As we wring our hands over the problem of shooting down cheap attacking drones with expensive missiles, let's not forget the orders of magnitude more expensive assets we are trying to protect.
[The] U.S. Navy needed a cheaper way to shoot down hostile drones. Currently the navy is using 2.1 million dollar missiles to knock down drones costing a few thousand dollars each.
Given that the Navy ships being defended may cost multiple billions of dollars each, the fact that defensive missiles cost much more than the attacking weapons isn't really the issue. The issue is having enough defensive weapons to prevent the attacking weapons from wrecking the very expensive warship and killing its nearly priceless trained crew. Presumably the warship is being sent into harm's way for a very good reason.
I mean USS Stark in 1987 had a really favorable cost exchange between the two incoming missiles and the complete lack of defensive fire. Very efficient, if that is the metric.
So high price is really a shorthand for not enough, no? Right now the Navy is looking at lasers to solve the "enough" problem. But fog and smoke cause problems. In addition to area electronic warfare weapons, I suspect we need a wall of precise lead on our ships. And A-Whacks patrolling overhead between the incoming drones and our ships.
Yet "enough" must include the expensive defensive missiles. Have no doubt that we'll need the really expensive stuff to defeat the more expensive missiles the enemy will send at our warships trying to win the war.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. You know you want to.
NOTE: Photo of USS Stark by the U.S. Navy.
