Thread 64257506

>The US NEEDS to be SCRAMBLING to make 1000 mile range 100mph Shahsneeds cause... cause.. IT WORKS AGAINST MEME AIR DEFENSES OKAY
Did this troglodyte forget that we have real cruise missiles and strike platforms that can ingress JDAMS into any contested airspace a Shahsneed would have a remote chance of getting through? Not to mention we're already in the middle of procuring L3Harris Wolfpacks and Anduril Barracudas, both high subsonic spam cruise missiles in the $200-300k range to do exactly what Shahsneeds do but 10x better. Why would the US divert resources to try to outmanufacture China and still fall behind when the advantage is in tech?

Most importantly: what causes such brainrot amongst dronefags and why are they reformists reincarnate?

https://www.twz.com/air/u-s-needs-to-be-building-tens-of-thousands-of-shahed-136-clones-right-now

reverse psychology will not get my to read your dogshit clickbait article.

>>64257510
Idk if it came off like that as I usually get recommended twz for updates but this is the first time seeing such a retarded opinion piece on there.

>>64257506 (OP)
>IT WORKS AGAINST MEME AIR DEFENSES OKAY
That's why they're worth building, you use the expensive stuff to reduce their air defense to a meme then hit the unprotected assets with cheap drones

SEAD and Shasneed

Shahed is just a very slow cruise missile with notoriously poor accuracy. Sure, they're cheap to make, but given Russia's track record it would take a thousand of them to do the job of a single Tomahawk, with massive collateral damage along the way.

I'm not even going to bother reading the article, there's no justifying the opinion that shasneed is any good.

I doubt the goverment (besides trump) is taking seriously that dorito PoS

>>64257506 (OP)
The warzone is pure slop.
Read any of their articles and you will see its almost entirely composed of twitter re-posts. Youre reading a glorified blog.

>>64257506 (OP)
>>64257569
Yeah I was going to ask how a 'reliable' source even published this schlock. I will still read TWZ for a curated Twitter feed, but this is a little embarrassing.
I agree that the US would do well to field large numbers of low-cost cruise missiles, but copying the Shahed isn't it. The primary concern is that the US hasn't the launch platforms for it. The delta-winged Shahed can't be launched from boats or from the air, and terrestrial platforms for launching it would lack mobility and an ability to slot into existing doctrine (Russia employs a tactic of hiding Shaheds in trees hundreds of miles behind the frontline and launching using civilian model truck beds, something the US could never do in an expeditionary conflict). The piston engine would be a massive hassle for stockpiling and offers low reliability, and since they can only be used for stationary targets, and the US will have air supremacy anyway... why not just drop a JDAM?

Like OP says, the solutions are there (ALE, Wolfpacks, Barracuda, Extended Range Attack Munition...), the just US has to test them and refine them some more and then expedite procuring them. They're just not a priority when the US also has a Tomahawk problem that is exacerbated by fluctuating demand, something that could theoretically also happen to these low-cost munitions.

Defense against enemy Shaheds is a very pressing problem too. APKWS is cool, but it's not a magic bullet.

didnt read the article or this thread

the headline is right

have a nice evening

>>64257546
blah blah blah. i dont think you get the point of them. its not the point of a bomb to be smart and cruisable and so forth. the point of a bomb is to destroy and demoralize the enemies. they bombard. every single night. even if you shoot some down, some will fall and blow shit up. they can make more each day and the same amount or more will follow. its a strategy of tiring your enemies and spending their resources thousand fold on something you spend barely anything on. the strategy is time will tire your enemies and make them succuum to your will. as long as the west doesnt get this theres no chance theyll win in ukraine. or elsewhere against such enemies. you faggots plan on taking on china. who said you could, even with the stockpiles of hellfire missiles?

>>64257546
their accuracy is actually good and no better or worse than any other cruise missile that relies on ins + gps. gps jamming is why they can miss point targets, just like any gps guided munition. gps jamming isn't universal and can be countered, so a 50,000 dollar cruise missile with a 90 kilo warhead is very useful.

don't believe the propaganda that ukraine puts out when it comes air defense successes. it's giving you a false picture of reality.

>>64257542
>then hit the unprotected assets with cheap drones
or you hit unprotected assets with waves of even cheaper gravity bombs dropped by the thousands of extremely capable platforms already deployed

>>64257506 (OP)
Unironically 10000 Shaheeds per month against Russian energy infrastructure would put them onto knees instantly and end war right now. And it will cost spare change comparing to contribution Ukrainian allies already did.

>>64257944
>don't believe the propaganda that ukraine puts out when it comes air defense successes. it's giving you a false picture of reality.
Dumb Muskovite bitch. You're the same faggot from the MW2 thread, aren't you?
>gps jamming is why they can miss point targets, just like any gps guided munition.
I'm inclined to agree actually. They probably have around a 5 meter CEP, made slightly less accurate because of the dive phase, which is sufficient for their target profile. They're great for what they are.
>>64257780
This just isn't Western doctrine. Indeed, the West would probably struggle in a land invasion of China, but nobody is equipping or even planning for that. In that scenario what they'd really need is more of the basics. Shells, artillery tubes, missiles, tanks, soldiers, and most importantly, political will. The last one is the real bottleneck militarily, and since the neither military nor even civilian leadership can implant that in voters, it just isn't worth planning or equipping the defense apparatus for.
Shaheds *are* something the West ought to defend *against*, though. Since it just isn't feasible to produce a shit-ton of top-shelf interceptors for Shaheds, the best defense is a good offense by immediately targeting launch points and command positions, which is facilitated by good intelligence and requires weapons with rapid response times. Theoretically, air defense systems would just have to soften the initial blow. It won't be easy, though, no doubt about that.

>>64258022
One concerning scenario is if China starts spamming their equivalent of the Shahed at Taiwan and the West just sits back and spends a week trying to invoke Article 4 [sic] to discuss how they can avoid escalation. They've proven their impotence during the Poland fiasco, I shudder to think what would happen if they don't unfuck themselves, which, in all likelihood, isn't going to happen.

>>64258022
>the best defense is a good offense
IE your own Shaheeds so other side thinks twice before starting throwing rocks in a glass house.
As for stopping launchers see it doesn't work in Ukraine at all and worked only mildly successfully in Iran.
Of course developing real interception counters based on fighter aircrafts (because they can cover entire country easily unlike ground based solutions) is top priority too. Poland shooting Russian Shaheeds with Amraaams is a disgrace.
APKWS is a good start, but it needs to be much faster procurement, and you need better "final" solution systems in work.

>>64258057
>IE your own Shaheeds so other side thinks twice before starting throwing rocks in a glass house.
Instead of throwing stones from your own glass house, you can drop a precision guided 2000lb bomb on the other guy's.
>APKWS is a good start, but it needs to be much faster procurement, and you need better "final" solution systems in work.
Yeah, it needs to be more longer range and more specialized too. I'm a firm believer in the "soften the initial blow" idea for defending all objectives besides perhaps some major bases like Guam. The real counter has to be doctrinal.

>>64257506 (OP)
>Tyler Rogoway
>Opinion article
buy an ad tyler, your slop still sucks to this day
also the f-35 won so fuck off anyways

>>64257780
Or you could just, y'know, actually hit what you're aiming at the first time because time and opportunity cost is a thing. What the fuck is the point of doing what more-or-less amounts to terror bombing with shasneeds when you could be using AGMs and guided bombs to actually kill men and materiel instead of making them keep their head down? The main logic of claiming that precision strikes are less demoralizing is that the enemy needs to remain alive to be demoralized.

>>64257546
They're not even that cheap for what you're getting.

>>64258265
kek, fukken saved

>>64258085
>Instead of throwing stones from your own glass house, you can drop a precision guided 2000lb bomb on the other guy's.
Doesn't work in the Ukraine.
And investment to make Ukrainian AF strong enough to be able to bomb Russian critical infrastructure is like x100 times more then doing that with Shaheeds spam. Logistics win wars.

>>64257506 (OP)
>me misread on thumbnail
>Detect, Identify, Locate and Deport

>>64258281
My comments were mostly about the US going up against China. Ukraine wouldn't have needed to strike oil facilities (like they're doing now with their Shahed equivalents) if they had received 200 F-16s with associated munitions and mercenary pilots in early 2023 because they would have already won by now.

If anything, mass Shahed strikes would just overburden Western logistics. You need a lot of them but can't store them like bombs, and you can't launch them from platforms that Western countries can field and deploy easily at present. You would need a lot of guys, a lot of trucks, and a lot of Shaheds for a good hit rate the first couple of times, then the enemy catches on and starts intercepting 80% of your drones.
Now, your $100,000 Shahed actually works out to something like $500,000 for each effect on target, and that's not counting opportunity cost.

>>64257506 (OP)
Google Poo-bah's Party. The US would not be using drones to bomb the civilians shahed-style. They are the first ever to employ the drone wave tactic. Just not for the barbaric reasons for which gulaghomo uses them.
/thread

>>64257506 (OP)
>Tyler Fagway
I take nobody's autofellatio of "I predicted this!!" seriously until they tell me all the times they got it wrong as well

>>64257506 (OP)
The CHAMP is one bad bitch. A wall of those would have the Chinese clutching their pearls while none of their equipment works and they can only watch as their equipment gets orbited by Tomahawks.

>>64257668
>the headline is right

no, it's not

and you are retarded

have a nice evening, dronenigger

>>64257780
No, the point of a bomb is to kill the enemies. You don't need to demoralize them if they're dead.

>>64257780
>destroy and demoralize the enemies
ahh, like the tactic of all those failed shitholes that lost wars?

the point of war isn't to demoralize your enemy, it's to kill your enemy, these shasneeds suck at doing that for the amount of money they cost, dumb bombs with glidekits do everything they do 10x better when you have a competent airforce.
>tiring your enemies
this is thirdiespeak for:
>i am too incompetent to do maneuver warfare and surgical strikes to destroy my enemy's ability to fight outright, so i'll cope and say that grinding both our armies away is an intentional strategy when it is just the only thing i know how to do, as well as the most harmful and inefficient form of warfare for me to engage in.

you're one of those "ahead of the curve" retards who will simply never get it because you're too far up your own ass lmao.

>>64258281
>doesn't work in ukraine
yeah, it does actually, it's just that ukraine themselves don't have the technology or funding to do it.

>>64258043
The difference between Poland and Taiwan is that Taiwan produces 2nm transistors and Poland produces alcoholics with an inflated sense of self-importance. We already have those at home.

>>64258407
>US going up against China
US drops a dozen GBU-57's on the Three Gorges Dam, and 3/4 of the Chinese population ceases to exist.

>>64258814
>US drops a dozen GBU-57's on the Three Gorges Dam, and the continental US burn in nuclear fire.
FTFY.

>and 3/4 of the Chinese population ceases to exist
Less than 1/10th of the Chinese population live downstream of the dam, retard. It's not holding back a whole-ass ocean, either.

>>64258814
>>64259006
Bringing nukes into this is retarded either way

>>64258541
>dumb bombs with glidekits do everything they do 10x better
I think you need to qualify that by saying "JDAM does everything 10x better." Russian glide bombs don't have any better of a track record any better than shasneed. I guess you just can't make a machine that's smarter than you are.

>>64259006
>continental US burn in nuclear fire
Oh no all the US leftist hellhole cities are destroyed that's ... pretty awesome actually.

>>64259053
In a peer conflict, if you can gain air supremacy, that's pretty much game over, thanks for coming out.
Ukraine is a shit show because neither side can gain air superiority, much less supremacy.

>>64259034
imagine being DnC'd so effectively that you think half your countries population dying would be a good thing

>>64259071
Both sides are also just poor and gay in general

>>64259014
Literally their stated policy. You go dambusting killing millions, they'll retaliate at the same scale, using whatever weapons necessary for doing so. Including nukes.

>>64259034
Have fun dying to starvation and exposure due to all the important infrastructure and organisational frameworks that prevent this being located in and/or dependent on those cities. You'll be envying the dead in due time.

>>64259668
The reason I said it's retarded is because it's not like the US wouldn't nuke China back with 3 times as many nukes if it escalated. Every dies but China dies harder.

>>64257780
>. the strategy is time will tire your enemies and make them succuum to your will.

Has this ever worked on a scale larger than a city siege? The only example that comes to mind of a bombing campaign's "demoralizing" the enemy into defeat was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even then it wasn't used in the way you are describing and arguably may not have been a necessary factor.

>>64257506 (OP)
>when you're trying to dunk on neo-reformers but you are the neo-reformer

My niggy, here's the problem the MIC is orbiting: hitting air fields with cruise missiles is last century's warfare, because today you can put the missiles on a truck and put the truck anywhere on a jungle island. We need missiles to kill missile-launching trucks. That means lots of missiles, because there are lots of trucks and lots of errors hitting camoflage. Plus, no need for 1000lb warheads. 10lb will do the job.

>>64259006
yes but the majority of their food production does lol. say byebye to the infrastructure keeping all the other chinks outside the splash zone alive.

Who cares about bombing the dam? Uneducated fudd retards chestbeating to try driving away their insecurity about peer competition, that's who. America will never, ever conventionally attack the dam because it would start a nuclear war; and even the dumbest politician is not going to deliberately start a nuclear war.

>>64259799
This, it's a choice Taiwan gets to make, not the US.

>>64259668
>exposure due to all the important infrastructure and organisational frameworks that prevent this being located in and/or dependent on those cities.
Do urbanoids actually believe this? Ohhhh nooo, how ever will the state capital of Iowa manage the state NG without DC to... Like supply them and tell them what to do and shiiiiiit

>>64259829
Getting nuked is bad, mmkay. Can we bring the topic back to shahsneeds now?

>>64260312
I HATE SHASNEEDS!

It's American, call it by its name: SHADMAN

>>64259115
He's right thoughever. Removing the major cities would effectively create a postwar boom here. It would remove the vast majority of the poorest, most extremist, most undereducated and most foreign parts of our population while destroying nothing but clusters of infrastructure built to sustain them. Overnight you create cheaper prices for everything consumable (Food, Fuel, Electricity, Drinking Water) and higher prices for everything infrastructural (Wood, Steel, Asphalt, Concrete, Plastics) creating a boom in residential and commercial, and a boom in industrial at the same time.

At the same time you basically give the DoD an infinite blank check forever to burn Chinese people until every single one of them is dead and all trace of them has been removed from the historical record. If you think what happened to Germany after the war was bad, wait until somebody gets tagged as the dumbass nation evil enough to try destroying any part of the world in nuclear fire. In all fields, China would still lose, and the only damage they can do to the US just improves our situation.

>>64257780
>the point of a bomb is to destroy and demoralize the enemies. they bombard. every single night. even if you shoot some down, some will fall and blow shit up. they can make more each day and the same amount or more will follow. its a strategy of tiring your enemies
>demoralize
My sides, we're back at the terrorbombing copes from 3 years ago
Shasneeds suck against targets of actual importance, and terror bombing civilians only make them hate you more
It didn't work when Germans bombed Brits, nor when them with burgers returned that favor tenfold, never mind that shasneeds are a wet fart compared to any serious bombing
They could be useful as decoys for the quality stuff but even in that role they are suboptimal because they're too expensive
>tiring your enemies
That's even dumber, if you start a war with your strategy being tiring out your adversary you're a retard in the first place, that shit is reserved for the small guy in asymmetric warfare

>>64260333
checked

>>64259006
China doesn't have enough nukes to bathe a single US state in nuclear hellfire. They might be able to level Los Angeles and Seattle if their missiles aren't intercepted.
On the contrary the USA has 10x as many active nuclear weapons and can make sure the Chinese don't have a place to go home to.

>>64260564
>Ukraine fights conventionally without air power while Russia fights guerilla warfare with jets
The "lessons" learned in this war should be forgotten as soon as it's over. Except the lesson about genociding Russia, of course.

>>64260976
Uh huh. Good job saying you missed the last 30 years without saying it. How's it like, living in the 90's?

>>64259767
Not really. And well, again: If it did? Say byebye to the infrastructure keeping the US and its population alive. Hell, with how fucked the US is nowadays, I'll bet good money China's gonna recover faster.

>>64261054
China has fewer than 200 warheads assigned to platforms capable of reaching the continental US, of which some number are attached to missiles whose fuel has been drained to cook hotpot, some number will miss the continent entirely due to 70s era chink guidance systems, some number will be destroyed by American ballistic missile defenses (just last year SM-3 was combat-proven with a successful exoatmospheric interception of an Iranian ballistic missile), and some number will fizzle because chinkshit.

They certainly have the capability of inflicting serious damage, and at least several of those warheads would successfully detonate over highly populated areas in an all-out nuclear war scenario, but that anon was correct in saying that China doesn't have the ability to glass an entire state, unless maybe we're talking about Rhode Island.

>>64261140
They have no less than 330 silo launched MIRV capable ICBMS. Not to mention the various FOBS TELs.

>which some number are attached to missiles whose fuel has been drained to cook hotpot
This should have been a giveaway you were an anti-China fudd trapped in the past. The water-missile meme was based on a mistranslation of a Chinese idiom for half-assing it. No honest analyst fell for it but the kneejerking reddit brigade jumped on the litmus test for morons like a depressed mobik locating a TM62.

1970s guidance systems? Wake up retard. It's 2025. China pirated 1990s guidance systems before I was born and they haven't gotten worse since.

You chestbeating boomer dupes are trying to sabotage America and you think you're helping. It's moronic.

>>64261140
>some number will miss the continent entirely due to 70s e
Dude you are delusional. The chinks have upgraded their tech and while behind, they arent Russia tier. They have a huge industrial base. They make high end electronics and chips. You need to consume less propaganda.

>>64257506 (OP)
It is a well known lesson that war is more a matter of economy than a war of superweapon.
For a long time we didn't consider that a cheap drones would be good enough to hit a target, now it clears they could.

But the most important point isn't really to use them instead of proper cruise missiles.
The point is to have them oversaturate defenses or even just radar, while the cruise missile pass by.
Basically dangerous decoys.
And if they can still reliably reach enemy air defense, your enemy cannot afford to not intercept them.
So your enemy is forced to diversify its defense or waste its most costly anti-missile to intercept cheap shit.

It is difficult enough for radar to filter what missiles are more important than the other, especially as they can now change direction midway.
I expect that someday it will be AI all the way.

>>64261164
Not all ballistic missiles are ICBMs. About two thirds of their warheads on ballistic missiles are not capable of reaching the continental US.

>>64261175
>they arent Russia tier.
Proof?

>>64262318
>Not all ballistic missiles are ICBMs. About two thirds of their warheads on ballistic missiles are not capable of reaching the continental US.
I think this is what everyone is forgetting. Puccia is a bigger threat even with their rusted out silos.

>>64263676
I'm pretty sure that even the chinks have higher nuclear readiness than the ziggers. Russia has 1200+ warheads in range of the US, but most of those warheads/launch vehicles/silos/TELs have literally never been serviced since the fall of the Soviet Union.

>>64257506 (OP)
Actually, this looks a MALD-J clone designed to have a common airframe with a JASSM clone. They even added ISR functions to the MALD-J variant. Pretty good idea logistically.

>>64266412
Yeah, picrel is actually what I was advocating for. Just didn't want another shahsneeds photo shitting up the catalog.

>>64266881
Oh....HUZZAH! New Weapon for the US Air Force/Navy/Army!

>>64261140
>fewer than 200 warheads
Your information is about 15-20 years out of date. Also, 200 warheads is enough to collapse the US as a nation and cause a mass population die-off.

>>64267301
China has fewer than 800 warheads total and the majority of them are on not mounted on missiles capable of reaching the continental US. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it.

>>64267301
>200 warheads is enough to collapse the US as a nation and cause a mass population die-off
lmao as if the majority won't get intercepted and china won't get struck back with 10x as many

Weird how they're called ICBMs but they're not frozen at all

>>64259647
US is not poor

>>64267482
Exactly the reason why we are seeing mechanized US brigades and air cover rolling over Kharkivl, right? No?

>>64259071
If you can gain supremacy in any domain, you're not fighting a peer.

>>64261057

You don't have good money though. You have Chinese yuan paid 50 cents at a time.

>>64260547
Holy shit you're either retarded or a chink shill. Where do you think the majority of the US income comes from, some corn farms in Kansas or high-tech companies in California? Who will design the infrastructure for your plants and industries? Are you going to import European or jeet engineers?
>and the only damage they can do to the US just improves our situation.
You're a russian, aren't you?

>>64267568
/k/ might not take Russian nukes seriously but the US military still thinks they're a credible threat

>>64271050
Even if only 1% still work it only takes 1 nuke to ruin your day.

>>64271050
The US military just isn't retarded. Half this thread is chink/zigger shills saying that the US will be glassed down to bedrock and the other half is pointing out that there's no way that it's possible for them to land more than a few dozen warheads, which won't cause the collapse of civilization or any bullshit like that. A few dozen warheads landing with tens of millions dead may not be a civilization ending event but it's absolutely not an acceptable outcome for the military.

Kinda bizarre to be saying that le Shaneeds are le useless when everyone, including the Ukrainians and Americans, are copying the concept. It's not a replacement for cruise missiles, its something to make them more effective.

>>64259019
Tbf we haven’t seen Russian glide bombs used by a competent Air Force, which is what he said

>>64271463
>copying
the shaneed was literally reversed engineered from an RQ-170 15 years ago

>>64271478
What? The Simorgh is a copy of the RQ-170 the Iranians brought down, not the Shasneed. Usually people say the Shasneed is a copy of that random Dornier drone despite having nothing in common.

>>64271463
The "Americans" also want to go back to using battle rifles and shitcan their AWACS. Doesn't mean they're right, especially since either of these questionable decisions will cost several times as much as the equally shitty Sneeds.

>>64271478
The Shahed 136 is a variant of the 131 that comes from the South African Kentron ARD-10 changing the size and removing the Anti-rad function, that is a variant of the licensed Dornier DAR.

The Shahed 171 is the copy of the Sentinel and it's completely unrelated.
Why are shills so fucking retarded?

>>64271501
It's also important to mention that the 131 was likely heavily inspired by the Israeli Harpy, itself a license-produced version of the ARD-10.

>>64271510
Not really, both Israel and Iran licensed the same ARD-10 drone. The difference is that Iran removed the anti-rad electronics, increased its size and reused most of their Ababil avionics.
A lot of people copied, or licensed the original Dornier DAR or Kentron ARD after the 1990s.

>>64271494
America adopting a retarded rifle doesn't mean all of their procurements are wrong. Both sides of the Slavic civil war are making Shasneed equivalents I don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you people are saying they're useless. They've clearly proven themselves hundreds of times yet they're somehow useless?

It's like the tards saying that the war proves that tanks are useless as both sides are desperately scraping together as many tanks as physically possible.

>>64271544
It may be a coincidence, but Iran does have a history of copying some Israeli weapons (Spike -> Almas) or sometimes just their appearance (Hermes 450 -> Shahed-129). These were smuggled or captured, respectively, but I don't think Israel ever used the Harpy against Iran. They did buy the ARD-10 like a decade after the Israelis first bought theirs, though.

>>64271570
.mil is making a lot of mistakes (at least media-wise) with regard to drone warfare/inexpensive munitions because they're just riding the publicity wave/scare started by multipolar chest beating.

It is often said that the past is like a different country, but in this case the different country is the past, as imposed by doctrinal failure and materiel shortages on both sides of the conflict. The US or any other Western country will *never* fight in trenches. They will *never* use terror bombing. They will *never* not have air superiority, not anymore.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a non-sequitur in this case. Yes, the US has to respond to their new tactics, but that doesn't mean literally copying their equipment. Read the OP and >>64257546 >>64257659

>>64271463
>Americans, are copying the concept
Your evidence for this?
>It's not a replacement for cruise missiles, its something to make them more effective.
In what way is Shahed superior to, or even different from, a cruise missile?
>Both sides of the Slavic civil war are making Shasneed equivalents I don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you people are saying they're useless.
Neither side has access to the quantity of real cruise missiles that they need. If they had the ability to manufacture Tomahawks, they would be. Instead, they're paying 20-30% of the cost of a Tomahawk for (generously) 5% of the effect.

>>64271728
>Your evidence for this?
Bruh.
>In what way is Shahed superior to, or even different from, a cruise missile?
They can be produced in the thousands in less specialized workshops and factories using off the shelf parts and can still be effective in damaging enemy infrastructure.
>Instead, they're paying 20-30% of the cost of a Tomahawk for (generously) 5% of the effect.
They don't cost $400k lmao. Tomahawks can't be made in extreme quantity, need access to higher quality components, more specialized factories for assembly, and need to be launched from a VLS while Shasneeds can be launched from a shipping container. And how the fuck are they 5% of the effect? Their purpose to to cause their enemy to waste a $1m missile and to act as decoy for heavier ordinance as well as general targeting of assets.

Again, your point is totally mute. Everyone is copying the concept. It's battle tested and has proven itself thousands of times so its totally bizarre that you're claiming that cruise missiles make it moot.

>>64259829
It doesn't matter that you have a centralised goverment when all your electronics dies.

>>64271850
>A Shahed lookalike at a booth for a company that makes target drones
This is proof of what, exactly?
>Some other bullshit
Russia was literally paying Iran $400,000 for Shaheds. Now that they have fully localized production they're vastly cheaper, but that also means you can't compare the cost of production to retail price for a Tomahawk. Nationalize Raytheon and only consider cost of labor and materials and you will see a proportional decrease in the cost. And using them as decoys for real cruise missiles isn't an option, any real military will be able to tell the difference between them just based on the speed and use different systems for each. Shahed is not a cost-effective platform. It's a money sink for thirdies with no budget for R&D and no diplomatic reputation to buy proven Western weapons.

>>64271468
Glide bombs are extremely popular these days: ASM Hammer, JDAM-ER, SPICE, SDB-II are just a few that have seen recent use
>>64271850
reply to the other posts you cherry-picking faggot

>>64271850
>those retards copied the usually repeated reported length even if it's obviously wrong for anyone watching pics or the drone irl
The task failed successfully I guess.

tactical level drones are incredibly effective and the US should in fact buy more
I have no idea why anyone would take the lesson "buy more strategic drones" like shaheds from the Ukraine war when it has been the biggest nail in the coffin in the concept of "strategic bombing" to-date, both Russia and Ukraine are expending lots of resources on these campaigns unduly, failing to make major territorial gains but also failing to render the enemy unable to fight despite massive investments and reallocation of obtained weapons
Tyler Rogoway is retarded and always has been retarded

>>64271911
Ukrainian economy is outsourced like commie Vietnam during war. You need to bomb EU to shut it down.
As for Russia I am pretty sure they themselves wouldn't survive levels of Shaheeds spam they use in Ukraine.

>>64271884
>Shahed is not a cost-effective platform. It's a money sink for thirdies with no budget for R&D and no diplomatic reputation to buy proven Western weapons.
You are so astoundingly stupid you haven't even realized that America has a grand total of 6 Typhon launchers and yet you keep shilling Tomahawks as a tool to overwhelm air defense. Not even gonna bother replying to your drivel anymore. Enjoy your (You).

>>64272338
Civilized countries have navies and air forces you dumb fucking nigger. Holy shit what a retarded faggot. What next, are you going to tell us about the virtues of massed armored columns and assaulting the Fulda gap? You aren't as smart as you think you are you smug monkey.
>>64272357
That's... basically what the low-cost cruise missiles are, if you massively oversimplify it. You might want to read the thread.

>>64272338
The USN has and will continue to launch more tomahawks than than it's opponent has the ability to shoot down.

>>64273157
That won't be necessary and is a bad use of resources. SEAD/DEAD and air superiority would make shootdowns almost a non-issue, and Tomahawks would either fly in later or actually participate in the SEAD effort.
Of the thousands of TLAMs that have been used in anger, fewer than 8 have been shot down by the most unoptimistic estimates.

>>64273249
I know, but I also have a low opinion of the current administration.

>>64272338
>>64273157
Any air defense system that can reliably take down a real cruise missile will also be able to handle a near-infinite number of Shaheds, because they don't just plop down a few Patriots/S-400s and call it a day. Even countries with no air defense to speak of could scramble some crop dusters to shoot them down with handguns.

>>64273265
The US Navy will launch more missiles than the enemy has crop dusters to shoot them down!

>>64273261
What does that have to do with this? If anything, this administration is focusing on cost effective munitions.

>>64273383
I remember the attack on Sudan where the USN basically just overwhelmed the defenses with something like 60 tomahawks. The current administration was in power at the time. It was a hamhanded approach to the problem that worked because the US arms industry could support it.

>>64271850
Shaheds get taken out by ~$30k APKWS now. They had an economic niche but it’s gone now. They’re not a worthwhile investment now, honestly they barely were to start with.

>>64273499
>imblying Russia makes APKWS

>>64273716
Who fucking cares about russia and who even implied that? We're talking about the US here.

>>64273723
>Who fucking cares about russia

Taiwan just announced they're gonna be making Barracudas locally for under $200k each
The global south continues to buy $100k sneeds in the meantime
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2025/09/18/2003844010

>>64257975
No one in power actually wants the war to end.

>>64257959
this 100%

Why do we need to build tens of thousands of drones to do the same thing we already have bombs and planes for? if SEAD is performed well enough for the use of kamikaze drones then there is no reason not to just use fighters and bombers to do the same thing but more effectively.

>>64258265
jej

>>64258380
Based ICE agentfag

>>64257959
>>64276713
Gravity bombs aren't that cheap when you remeber the planes carrying them cost tens of thousands per hour to maintain and cost tens of millions to replace if it's a high threat enviroment.

>>64276948
Yeah but they're not thinking about attritional warfare which is why they'll lose against it. US says billion trillion dollar wunderwaffe only, every single airstrike needs to cost ten million dollars minimum, which is why they never do anything ever. Even their cartel boats that they blow up, that takes two 30-million-plus dollar Reaper drones followed by the used hellfire munitions at $100k per. Versus the 100 drones you could send for that same price, and thirty blow up, who cares?

>>64276985
How many times have you embarrassed yourself and stopped replying to the anons humiliating you just in this one thread? Three times, at least? What a sad little man you are.

>>64277003
I'm glad i'm helping you win whatever argument you're having with the infamous 4chan user Anonymous, but what does that have to do with my post?

>>64273265
You don't have a near-infinite amount of ammo at every position you hold in a war.

>>64277022
What are you even trying to do? Are you trying to make your dumbfuck opinion look like the thread's consensus? You can just argue for it normally. You aren't smart enough to do psyops on 4chan. Watch:
>>64276985
>Yeah but they're not thinking about attritional warfare which is why they'll lose against it.
Attrition as a state of warfare is a de facto unspoken bilateral agreement. It is the equilibrium point of mutual exhaustion, which cannot occur if you wear the enemy significantly faster than they can wear you down using superior equipment, tactics, and numbers. Western armies cannot win attritional expeditionary wars; that's a fact, but that's not as bad as that sounds. Relatively quick and decisive warfare is better in every way, if you can afford it.
>...
Unlike Shaheds that would rot in storage until you get the chance to blow them for little to not effect in one go, aerial platforms like jets and drones are multipurpose and reusable. They can conduct SEAD, strikes on moving and time-sensitive targets, intelligence and reconnaissance, and so much more, and a single fighter jet can conduct several sorties in a single day. Even if you go by your faulty pure economic analysis, a 1-hour mission with an F-35 - the most advanced fighter jet in existence - using two SDB-IIs, would cost around $350,000. Two ancient T-72s would cost $600,000 each; and an F-35 would typically go after more lucrative targets.
>Versus the 100 drones you could send for that same price, and thirty blow up, who cares?
You just said it yourself. For the same price, you got a third of the performance. Actually, much less than a third, probably around a tenth, because you don't have BDA and other crucial information. Now two thirds of the enemy are still coming at you, you don't know whether they're now dead or just got angrier, and when they hit the frontline, then you better dig some trenches. Prepare for attrition warfare, and that's what you're gonna get.

It’s genuinely embarrassing to watch this unfold, in the same thread, thirdies have desperately tried to force the
>muh attritional warfare is the standard now stupid westoid
Narrative like more than 5 times now. You’d think russia getting bitchslapped by a smaller, higher quality army that doesn’t even have most of the toys western armies are capable of using, and instead of sitting the fuck down and paying attention, it just emboldens them to get even more delusionally cocky.
every single day i see more and more of these threads filled with cunts simply begging and craving for a dreadnought moment playing field leveler that isn’t coming.

>>64278877
> You’d think russia getting bitchslapped by a smaller, higher quality army
If you think Russia got “bitchslapped” [it took basically all of its objectives] or that Ukraine’s army is higher quality [it is currently staffed by pressganged meat], you’re delusional

>>64277043
Which is why you save your Patriots THAAD for incoming missiles and use AAA against Shaheds slowly flying in predictable directions at known heights. Just look at what happened with Iran's strike against Israel. The Shaheds contributed absolutely nothing to saturating Israeli air defense, most of them were shot down by fighter aircraft that didn't have anything better to do.

>>64278907
>”bitchslapped”
I’d say burning all of your soviet inherited materiel, losing 20% of your refining capability and turning over million of your small remainder of child-raising age males into cheetobags is getting bitchslapped, yeah.
>it took basically all of it’s objectives
It’s objectives were to take all of ukraine demilitarize and annex it, and stop NATO from further bordering russia, and they failed miserably at all of it, nobody has forgotten the original goals, vatnigger, no amount of goalpost moving and denial is going to make it go away.
>it is currently staffed by pressganged meat
Projection lol, russians get less than a week’s training and are actively encouraged to kill themselves in even slightly negative situations since they are literally worth less than the gear they’re in. I’m sure those donkeys are super spec ops donkeys with high levels of training though.
>inb4 he posts one of those videos where someone in ukraine gets arrested by military police and tries to peddle it as forced pressganging
You can try that narrative if you want, people are just going to laugh at you even harder.

>>64278907
>insane off-the-wall retarded cope response
Angry zigger alert

>>64278907
Nice 3 day special operation objective.

>>64278942
>burning all of your soviet inherited materiel, losing 20% of your refining capability and turning over million of your small remainder of child-raising age males into cheetobags
ZERO of these things actually happened to Russia. ergo russia has not been bitchslapped per your definition
>It’s objectives were to take all of ukraine demilitarize and annex it, and stop NATO from further bordering russia
this is simply incorrect. Russia's objectives were initially to take the donestk and lugansk republics (which they pretty much succeeded at) and now it's to take those and kherson and zaporozhia (which they probably won't manage)
from an outsider POV, russia has successfully occupied a good chunk oukrainian land and stopped all attempts at getting it back
>Projection lol
here is a database of 701 ukrainian pressganging incidents: https://uadraftmuseum.ch/incidents feel free to post a database of russian pressganging so we can compare
>russians get less than a week’s training
citation needed. also it doesn't matter how much training ukies get if they desert and surrender en masse due to having dogshit morale from being kidnapped and forced into the army. ukraine has charged 19,000 men with deserting or abandoning their posts! and that's not counting those who deserted but were not charged
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/31/tired-mood-changed-ukrainian-army-desertion-crisis
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/08/europe/ukraine-military-morale-desertion-intl-cmd/

lmao shalomka

>>64279926
Is there a specific type of individual you're attempting to goad into responding or is it just autists that dislike falsities and published proppa gandah

>>64279973
I dislike falsehods and kakolganda but I’m not autistic

>>64279926
>Russia's objectives were initially to take the donestk and lugansk republics (which they pretty much succeeded at)

It's inital objective was to take control of territory it was already occupying? Wow the bar is low.

>>64279926
>here is a database of 701 ukrainian pressganging incidents: https://uadraftmuseum.ch/incidents feel free to post a database of russian pressganging so we can compare

Anon these are just videos of people in uniform and random people fighting.

>>64279926
The problem is that holding that land is costing Russia about a GWOT per year, and it's a much poorer country than America

>>64257506 (OP)
>we need Tomahawk but stupider

>>64279926
>NOOOOO IT DIDN’T HAPPEN
so you’re just in denial lol.
>t-this is incorrect
It is correct and this argument has already been had and lost by your side, there’s zero need to repeat it, am right, you are wrong, sorry zigger.

The assblast was so severe he instantly gave up on the previous tactic and started directly defending Russia, can't make this shit up

>>64280650
lmao.

>>64280650
>We need a browner Tomahawk

>>64271427
It's projection, to a chink or bigger millions of civilians dying is an acceptable cost for victory so long as it doesn't mean the country doesn't collapse.

>>64282188
Ah, that's why wumaos keep on bringing up the number of their fishing boats and their population. Do they have do they really believe that those outside the military will fight to the death when they themselves are typing those comments from outside China?

>>64258407
The platforms intercepting them also have running and manpower costs btw.

>>64259071
Both sides are still bombing each other with planes, they're just doing it further back.
The difference is really the sheer scale of American airpower for that task probably outweighs the value of Russian artillery alone.

>>64271850
>Tomahawks can't be made in extreme quantity
Lol
Lmao even.

>>64283213
One JDAM is worth 10 Russian bombs with how bad their accuracy is

>>64283218
Nta but compared to low cost drones that's true.
Also the cost-effectiveness of Tomahawks raise if you have cheap-stuff overloading air defense.

>>64284823
We've been over this, drones aren't being engaged with the same AD assets as cruise missiles so they're not overloading anything. And cruise missiles don't need to be made in the same quantities as drones because they're more accurate and harder to intercept. An American-made Shahed without Temu guidance would fix that problem, but it would be as expensive as a cruise missile and not any better.

>>64285025
>claiming victory on a lost topic
You clearly haven't if you can't even realize you clutter the radar and force your enemy to deploy different kinds of Air-Defense to protect the kind that counter against cruise missiles.

The guidance system is literally the cheapest aspect now and what the US wouldn't have the least problem with, an enemy would require GPS-jammer / starlink-jammer everywhere plus the different kind of AD mentioned above.
The only reason Russia is bad with those is that they are a shit-tier country riding on cold-war left-over.

Not wanting to have both given how many successes the Ukrainian has with cheap drones is beyond retarded.
I'll accept that you are just stupid, but I could imagine a russian farmbot tasked to make it unpopular for enemies to "waste money" in what is an efficient, cost-efficient weapon.

>>64267568
...You realize that the US hasn't declared war on Russia, right? Like all this we've been sending to Ukraine is out of date equipment we're due to replace.

>>64285403
>you clutter the radar
Assuming you're not fighting thirdies, this doesn't matter. The much slower Shaheds would have to be launched much earlier to arrive at the same time, and by the time the cruise missiles show up, the Shaheds would already have been tagged and engaged by fighters/AAA.
>force your enemy to deploy different kinds of Air-Defense to protect the kind that counter against cruise missiles.
They're going to do this anyway. There's a reason the US fields both Centurion and Aegis Ashore. Otherwise you could destroy their air defenses with long range precision artillery like Excalibur much faster and and more effectively than with Shaheds.
>The guidance system is literally the cheapest aspect now and what the US wouldn't have the least problem with, an enemy would require GPS-jammer / starlink-jammer everywhere
A proper American-made system wouldn't just have satellite guidance, it would also have inertial and terrain mapping fallback modes. These advanced high-assurance systems account for much of the cost and complexity of modern cruise missiles and implementing it would easily double the cost to manufacture a Shahed style drone.
>Not wanting to have both given how many successes the Ukrainian has with cheap drones is beyond retarded.
We've been over this as well, Shaheds are not cheap. Inflating the cost to nearly half of that of TLAM would eliminate its only advantage. It's much cheaper to simply use a cruise missile to blow up whatever needs to be blown up the first time. If the target is in denied airspace, there's systems other than Tomahawk like JASSM that will have a higher probability of success with a single launch than yoloing dozens of Shaheds.

>>64285495
Yeah, which is why Ukraine is still fits the definition of poor military even with all the aid.