Ground bases should look like like the USS Tennessee from last week's post. If only someone could have forseen the need to intercept air threats close in. TIC.
And we need to make it cheaper. When each drone is a tiny fraction of the cost of a missile, we're doing defense wrong. It might have been right just a few years ago, but it's wrong now. Ground units and air bases need layered air defense: something cheap in large numbers to deal with drones, and some bigger stuff to deal with airplanes.
Exactly right! I have been following (via Defense One) for years our anemic response to Shaheed type threats. I remain astonished that our C&C does not see the threat. Given the prior drone intrusions over bases in the lower 48, and now loss of two THAADs(!), a major radar and these planes hopefully someone will buy a clue to fast-track a variety of defensive options for base security.
The general attitude was always that "USAF would just shoot those drones & then bomb their bases so they won't be a problem for long". The possiblity of truly massive drone raids weren't realized before Russia started sending a massive waves of Geran drones to oversaturate Ukrainean defenses. Even then, US military believed too much into Ukrainean propaganda that downplayed the efficiency of Geran drones (nothing against Ukrainean there - they were just doing their job - but US military clearly should realize, that their claims are not exactly the truth).
Now, there are understandable reasons to not actually SHOOT at them (the projectiles are coming down, somewhere), but why are we not able to EMP the MF'rs?
Perhaps our leadership has a failure of imagination, stuck in an older paradigm, holding onto assumptions and experience’s which are becoming less valid each day.
It all comes down to dollars be it proper housing for enlisted personnel, air defenses for bases, new ships, etc.
We have strategic plans that are just not matched by the necessary appropriations even if we eliminated all the waste, fraud and abuse not to mention the mismanagement all of which would be helpful.
Either we cut back on out commitments (e.g., NATO and Ukraine) or divert resources to the military.
if you don't put your oxygen mask on FIRST, then you can't help anyone else ... we need to defend ourselves FIRST, then figure out what's the most valuable use of the remaining resources.
At the peak of Obamaphones we were still using more money per year subsidizing rural phone service. Both were to keep poor people connected to communications often critical for emergency services. Sure wasn't to make commercials of some woman who can't hold a job for a year riding on a horse.
At lease the border was sealed under Noem unlike her predecessor who kept it wide open and allowed millions to pour in unvetted. Every murder and rape committed by an illegal alien whom Biden did nothing about is blood on his hands as well as his henchmen.
Sorry, I have to play the cynic. Critical emergencies like Fentanyl OD's, D.U.I. roll-overs, meth lab explosions, domestic violence, "They turnt off muh power".
A good chunk of the problem is that, to put it bluntly, base defense capability isn't "sexy" the way shiny new fighters are. It's the same reason we don't have new minesweepers or ground attack aircraft, why QoL concerns for personnel don't get prioritized, and why our shipyards are in such terrible condition.
During WWII, more than a few of the successful admirals had served previously in Bureau of Yards & Docks, and several w focus on salvage ops. Hence, they knew things.
This is precisely why sovereign nation's navy should have the ability to build naval warships in naval yards. "We can build ships cheaper than you can," was the seductive whisper of privatization.
Now that we have shuttered and torn down our organic shipbuilding capacity, and given the multinational corporations a monopoly, it turns out that not only is privatization more expensive, but they have difficulties in actual construction.
I believe we had one as Secretary of Defense in Gen. James Mattis.
"I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all."
Instead, we have a passed over National Guard major that calls himself the Secretary of War and spends his time muttering about "lethality" and suggesting that a DOD high energy laser had shot down a cartel drone incursion that turned out to be a party ballon. Perhaps not the guy you want to develop a plan to protect American bases.
Mattis again: "“Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
Refresh my memory..what did Mattis do to counter drones? In a few months Hegseth has been pushing actual capability to field units. Not nearly enough but it is being prioritized. JIATF-401 is actively pushing solutions...not producing another "study".
Well, Mattis didn't shoot down a party ballon and and claim it was a cartel drone inclusion. Nor was he relieved of his field command after 6 months and tucked back into the headquarters unit keeping him safely out of the way to ponder his Deus Vult tat. Quite the crusader that one.
Mattis, on the other hand, led the troops into combat in the battle of Fallujah.
James Mattis was nicknamed "Mad Dog" by the press, not by his troops, following his role as a two-star general in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. The name originated from his intense combat leadership, colorful language, and blunt, warrior-focused quotes. Mattis has expressed dislike for the nickname, preferring his real military call sign: "Chaos".
and you don't need/want HS-LD... you want low & slow with a reasonable amount of crew protection and the ability to deliver 'stuff'. a good rough-field aircraft would be a winner. and for this role, pistons might be better...
Uhm.....how many "worldwar"s since Nam? Hubris and green eyeshade guy's will kill you. an unsophisticated enemy can kill you with a rock. and everything, EVERYTHING, is within range!
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine has unfolded, I have followed the available information on drone warfare. It struck me (no military experience, informed observer) that a major shift was taking place in military tactics.
The ready availability of inexpensive, mass produced drones has changed everything.
Ukraine struck a Russian airbase in Siberia, using drones launched from a shipping container. How many shipping containers are there in Shreveport?
This: "a major shift was taking place in military tactics."
Not just tactics. Drones affect operations & strategy, and reflect the industrial & energy base of the entire warfighting/war-waging economy and society.
Eg. US is a wealthy nation w strong economy (at least, some say this)... Yet has disdained low-cost ideas like mass-produced drones. While Iran is a poor nation (cuz the Mullahs steal so much), and with what's left they come up w low-cost, low-tech ideas.
I retired from the army in '95 and the onset of large-scale drone warfare was like getting slapped in the face with a cod. The War Dept gives every indication, publicly, of being asleep at the switch.
If anything has become crystal clear from Russia's military operation in Ukraine (and MANY things have become crystal clear!)... It is that the concept of "operational depth" is now a dangerous delusion.
There are NO so-called "rear areas." That is, wherever your important things and people might be located, from the absolute front lines to far, far, far away, they can be ID'ed, tracked, found, fixed, targeted and finished-off.
Yes, sure... "Kill the archer, not the arrow." But on your best day, you'll still encounter arrows.
WWII we had the P-47 (the original Thunderbolt) and other aircraft both built as fighter and light bombers running amok in the German rear areas. They shot up trains, troop columns, rail depots, supply depots, really any damn thing they could find.
The reason WE didn't learn the lesson of rear area AA is that we didn't have to. (Though we sort of pretended in the Cold War that it might be a thing.)
And the lesson we learned? We'll always control the air.
Surprise. Some dumbass turned over the applecart with a freakin' toy helicopter
This is yet again another advertisement for the power and flexibility of aircraft carriers, the best defended and most survivable airfields on the planet.
Not suggesting a fully unfettered CSG, and agree that CLF assets are sparse these days. Getting the M/Q-25A online in the airwing will substantially help and at least curtail buddy tanking. All points by you fair critiques. This is an operation (Epic Fury) large enough that 4-5 carriers ought to be supporting it rather than one or two.
In this CSPAN from 1987: https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/aircraft-carrier-replacement/44361 VADM Hank Mustin talks about the vulnerability of land bases and how all Allied airfields in South Korea were overrun in 1950, leaving carriers as the only aviation provider, as well as talking about attacks on airfields in Vietnam (Pleiku,) and the loss of Cam Rahn Bay, all suggesting that larger numbers of carriers can provide more effective and survivable air support in many cases.
Problem is, it wasn't produced in anything but sufficient numbers. Also it is costly and expensive to mantain (since it's basically a Navy Phalanx put on trailer - with a lot of systems that aren't essential for land-based system).
The shells explode when they hit max effective range so no large parts hit the ground for exactly this reason. Also so you don't rake a nearby ship in formation.
You still have that mass coming down. And the pieces are big enough to shred an airplane or engine.
On ships these days, you go into combat with everyone belowdecks, I understand. Not at land bases, and certainly not in the civilian areas around them.
Well..... why don't our ships have at least 2 (preferably 3 or 4) CIWS on them? Even before drones, there was a decent chance one ship would find itself the primary target of multiple AShMs. But that would cost money, so....
Because CIWS weren't exactly viewed as very efficient. They are last-ditch weapons, designed to dealt with single missiles that would slip through outer defenses, decoys, jammers, ect. CIWS can't defend against massive salvo of fast missiles, because reaction time is too small; by the time they would finish engaging first missile, the second would already hit. So the emphasis was always on long-range defense, with CIWS viewed as valuable, but limited use defenses.
P.S. Also, the multiplicator effect. A long-range air defense is more powerful than a sum of its parts; multiple ships, planes, drones combine their sensors and weapon systems to engage multiple missiles entering their envelopes. Short-range air defenses work only to protect the ship they installed on. They do not "combine" with others.
That's why many navies started to increase numbers of CIWS lately. For example, the PLAN Type 052D destroyer carry both a missile-based CIWS (SeaRAM analogue) and gun-based CIWS (heavier Phalanx analogue).
There’s too many people in the defense acquisition industry that are too invested in the latest and (supposedly) greatest gee whiz technology, both financially and emotionally. How many $35,000 drones equal ONE million+ dollar missiles? These jackasses think of our country as having unlimited resources, which 39 trillion dollars of debt clearly shows we do not. Trillion dollar aircraft development projects, aircraft carriers that are forced to make port calls to empty the poop tanks, or experimental ship designs that are abject failures are no longer a viable option for our military.
I saw that. Probably not a viable weapon, but the principle is there. The ability to 3d print cheap and disposable weapons that be employed from virtually anywhere and in such numbers that can overwhelm defenses is a huge factor in future conflicts. Having a technological advantage in war fighting capabilities is great, but it’s also a detractor if we get so focused on it that we use up our resources developing it and don’t have anything left to deploy assets in significant enough quantities to actually complete mission requirements.
Ex: most of the munitions on drones flown by the Ukrainians and Russians are old stock warheads and frag grenades slapped into 3D-printed holders. Some run an extra wire so it can be detonated by the pilot, but the cheap ones just use a plunger detonator sticking out the front of the drone.
It was noted in the video towards the end @3:18: Potassium Nitrate and Sugar in 65/35 combination cast into PVC pipe with a 3D printed nozzle.
While sort of proof of concept, I doubt there's enough energy there to engage targets other than by bombardment. Still, for someone working out of their garage and kitchen it's pretty impressive.
FWIW, I also question if $96 for components is complete cost. There are a variety of fasteners and wire not noted on the budget list. Normally, I'd say that those were pretty small bits of cost, but when you're looking at your micro controller only cost $3 (x2), it starts becoming statistically significant.
But that's nitpicking. Even if the whole thing cost him twice what he claims, that's only $192. I'm sure there's plenty of rounds in the 30-40mm category that cost more than that.
Hate to be a cynic, but following the money provides a clear explanation of how we got here. TMD (THAD, Patriot) provide large amounts of largesse to the "primes". Integrated base defense and anti- / counter drone defense are "niche" areas, not funded well enough to make it a point of...focus. Well, it will become a lot more profitable quite quickly. By the time the "primes" get done with "admiring the problem", providing a "draft" roadmap, and an "accelerated timeline" for an implementation plan and POA&M, we'll have had the Pacific conflict. Hope I'm wrong.
We could build some stations. Places where military folks could work alongside civil servants and test, design and build naval weapons. We could call them Naval Weapons Stations.
Concrete. Good, old reinforced concrete. Hardened shelters for aircraft, underground bunkers for command facilities & personnel, covered trenches and tunnels for vehicles and supplies. Siloes for surface-to-air missiles, collapsible protective domes for radars. A well-hardened base would be able to even survive a kiloton-scale nuclear blast.
We RELY on that skanky chain link fence out around the back side of the base that gets checked maybe twice per shift by a force protection truck driving by...
I read about 10 years ago that the AF looked into building hardened aircraft shelters at Kadena AB Okinawa. Kust one HAS large enough to house one E-3 AWACS was a $1 Billion.
About ten years ago I escorted a Korean Army SOF general on a tour of Camp Smith (INDOPAC HQ). He said he was surprised that we would put such an important HQ on a hill, totally out in the open, in plain view of Pearl Harbor. He said all of their HQs are underground on the south side of mountains.
It is no longer a question of do we expand air defense capabilities but unstead by how much. Double, triple? More?
Ground bases should look like like the USS Tennessee from last week's post. If only someone could have forseen the need to intercept air threats close in. TIC.
Look at how much air defenses an old Soviet tank division have by the end of Cold War, and then double the numbers.
And we need to make it cheaper. When each drone is a tiny fraction of the cost of a missile, we're doing defense wrong. It might have been right just a few years ago, but it's wrong now. Ground units and air bases need layered air defense: something cheap in large numbers to deal with drones, and some bigger stuff to deal with airplanes.
Three times nothing is ....carry the nought.....still nothing.
Sounds like OPM.
True, the bomber always gets through.
It's a little, tiny, cheap bomber, and yeah, it's going to get through with a bunch of its buddies.
There it is.
Exactly right! I have been following (via Defense One) for years our anemic response to Shaheed type threats. I remain astonished that our C&C does not see the threat. Given the prior drone intrusions over bases in the lower 48, and now loss of two THAADs(!), a major radar and these planes hopefully someone will buy a clue to fast-track a variety of defensive options for base security.
The general attitude was always that "USAF would just shoot those drones & then bomb their bases so they won't be a problem for long". The possiblity of truly massive drone raids weren't realized before Russia started sending a massive waves of Geran drones to oversaturate Ukrainean defenses. Even then, US military believed too much into Ukrainean propaganda that downplayed the efficiency of Geran drones (nothing against Ukrainean there - they were just doing their job - but US military clearly should realize, that their claims are not exactly the truth).
We weren't even shooting at 'weather balloons'.
Now, there are understandable reasons to not actually SHOOT at them (the projectiles are coming down, somewhere), but why are we not able to EMP the MF'rs?
Because EMP isn't magic, and it wouldn't work on properly shielded electronic.
Is the Shaheed and it's clones shielded?
How about weather balloons?
Chinese recon balloons likely have proper shielding.
HPM counter-drone systems are in development and in production. Not fast enough, but they are coming.
How effective are they?
" I remain astonished that our C&C does not see the threat."
It's hard to see clearly in a fantasy world.
Perhaps our leadership has a failure of imagination, stuck in an older paradigm, holding onto assumptions and experience’s which are becoming less valid each day.
Always preparing for the last war.
This isn’t new. “Let’s do what we always do, or always planned.”
1) The F-117 shoot down over Serbia
2) The first days of Operation Linebacker, when SAC HQ over road the experts in Thailand
And many more examples going back decades.
My face palm is exhausted. This is not a game.
It all comes down to dollars be it proper housing for enlisted personnel, air defenses for bases, new ships, etc.
We have strategic plans that are just not matched by the necessary appropriations even if we eliminated all the waste, fraud and abuse not to mention the mismanagement all of which would be helpful.
Either we cut back on out commitments (e.g., NATO and Ukraine) or divert resources to the military.
if you don't put your oxygen mask on FIRST, then you can't help anyone else ... we need to defend ourselves FIRST, then figure out what's the most valuable use of the remaining resources.
good luck to us all
The "guns or butter" issue evolved into a "guns or Obamafones/5 star hotels/Visa Debit Cards for illegal immigrants. Our focus sharpened.
Illegal aliens vote and they demand more stuff.
Let me fix that for you. Poor people vote.
At the peak of Obamaphones we were still using more money per year subsidizing rural phone service. Both were to keep poor people connected to communications often critical for emergency services. Sure wasn't to make commercials of some woman who can't hold a job for a year riding on a horse.
At lease the border was sealed under Noem unlike her predecessor who kept it wide open and allowed millions to pour in unvetted. Every murder and rape committed by an illegal alien whom Biden did nothing about is blood on his hands as well as his henchmen.
Sorry, I have to play the cynic. Critical emergencies like Fentanyl OD's, D.U.I. roll-overs, meth lab explosions, domestic violence, "They turnt off muh power".
Then go out there, and you stick a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger. Good luck in the hereafter.
Let's start with the waste fraud and abuse. I don't see that heading in the right direction and it appears to be a matter of policy now.
A good chunk of the problem is that, to put it bluntly, base defense capability isn't "sexy" the way shiny new fighters are. It's the same reason we don't have new minesweepers or ground attack aircraft, why QoL concerns for personnel don't get prioritized, and why our shipyards are in such terrible condition.
Mister, we could use a man like General LeMay again.....
During WWII, more than a few of the successful admirals had served previously in Bureau of Yards & Docks, and several w focus on salvage ops. Hence, they knew things.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Yards_and_Docks
This is precisely why sovereign nation's navy should have the ability to build naval warships in naval yards. "We can build ships cheaper than you can," was the seductive whisper of privatization.
Now that we have shuttered and torn down our organic shipbuilding capacity, and given the multinational corporations a monopoly, it turns out that not only is privatization more expensive, but they have difficulties in actual construction.
And Hyman Rickover.
Uh, uh, Oh....Woo-woo-woo-woo! Cue Gif of Curly spinning in circles on the floor. You said the 'R' word!
Even more so, a Chester Nimitz
I believe we had one as Secretary of Defense in Gen. James Mattis.
"I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all."
Instead, we have a passed over National Guard major that calls himself the Secretary of War and spends his time muttering about "lethality" and suggesting that a DOD high energy laser had shot down a cartel drone incursion that turned out to be a party ballon. Perhaps not the guy you want to develop a plan to protect American bases.
Mattis again: "“Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
Refresh my memory..what did Mattis do to counter drones? In a few months Hegseth has been pushing actual capability to field units. Not nearly enough but it is being prioritized. JIATF-401 is actively pushing solutions...not producing another "study".
He certainly talked a good game. QOL for the enlisted men was as high a priority as air defense and actual working dockyards and ships.
Well, Mattis didn't shoot down a party ballon and and claim it was a cartel drone inclusion. Nor was he relieved of his field command after 6 months and tucked back into the headquarters unit keeping him safely out of the way to ponder his Deus Vult tat. Quite the crusader that one.
Mattis, on the other hand, led the troops into combat in the battle of Fallujah.
Wow what an epic quote from "Mad Dog" Mattis!!!!
How many wars did he win?
James Mattis was nicknamed "Mad Dog" by the press, not by his troops, following his role as a two-star general in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. The name originated from his intense combat leadership, colorful language, and blunt, warrior-focused quotes. Mattis has expressed dislike for the nickname, preferring his real military call sign: "Chaos".
Answer the question, loudmouth.
Loudmouth-Undoubtably
Answer the Question-Not so much, lost interest
….or George Patton….
Patton had great ideas but was constrained by Ike and that poltroon montgomery
Or armed icebreakers.
...ground attack aircraft - yes.
and you don't need/want HS-LD... you want low & slow with a reasonable amount of crew protection and the ability to deliver 'stuff'. a good rough-field aircraft would be a winner. and for this role, pistons might be better...
But those old antique A-10s seem to fit 90% of the requirements.
And, what luck, we happen to have some ready to fly and more that can be refurbed.
You're right - we should and we must.
HIre some Ukrainians to run things at the pointy end.
I've never been keen on us hiring Hessians, but I'm not against someone else's advisors advising us when the need arises.
Uhm.....how many "worldwar"s since Nam? Hubris and green eyeshade guy's will kill you. an unsophisticated enemy can kill you with a rock. and everything, EVERYTHING, is within range!
Especially when you don’t have a border.
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine has unfolded, I have followed the available information on drone warfare. It struck me (no military experience, informed observer) that a major shift was taking place in military tactics.
The ready availability of inexpensive, mass produced drones has changed everything.
Ukraine struck a Russian airbase in Siberia, using drones launched from a shipping container. How many shipping containers are there in Shreveport?
This: "a major shift was taking place in military tactics."
Not just tactics. Drones affect operations & strategy, and reflect the industrial & energy base of the entire warfighting/war-waging economy and society.
Eg. US is a wealthy nation w strong economy (at least, some say this)... Yet has disdained low-cost ideas like mass-produced drones. While Iran is a poor nation (cuz the Mullahs steal so much), and with what's left they come up w low-cost, low-tech ideas.
I retired from the army in '95 and the onset of large-scale drone warfare was like getting slapped in the face with a cod. The War Dept gives every indication, publicly, of being asleep at the switch.
If anything has become crystal clear from Russia's military operation in Ukraine (and MANY things have become crystal clear!)... It is that the concept of "operational depth" is now a dangerous delusion.
There are NO so-called "rear areas." That is, wherever your important things and people might be located, from the absolute front lines to far, far, far away, they can be ID'ed, tracked, found, fixed, targeted and finished-off.
Yes, sure... "Kill the archer, not the arrow." But on your best day, you'll still encounter arrows.
Well, let's think about that.
WWII we had the P-47 (the original Thunderbolt) and other aircraft both built as fighter and light bombers running amok in the German rear areas. They shot up trains, troop columns, rail depots, supply depots, really any damn thing they could find.
The reason WE didn't learn the lesson of rear area AA is that we didn't have to. (Though we sort of pretended in the Cold War that it might be a thing.)
And the lesson we learned? We'll always control the air.
Surprise. Some dumbass turned over the applecart with a freakin' toy helicopter
This is yet again another advertisement for the power and flexibility of aircraft carriers, the best defended and most survivable airfields on the planet.
Ponders in Salalah and Yanbu and Misratah and Prince Sultan AB...
Where is your ...one... AOE gonna go to consol Laz?
Where will your land based air assets ...that a carrier *cannot* do without... be based Laz?
Without them the CVW does not have the combat radius to stand off at a distance to be effective...or even not under untenable threat.
By my count, 5 KC-135s that have appeared to be positioned to best support aircraft ingressing from the south have been damaged.
How about that ...now indispensable... bingo field?
If the FA-18 that very neary got bagged over Chababar couldn't get back the boat, where then Laz?
And, if couldn't make it feet dry over a friendly place, where is the CSAR that would go fetch those fellas camping out Laz?
I actually agree with you though.
However, carriers have become entirely dependent on the very land based infrastructure that is under attack today.
Long gone is the reality of the looming carrier force roaming the seas untethered.
Not suggesting a fully unfettered CSG, and agree that CLF assets are sparse these days. Getting the M/Q-25A online in the airwing will substantially help and at least curtail buddy tanking. All points by you fair critiques. This is an operation (Epic Fury) large enough that 4-5 carriers ought to be supporting it rather than one or two.
In this CSPAN from 1987: https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/aircraft-carrier-replacement/44361 VADM Hank Mustin talks about the vulnerability of land bases and how all Allied airfields in South Korea were overrun in 1950, leaving carriers as the only aviation provider, as well as talking about attacks on airfields in Vietnam (Pleiku,) and the loss of Cam Rahn Bay, all suggesting that larger numbers of carriers can provide more effective and survivable air support in many cases.
Boy! If only Raytheon had come up with something two decades ago. Oh, wait!
https://www.mobileradar.org/Documents/Ray_Phalanx.pdf
They deployed such weapon as Centurion C-RAM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_C-RAM
Problem is, it wasn't produced in anything but sufficient numbers. Also it is costly and expensive to mantain (since it's basically a Navy Phalanx put on trailer - with a lot of systems that aren't essential for land-based system).
The projectile from a PGU-28/A round weighs about 3.4 ounces.
Shoot that near a housing area (military or civilian) and when it comes down (and they all will), someone is getting hurt.
The shells explode when they hit max effective range so no large parts hit the ground for exactly this reason. Also so you don't rake a nearby ship in formation.
You still have that mass coming down. And the pieces are big enough to shred an airplane or engine.
On ships these days, you go into combat with everyone belowdecks, I understand. Not at land bases, and certainly not in the civilian areas around them.
The self-destructing versions hit terminal velocity and are small enough when they land.
most of them may. nearly certain that all don't explode
The land version fires a round that self-destructs to minimize collateral damage.
Well..... why don't our ships have at least 2 (preferably 3 or 4) CIWS on them? Even before drones, there was a decent chance one ship would find itself the primary target of multiple AShMs. But that would cost money, so....
Because CIWS weren't exactly viewed as very efficient. They are last-ditch weapons, designed to dealt with single missiles that would slip through outer defenses, decoys, jammers, ect. CIWS can't defend against massive salvo of fast missiles, because reaction time is too small; by the time they would finish engaging first missile, the second would already hit. So the emphasis was always on long-range defense, with CIWS viewed as valuable, but limited use defenses.
P.S. Also, the multiplicator effect. A long-range air defense is more powerful than a sum of its parts; multiple ships, planes, drones combine their sensors and weapon systems to engage multiple missiles entering their envelopes. Short-range air defenses work only to protect the ship they installed on. They do not "combine" with others.
True enough; but "2 is 1, and 1 is none" would be an issue at The Worst Possible Moment with CIWS I fear.
That's why many navies started to increase numbers of CIWS lately. For example, the PLAN Type 052D destroyer carry both a missile-based CIWS (SeaRAM analogue) and gun-based CIWS (heavier Phalanx analogue).
probably was case with Moskva...
I don't think our MH-60 Helos on our Arleigh Burke's have anti-drone ability other than manual aimed 50 and 7.62 cal MGs.
There’s too many people in the defense acquisition industry that are too invested in the latest and (supposedly) greatest gee whiz technology, both financially and emotionally. How many $35,000 drones equal ONE million+ dollar missiles? These jackasses think of our country as having unlimited resources, which 39 trillion dollars of debt clearly shows we do not. Trillion dollar aircraft development projects, aircraft carriers that are forced to make port calls to empty the poop tanks, or experimental ship designs that are abject failures are no longer a viable option for our military.
I have no idea how legit this is, but here it is:
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/kid-just-3d-printed-manpad-97
I saw that. Probably not a viable weapon, but the principle is there. The ability to 3d print cheap and disposable weapons that be employed from virtually anywhere and in such numbers that can overwhelm defenses is a huge factor in future conflicts. Having a technological advantage in war fighting capabilities is great, but it’s also a detractor if we get so focused on it that we use up our resources developing it and don’t have anything left to deploy assets in significant enough quantities to actually complete mission requirements.
I'd believe it more if there was discussion of how the warhead, fuse and propellant was created..
Ex: most of the munitions on drones flown by the Ukrainians and Russians are old stock warheads and frag grenades slapped into 3D-printed holders. Some run an extra wire so it can be detonated by the pilot, but the cheap ones just use a plunger detonator sticking out the front of the drone.
OK, now what makes the rocket fly?
It was noted in the video towards the end @3:18: Potassium Nitrate and Sugar in 65/35 combination cast into PVC pipe with a 3D printed nozzle.
While sort of proof of concept, I doubt there's enough energy there to engage targets other than by bombardment. Still, for someone working out of their garage and kitchen it's pretty impressive.
FWIW, I also question if $96 for components is complete cost. There are a variety of fasteners and wire not noted on the budget list. Normally, I'd say that those were pretty small bits of cost, but when you're looking at your micro controller only cost $3 (x2), it starts becoming statistically significant.
But that's nitpicking. Even if the whole thing cost him twice what he claims, that's only $192. I'm sure there's plenty of rounds in the 30-40mm category that cost more than that.
KNO3 and sugar is how you make a 'black snake' firework....not a lot of Is there.
Hate to be a cynic, but following the money provides a clear explanation of how we got here. TMD (THAD, Patriot) provide large amounts of largesse to the "primes". Integrated base defense and anti- / counter drone defense are "niche" areas, not funded well enough to make it a point of...focus. Well, it will become a lot more profitable quite quickly. By the time the "primes" get done with "admiring the problem", providing a "draft" roadmap, and an "accelerated timeline" for an implementation plan and POA&M, we'll have had the Pacific conflict. Hope I'm wrong.
We could build some stations. Places where military folks could work alongside civil servants and test, design and build naval weapons. We could call them Naval Weapons Stations.
Concrete. Good, old reinforced concrete. Hardened shelters for aircraft, underground bunkers for command facilities & personnel, covered trenches and tunnels for vehicles and supplies. Siloes for surface-to-air missiles, collapsible protective domes for radars. A well-hardened base would be able to even survive a kiloton-scale nuclear blast.
Dilandu: Seriously. We're still parking aircraft in nice, neat rows for all to see, attack and destroy.
Worked at Pearl Harbor.
We RELY on that skanky chain link fence out around the back side of the base that gets checked maybe twice per shift by a force protection truck driving by...
I read about 10 years ago that the AF looked into building hardened aircraft shelters at Kadena AB Okinawa. Kust one HAS large enough to house one E-3 AWACS was a $1 Billion.
PBAR: Was that with hardwood floors, or linoleum tiles?
About ten years ago I escorted a Korean Army SOF general on a tour of Camp Smith (INDOPAC HQ). He said he was surprised that we would put such an important HQ on a hill, totally out in the open, in plain view of Pearl Harbor. He said all of their HQs are underground on the south side of mountains.
That's also from their situation. Where the enemy, direction, and method of attack are all known.