile body, explosive and rocket fuel are cheap. The pair of servos is also inexpensive, just need a cheap seeker and cheap chip.

>>63922920
The extreme acceleration and speed associated with missiles makes this difficult.
Hence why quadcopter interceptors are being explored.

>>63922912
If you're maintaining a CAP anyway, it's not a significant change in performance to remove one AMMRAM and replace it with a 10 pack of APKWS. The cost per flight hour of a F-16 is ~10k according to a random document I found online, so even with the APKWS costing 20k a pop, that's still substantially cheaper then the estimated 50k to 80k that a Shahed is supposedly costing. Defense is also just always more expensive then offensive systems, but the real cost comparison isn't with the munition but the cost of letting it hit it's target instead.

>>63923028
Well that's assuming you can't reach more than one shasneed per hour

>>63922920
>The missile body, explosive and rocket fuel are cheap.
Funny, rocket motors are a bottleneck for US missile production. At least they were last summer and the size of the rocket motors wasn't discussed- could have been Javelin sized or Atacms sized rocket motors.

>Cheap
Also not really when they have to whithstand Mach 5 and up to 40 Gs, depending on the missile.

>>63923028
>the estimated 50k to 80k that a Shahed is supposedly costing
I don't think the domesticly produced ones have as much grift built in, possibly little or none since the oligarchs surely have got the message that Russia is supposed to win this one.
It's all funny money since the companies are running on forced central bank loans they won't repay and the workers are some government run scheme to import foreign assembly line workers.
How do you cost that? I don't think you can really generate accurate data for it.

>>63923079
>Well that's assuming you can't reach more than one shasneed per hour
When they're swarming, it's for a few hours and then the missiles all come at the end after the drones have eaten some missiles.

>>63923142
Anon, Russia payed 200k per unit for their initial order of them from Iran. The lower estimates are substantially cheaper then that, but these are not dinky little quad copters with garbage electronics ordered in bulk for pennies from China. As to real costs, it's still the same opportunity cost of spending that funny money on the cope cruise missiles instead of something else.

>>63922912
The operating cost of an F-16 is only about $25k/hour

>>63922568
/k/ was a vaguely pro-russia board before war tourists flooded in. Please fuck off

>>63923409
>/k/ was a vaguely pro-russia board
That was never the case.
People just liked to meme about slavshit.

I don't think anyone actually thought that moist nuggets were a good rifle, just good value at a price point that existed for a while and good enough in most cases afterwards.

>>63923409
No, it was literally swimming in russia stronk because it had been a while since they tripped on their dicks. This war silenced all but the most stalwart shills, rightfully so. Fuck off retardo

>>63923409
I love it when these newfags try to dunk on war tourists only to end up exposing themselves as total war tourists themselves

>>63923445
And if it's not clear for everyone, >>63923409 is the newfag

>>63923409
Giggling about Mosins and being spammed by tankies does not a pro-Russian board make.

>>63923454
>And if it's not clear for everyone, >>63923409 is the newfag
Just like a Russian pilot and their RWR, nobody asked you.

>>63923409
No it wasn't thirdie

>>63922568
>>63922707
Russia and Azerbaijan are also squabbling over something and some FSB / glowie propagandists working in Baku got jumped by the cops. They also paraded a group of Russian guys accused of drug trafficking in front of the cameras and it looked like they had been beaten up. Just more news in the ongoing collapse of Russia's influence and power in their Central Asian near-abroad.

>>63923529
>and it looked like they had been beaten up
That was probably the point, some Azeris in Russia were tortured to death in police custody, Azerbaijan wanted to remind Russia that there are a lot of Russians over there who could suffer the same fate.

Russia has been rounding up and beating up some Azeris since to respond.

>>63923409
actual retard

>>63923541
I forgot Russia also shot down that Azeri passenger jet last year.

>>63923637
Apparently countries that practice hostage diplomacy don't deal so well with it themselves.
Canada should have arrested 100 random students with CCP families and held them until China stopped fucking around.

>>63923637
>>63923665
When a thug tries to push you around, you punch him in the teeth.
See: Turkey shooting down the Russian fighter jet.

>>63923693
>See: Turkey shooting down the Russian fighter jet.
Yeah, basically.

>>63922544 (OP)
Depends if you’re retarded or not
>retarded
>1 million dollar missile more expensive than 500k boat
>therefore not worth it

>not retarded
>1 million dollar missile cost less than rebuilding the 10 million dollar boat that the 500k drone blew up
>worth it
Didn’t your college force you to take some sort of basic accounting class? Opportunity cost?

>>63923637
They did it deliberately, turns out.
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1940129087064060061

>>63923741
An "intercepted call" is just about the lowest standard of evidence that is used to fake propaganda.
It's much easier to believe Russia is incompetent than deliberately shooting down airliners of its frenemy that it badly needs on-side.

>>63923282
>>63923028
I don't think that sort of 10-25k/hour takes into account all the real costs.
How about the fact that sometimes accidents happen and you crash the jet, whether it be due to debris from the intercept or just otherwise bad luck/pilot error?

Why don’t they make air to air drone hunter drones

>>63923732
And as a result of this thinking you run out of missiles and loose whereas any sane person would recognize the critical need for lower cost AA systems.

>>63922707
They also got an S-300 battery near the bridge, possibly with naval drone carriers, hence why OP is posting boat kills.

>>63923843
If you're firing a missile from a safe distance, you're not flying straight into the debris cloud, anon, and if we're gonna start including freak occurrences, how do you calculate in the percentages of Shaheds that crash land in the middle of nowhere because they're made like shit and just stop working?

>>63923852
That limitation only applies to poorfag countries

>>63923850
Multiple companies are working on similar solutions as pic rel but idk if any have seen service yet.

>>63923866
Ukraine has lost multiple F16's in intercepts, now, whether or not that problem is fully solved by using missiles instead of what I presume is the cannon is unclear but the danger is still present.

>>63923870
You retard the US navy literally had the same problem with the Houtis just a short while ago. And western munition shortages have been a dominant theme for the whole duration of the Ukrainian war.
Do you have goldfish memory?

>>63923897
There's at least one that the US has bought some from. Coyote or something?

>>63923852
>loose
>worried about cost
Poor ESL identified.

On a serious note, yeah, every half decent nation tries its best to be cost effective and use lower cost munitions when possible. Also OP asked whether or not it was cost effective in a vaccuum. Ofc a gun based or laser would be cheaper.

>why would we buy a truck when we can hire a ton of guys for a quarter of the cost?
>because we want to get the job done in time

>>63923793
>It's much easier to believe Russia is incompetent than deliberately shooting down airliners
I despite you faggots who in their naivety are willing to whitewash centuries of consistent russian atrocities

>>63923923
>every half decent nation tries its best to be cost effective and use lower cost munitions when possible
Guess that doesn't include the US navy.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-missiles-red-sea/
>why would we buy a truck when we can hire a ton of guys for a quarter of the cost?
A truck is the cost effective option you fucking retard.

>>63923908
in those cases ukies did in fact use missiles, it's an issue of the target (drone) being too slow compared to the fighter jet, so you inherently fly by the shot down drone just because compared to your jet's speed the drone basically is stopped in place
using something like super tucanos would make way more sense to shoot down those drones

>>63923793
>What is the Zimmerman Telegram?

>>63923948
Did you even read the article you linked?
>But by mid 2024, the Navy shifted to using less expensive Sidewinders and Hellfire missiles to shoot down Houthi drones, according to Janes.

>>63923953
something jewish and thus fake?

>>63923941
It's about standard evidence.
Here, it's some lines said by Russian speakers.
That is so incredibly easy to fake that it's ridiculous.

Would Russia shoot down an airliner? Of course they would, they have several times.
Would they shoot down an Azerbaijanian airliner?
Why the fuck would they want to do that deliberately?

>>63923637
Moscow has nothing to respond to the beating of "it's own"

Why would the Kremlin be upset if you did their job for them? Millions are given to the ChenChens and security forces each year, but the Azeria did it for free.

>>63924017
Sounds like they're worried about cost.

>>63923409
This is false. However, it is a talking point that vatniks and their retarded western worshippers on /k/ try desperately to push.

>>63923948
God you are one smooth brained motherfucker. We used missiles as we had a set kill probability we were looking for in order to minimize collateral damage (opportunity cost). Missiles were the most cost effective option to achieve that kill probability and minimize risk of damage.

>truck is the most cost effective option
That’s the point you thumbsucking retard. If you look at stuff in a vacuum, the people are more cost effective because you’re ignoring outside factors, but we don’t live in a fucking vacuum. OPs question was in a vacuum and I answered it as such

>>63923912
>You retard the US navy literally had the same problem with the Houtis just a short while ago.
Not really. There were a lot of headlines about the Navy "running low" on SM-6s but the truth is we fired about 8 months' worth of production over a 15-month period. The real concern was the stockpiles we would rely on in a war with China were increasingly more slowly than we would have liked.

>>63924024
>Here, it's some lines said by Russian speakers.
>That is so incredibly easy to fake that it's ridiculous.
1. There were hundreds if not thousands of intercepts of russian communication all the way to 2014, time after time they were all confirmed, even the most fucked up stuff about a girl giving instructions to her boyfriend about raping ukie chicks.
2. Anyone native would easily tell that that's exactly how military faggots talk, it's about the naming, intonations, accents and so on. Azeris which can speak russian wouldn't be able to reproduce that minute details.

>Why the fuck would
Asking such questions about russians in the year of our lord 2025 is exactly which paints you as a naive sheltered whitewashing faggot who doesn't know jack shit about who he's dealing with here.

>>63923409
cool it with the revisionism faggot

>>63924050
Soo in short, the mighty US navy that was supposed to against China ran out of missiles after a few months of intercepting dirt poor goatfucker drones...

>>63923953
>>What is the Zimmerman Telegram?
Something that was authenticated through multiple means, not least of which was a confession, not to mention that the only people it actually needed to convince already had the cyphertext in their possession and the British only needed to provide the decryption process for the USA's glowies (such as they were in 1917) to authenticate it on their own.

This makes it an entirely different thing to the voice recording published by an Azeri news channel.
That's a lot more like the Zinoviev letter.


Then again, who knows?
>As of 2024, there were six “open” files on the Zimmermann telegram which have not been declassified

>>63924036
>Sounds like they're worried about cost.
So the exact opposite of what you said in >>63923948 ?

>>63923897
>Multiple companies are working on similar solutions as pic rel but idk if any have seen service yet.
They're in use in Ukraine, there are four models.
Officer channel says that only two of those are actually good but he's not a UAV specialist.

>>63924076
>ran out of missiles
We didn't though.

>>63924094
It may or may not be related but the Pentagon has held back some promised shipments to Ukraine because of "stockpile depletion".
Of course that could be a bullshit reason to cover for just about anything.

>>63923637
>buried their tongues in their anuses
Like clockwork.
>the tongue is in the anus

>>63923409

>>63923409
This is simply not the case. The Armata program and the Su-57 were mocked mercilessly long before the war started, for one.

>>63924094
fuck off, centcom

>>63924178
We never gave Ukraine the stuff the Navy was shooting off (SM-2s, SM-3s, SM-6s, ESSMs, Tomahawks, etc.)

>>63922544 (OP)
It depends. It's generally cheaper than allowing the drone to hit the target. That said, there *are* cheaper alternatives: APKWS is an excellent short-range/low-performance option for use against propeller-powered drones, and energy weapons are sloooooowly leaving the drawing board.

>>63922696
I completely agree, but it's semantically correct (the best kind of correct). Any rocket-powered munition that features guidance is technically a missile. On that note, GMLRS is technically a TBM (tactical ballistic missile), which I also don't like, but it is sadly correct and we'll just have to deal with it.

Where the nomenclature starts to break down is with propeller-powered unmanned stuff. Is it a drone? A cruise missile? A SAM (the anti-drone drones Ukraine has been using)? Does it matter if it's one-way/non-recoverable? What if it's recoverable, but destroys itself upon detonation? Or what if it's recoverable and *doesn't* destroy itself as part of the attack sequence, but is routinely expended as part of doctrine due to battery limitations? We really need new words, and preferably something better than a bunch of backronyms or word salad.

>>63924178
>Of course that could be a bullshit reason to cover for just about anything.
still illegal.
executive cannot withheld congressionally appropriated funds. it violates the Impoundment Control Act because policy disagreements aren’t a lawful reason to block appropriated funds.

>>63923409
dunking on delusional Vatniks is a time honored /k/ tradition

>>63923409
>/k/ was a vaguely pro-russia board
Only due to all the spam by Armatard and Dennis et al

good to see them using flir to track suicide drone boats. it's the absolute best way to do it, and the coalition did it in the red sea with pretty good success. surface search radar from ships isn't completely reliable in detecting them since they're low profile.

helos will take on the role of anti-drone from warships now.

>>63924789
>We never gave Ukraine the stuff the Navy was shooting off
I don't think it's the stuff the navy was shooting, I think it's the stuff the airforce was shooting to intercept the sneed waves from Iran and Houthis.
There were all these big multi-national task forces flying out and shooting down drones over deserts for weeks, I think they used a lot of APKWS and stuff like that.

>>63924822
>Where the nomenclature starts to break down
No, the nomenclature was never intact.
Remind me again what the definition of a battleship is?
Or the line between aircraft carrier and helicopter destroyer?
The word Drone is just another in a long line of arbitrarily and inconsistently applied terminology.

And when it comes to giving something a common name for convenience, you can just shove your M1 up your M1, get back in your M1 and fuck off back to your M1.

>>63924831
>executive cannot withheld congressionally appropriated funds
I'm not sure this executive knows and the judiciary, and congress for that matter, appears not to care.

>>63924884
>Only due to all the spam by Armatard and Dennis et al
It's more like /k/ was a target by low-skill Russian spammers long before Glavset showed up with specific orders.

>>63922544 (OP)
Depends on what the drone is going to hit.
Lets say you have a pipeline that produces $2m per day and a drone hit would shut it down for 20 days, so long as the interceptor costs less than $40m it's a saving.
The price of the drone isn't relevant to this calculation.

>>63926576
>The price of the drone isn't relevant to this calculation.
It become relevant when you consider the depth of the enemy's magazine.
If they have 100 such drones and they're mostly going to hit, you'd save your $40m missile because the pipeline just gets hit and shutdown by the second drone.
If you have 100 such missiles, or some high/low mix to take out the bulk of the easy shots, then it's a different story.

>>63926597
I agree that cheaper interceptors are preferable, I'm just sick of the value of the target being ignored by people making these threads.

If you are planning for the next major war you need to be making massive changes to the economic system so the government can invest directly in required production capability instead of trying to convince the private sector that it's more profitable to build cheap interceptors than buy houses, invest in index funds or buy bonds.
The fundamental flaw of capitalism is every investor wants the highest RIO possible which makes producing cheap interceptors a terrible investment.

>>63924789
>We never gave Ukraine the stuff the Navy was shooting off (SM-2s, SM-3s, SM-6s, ESSMs, Tomahawks, etc.)
It's just Hegsweth bullshit.

>More confirmation by NBC: The U.S. has paused a major weapons shipment to Ukraine, including dozens of Patriot interceptor missiles, thousands of 155mm howitzer shells, over 100 Hellfires, 250+ GMLRS precision rockets, dozens of Stingers, AIM air-to-air missiles, and grenade launchers. Some of the weapons were already in the region but were halted just before transfer.
It's about "putting the US interests first" or some horse hockey, there's a global review of aid that's involved but I'm pretty sure it's just an excuse to halt weapons going to Ukraine.

>>63923637
>NOD dissapeared
He will never dissappear.

>>63923637
Russians only care about Russian speakers when they need it to justify invasions.

>>63922649
Are we having a Mordvichev moment again