Distributed Air Power is Bankrupting the West.

Drones, RPVs, UAVs, UCAVs and cruise missiles are opening a serious crisis in the air defences. Not because they are overwhelming them but because they are bankrupting them.
#UAV #Drone
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/...
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@wreckingangel]

Some notes and additions regarding small drones: 1) All the material from military sources seems to assume a "cooperative target", drones that hover high in the air. However small drones are perfectly capable of flying very close to the ground. Kamikaze drones can and will use cover to sneak up on targets in the future. This is currently not done because it is unnecessary due to the lack of anti-drone hardware, not because because drones can't do that. 2) The camera systems, even on cheaper commercial drones, are good enough to stay out of range of every proposed or tested anti-drone system I have seen so far. The longer range improves the effectiveness of camouflage tough. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how these systems could deal with a drone that has good optics and a mortar team. 3) Jammers are already obsolete. Off the shelf, fully autonomous drones are available for a couple of years now and GPS is not a hard necessity. Most smartphones have enough computation power to visually identify and track objects and is so easy to implement that school kids to it on a regular basis. At the moment the only software to combine drone control and tracking I'm aware of is ROS (Robot Operating System) and it is not super easy to use, but that will change fast. Commercial autonomous drones can follow someone on a mountain-bike riding at a decent speed trough a forest to give some perspective. 3a) A quick and easy counter to jammers is using a second drone as spotter and radio relay, moving the antenna of the attacking drone to the top and shielding it from below from radio waves, puts the reviving antenna of the attack drone into the radio shadow of the jammer while still receiving control signals from the spotter drone above. That has limits, flight angle and reflections from the environment could still cause problems, however it makes jammer a very shaky solution. 3b) Some people already put software defined radios on drones to do radio direction finding. The latency is terrible (multiple seconds) but with the current prices and performance a drone equivalent to HARM missiles seems absolutely possible. If we don't see HARM drones, compact man portable ELINT drones will probably be a thing. Look up RTL-SDR and other projects if you are interested. 4) Entry level racing quadcopters accelerate in one second from 0-200 Km/h, that is an acceleration of around 5.6 g in any direction. I could not find much data about the traverse speed of AA and LASER turrets and how fast the fire control system can react to direction changes of the target but my gut feeling (and some very basic calculations) tells me that drones will come out on top starting at around 600 m. Would be great if someone with more knowledge about military turrets could chime in. The use of cover, erratic maneuvers and attacking from multiple vectors would also reduce the number of drones needed for a saturation attack. 5)My experience with lasers is limited to operating some laser cutters and range finders. However from the literature the range of military lasers in the lower atmosphere is very limited, mostly because of atmospheric absorption and thermal blooming. The ranges quoted for in use or tested ground defense systems are around 2 to 8 Km, additional info would be appreciated. But the biggest problem are particles in the air, fog, smoke, dust, rain, snow and smog drastically reduce the range to the point of being useless. 5a) Another problem with LASERS could be that they are really bad at cutting certain materials, my 120 Watt Co2 laser cannot cut 2 mm carbon fiber composite. That is at 1 cm distance and with multiple passes. But it doesn't have to be expensive cc, carbon foam impregnated with organic material offers similar protection. Where do you get carbon foam? Well, forget some bread in the oven, dunk it in paint and presto, LASER armor. Large LASERS can behave very differently, especially if they use short pulses, so I would be curious how well that would work if anybody knows. My summary, team Otis has to be taken very seriously.

[@johnzach2057]

Great comment. I agree with everything. The only thing that I will add is that we are moving to much smaller and much more autonomous weapons whether we like it or not. The robotization of armies is happening as we speak because there is no other way to fight. Just for perspective. A $10K Lancet is superior than classic carpet bombing Vietnam style! A single DJI drone is superior to sending a recon special forces team. A single 20 gram super mini helicopter can detect where the enemy is hiding in a multi-floor building. And that mini drone might be used to assasinate the enemies generals. And this is todays technology.

[@SlayerBG93]

LASERS are dead on arrival. A mirror surface cost next to nothing and if you add just a thin termal protection behind it you can reduce the LASERS everctiveness hundreads if not thousands of times. They can just barelly drop unshielded targets from a few miles right now imagine when you need to bring 100x more power to the playground.

[@minhucovu6321]

Large lasers with very short pulses may even be worse, as they create a vapour from the impact point that absorbs further incoming radiation. The actual phenomenon is disputed in academia, but the results are not. Powerful laser with extremely short pulses produce significantly less damage than they ought to.

[@wreckingangel]

@@minhucovu6321 Thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes pulsed lasers are used to ablate surface material more effectively than continuous lasers, I think that is why I was unsure.

[@voneror]

While thinking in terms of laser cutting might be tempting, spectrum of possible soft and hard-kill that laser can cause to uav is much wider than that. Optical sensors can be blinded temporarily or permanently (this requires low intensity). Overheating. Parts loose strenght due to temperature. Thermal stress will cause deformation or fracturing. Some materials may catch on fire. Perhaps other effects which I can't think of right now. Single laser vehicle could have different turrets for different targets. Small fast tracking blinding turrets for trash drones and big turrets for larger targets.

[@mrcoffee70]

The trade off in cost is not only calculated by cost of the offensive weapon and the defense used. It must include the cost of the damage the offensive weapon will do. Using a $50k SAM to stop a $10k drone is a good trade if it stops $200k damage at a power plant or fuel depot.

[@wreckingangel]

Underrated comment. However than is only true for a single encounter. In a ongoing conflict you have now one SAM less to defend all of your assets and it gets worst with every fired missile.

[@muzaharsherazi8419]

Man this is where the advance swarm drone's with longer ranges enter the war and if they are guided by a mother drone which is hundreds KM away from the main war zone and it is also receiving instructions from other ground stations which is thousands KM away from the war is what is more of a lethal weapon

[@loganknezovich8394]

yeah that is true, but if they send let's say 5-10 drones on the target the cost would quickly outweigh the return, because having to shoot down 10 drones would cost you 500k as opposed to 100k, for a target that is worth 200k, and that's considering you destroy all the drones before they get to target, because even if just one gets through then they achieved their objective, all whilst costing the enemy around a total of 700k for only 100k (this is only an example), this is why Russia is producing the Lancet drone because they are starting to see that there is huge potential for these kinds of drones, because 1. if the enemy does decide to shoot them down they are depleting their air defenses leaving an opening for cruise missiles and air superiority (as Russia has already shown by launching massive amounts of missile attacks in recent days without much opposition to them, and Russia also deploying strike aircraft in the Donetsk to great effect in recent days) 2. the cost outweighs to price of shooting these down by a huge margin, even if you shoot all of them down.

[@mrcoffee70]

@@loganknezovich8394 a fuel depot or power plant has a replacement cost far more than 200k. If you do not intercept a swarm of 10 drones ate the cost of $500k, you most like end up with a replacement cost, if it's possible to rebuild or replace, that is far more than $500k. This may not be the case with smaller military targets, but currently for civilian targets. The cost of loosing a power plant, water station, or fuel depot would extend far beyond the targets themselves. You loose civilian lifes for months after as a result and increase in cot to truck in fuel and water. I personally think a few CIWS at the high value civilian targets is the best option with SAMs being used for the larger cruise missiles and high attitude recon drones.

[@hindugoat2302]

yeah but you are still going to be losing economically, spending 5 times more than your enemy, and your only destroying disposable drones and missiles, not actual enemy units or positions. and this would not prevent ukraines cities being devastated, because there are always some that slip past the defenses, because they attack all at once to overwhelm defenses.

[@airemeister]

At 7:52 - China's Casic anti-UAV system package’s ZK-K20 tactical command control ZK-K20 and FK-3000 truck-mounted armaments platform are meant to protect high-value installation such as airports, harbors, power plants, key bridges, armor or artillery brigades; and command centers. It is not meant to be used everywhere on the battlefield by infantry troops.

[@jvizkeleti]

Another important difference is that while expensive aircraft needs a large logistic footprint in a centralized place, an airbase or an ACC which is an easy target to attack with mass cruise missiles and drones. The Geranium drones and cruise missiles can be mass launched from trucks and can launch from literally anywhere.

[@aalhard]

Thank you for your coverage. I recognize the effort you are putting into diction, it shows.

[@ballerblocks]

I also recognise the effort you are putting into listening.🤣😅

[@Omniseed]

I have to say, I certainly don't mind a slower flow if it helps reduce the friction of the diction

[@whatwherethere]

1:39 Thanks for stating that clearly. Particularly for nations with reserve currency status or lines of credit, money is everywhere in war. It is used to distract from the resource drain. If a nations spokesperson had to stand at the podium and say we are diverting 10% of construction steel, cement, and electricity to support a foreign war people would understand the impact better.

[@danielhandika8767]

haha the west was investing heavily to defend themselves from highly sophisticated aircraft and hypersonic missiles only to get countered by cheap drones instead

[@kilianortmann9979]

Lets rephrase that a bit, the west was investing heavily to defend themselves from highly sophisticated aircraft and hypersonic missiles, only to find out that these threats were highly exaggerated, either in capabilities or numbers.

[@thettin684]

That's why US has been developing IM-SHORAD (machine gun & stinger), DE-SHORAD (direct energy) based on stryker platform. Rheinmetall also have skynex system.

[@tom23421]

I don't think this issue is unique to western nations.

@@tom23421 but west's tech is currently on the receiving end in Ukraine and Russia most proly brought some anti drone system from China.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

No western system can defend against supersonic missiles, ie the patriot Pak 3 failing to shoot a 1970 scud after 5 shots in Saudi Arabia. The west invested in their fighter mafia and lost the train

[@NoBSMusicReviews]

Great episode as usual. However gray text super imposed on a gray drone is illegible!

[@wordofswords5386]

8:04 You have a very sophisticated taste in stock footage my man 😉😉

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

😆

[@corvanphoenix]

I agree, as drones exponentially increase the SI of the units utilising them. The cheap ability to use human brains as a guidance package will also be highly resilient to countermeasures.

[@phelansa23]

Excellent analyses, and a very hard to refute conclusion. I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. If I had to defend, I would much prefer to defend against one incoming weapon worth $1million, than against 1000 targets worth $1000 each. Even if the 1000 only have a predicted success rate of 1% each……..

[@anasevi9456]

" Even if the 1000 only have a predicted success rate of 1% each…….." worst part is they have at least a 50% chance of hitting their target after they likely pass through the AA screen.

[@johnzach2057]

And that crappy $1000 drone might have much much much better guidance than the best soviet anti-ship missile.

[@muzaharsherazi8419]

@@anasevi9456 no they have 50% chance to get away with all king of defences including multilayered laser defence AA machine guns defence electronic jamming defences, why i am saying this cause the new swarm drone's the defence manf are working on are fitted with AI which can sense the defence systems like jammers and laser system and can do some irregular maneuvers or they can also have some range of anti jamming capabilities for military standard drone's and can first destroy the defence system before engaging and destroying the enemy battalion

[@loganwolfram4216]

I think the better solution is probably to switch from a primarily defensive posture to a primarily offensive posture. Eliminate threats before they start mass producing drones. Less nice West, more aggressive West.

[@ew3612]

@@loganwolfram4216 Drones are easy to produce in a decentralized plant and with low tech so stopping production is very difficult. also what if they are produced in a neutral country? You cant strike those manufacturing plants without drawing in that country and possibly others in the area.

[@parshowjyotiphukan8445]

To counter swarm of cheap drones you need your own swarm of cheap drones.

[@doomedwit1010]

That's the problem right. If Ukraine could hit moscow with drones... but the problem is Russia does not care if every single civilian in occupied Ukraine dies. Heck the Russian leadership doesn't really care about Russian soldiers dying. And the west doesn't want to hit Russian cities. So Ukraine can't respond symmetrically. So the West must be prepared to pay $100 for every $1 Russia spends. The West needs to step up even more.

[@gamingrex2930]

Hey now, thats a clever and smart solution!

[@StrangerHappened]

*Panzir S1M, a new variant of a Russian air-defense system, replaces the top row of two anti-air missiles with eight small missiles.* Regular Panzir S1 has three rows with two missiles each, six missiles total. The new variant would have four bigger missiles and eight small missiles. This allows to use way cheaper missiles against drones, though it is not an ultimate solution since Panzir S1M is still pricey. They need to create a smaller, cheaper system only for those small anti-air missiles. This system can be manufactured much more plentifully.

[@johnzach2057]

Yeah. Also the original Pantsir radar wasn't good enough for low RCS drones and had many issues in Libya. Those anti-drones systems need state of the art radars that cost millions. Otherwise the UCAV might send them an antiradion missile and bye bye multimillion dollar "anti drone weapon".

[@StrangerHappened]

@@johnzach2057 Panzir S1M has an updated radar system, of course. With more targets tracking and also better smaller and slower targets recognition. But, as I explained, it still not a good solution. Needs to be smaller and cheaper.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

Sosna-r, can be installed in any chassis and the missiles are dirty cheap

[@StrangerHappened]

@@matheuscerqueira7952 It has those bigger missiles that Panzir also has. Newer small missiles are not yet made into independent thing that can be put on any chassis.

[@MrJahbuddha]

Is that about the 57E6M-E Gvozd missile?

[@MichaelWilliamz]

I enjoyed the video. Very informative and clear to understand. Also, I appreciate the humor lol. I subscribed and liked. Thank you

[@xTheUnderscorex]

Like no other is an exaggeration, the machine gun was at least as disruptive. It gave 1-2 soldiers the ability to replace dozens and pretty much permanently ended the possibility of employing massed infantry formations.

[@himanshusingh5214]

Ideally, the richer side should win because they can also use cheap non-precise firepower. But it is not allowed to attack Russia territory so Russians don't have to spend a lot of money on very expensive precise defense.

[@zollen123]

Agree! Guided missiles are just too expensive for a large scale war. Laser weapons and armor piecing bullets are the most cost effective to be equipped on drones.

[@yingwang6129]

Why can’t distributes air power be countered by distributed air defense? Cheap drones are by nature not sophisticated and can be destroyed by less sophisticated missiles. It may take several years for the West to come up with such weapons. But with its advanced consumer high tech industry, the West can do so at lower cost than the Russians or Chinese.

[@marklowden5054]

Another great video. Great to see you back

[@Stormrider-Flight]

Breaking the GPS connection or the connection to the controller doesn´t make a drone fall out of the skies. It usually just enters rth mode and turns back to its starting position or until the connection is reestablished. And that´s just for commercial drones. You might think military standards are up to a similar approach at least. You will have to jam a lot more than just GPS or the remote signals to achieve a crash.

[@TheWesman45]

A few things. 1. We already have squad level, portable systems to defeat drones in the west. 2. We already have naval, projectile based, ways to defeat drones, dumb munitions, and guided munitions. 3. Even if the west did not have these systems, it could afford to use the expensive stuff and/or invent new ways to fight. When comparing the GDP of the US to Russia, several states have a greater GDP then the entirety of Russia. NY state alone has a GDP roughly equal to Russia. 4. The reality is the US has already been dealing with drones. Terrorist forces have used them for years.

[@diedampfbrasse98]

problem is simply that we dont supply CRAM systems which are already able to deal with low cost threats at a low cost per kill. The radar and tracking is already able to differentiate threats and to assign specific threats to specific defense systems. Dumb as we are we still force Ukraine to defend itself with some of the most expensive missiles in airdefense.

[@vladimirvojtaml]

Cannon Anti air systems with opto electrical tracking is your best bet right now. Shilka and Tunguska style platforms with cannons can easily shoot down slow drones big and small and for big UCAVS you use the missiles.

[@rosomak8244]

This is patently wrong! The radar cross section and flight behaviour of a drone makes the fire control systems go nuts.

[@joachimschreiber7835]

@@rosomak8244 yeah of a 1970 shilka or Gepard but not of a 2022 MANTIS

[@orbiradio2465]

@@joachimschreiber7835 Apparently Shilka and Gepard perform better than Pansir against light drones in Ukraine. Modern systems probably have all the hardware to kill drones. But they need a software update. On older systems much more depends on the operator.

[@joachimschreiber7835]

@@orbiradio2465 hard to compare. Isn't pansir with AA rockets while the other systems are with machine canons?

[@joachimschreiber7835]

@@orbiradio2465 and the are more in danger of anti radar rockets because i am pretty sure they do not use the canons while they are moving and they do not have pulsed radar but permanently shine on the target... And Ukraine has no ammo for Gepard

[@KlipsenTube]

Ukraine fighting huge numbers of drones is one thing. Nato doing the same thing is an entirely different matter. Before the Kuwait war, experts and journalists tried to outdo one another with articles about the vulnerability of modern, western equipment in a desert environment. They also told with confidence about how the Iraqi army was dug-in and almost impossible to dislodge from its positions. And how did it all go?

[@ObeyNoLies]

This shows why drones are awesome. They make even less expensive assets much more capable. Artillery becomes as powerful as any smart bomb.

[@gezalesko3813]

Totally true! Iranian drones are useful even if shot down! Even a MANPAD is 3x4 times more expensive.

[@dnendion4300]

1K drone shot down with 2-3K of ammunition saving a 30K building or soldiers' lives is still a savings shooting down the drone. You are only factoring in the cost of the shoot, not the potential cost if that drone can continue its mission. A BMP is in excess of 7 million. Spending 100K on shooting down a 10K drone to save the BMP is a cost-saving and that is before we consider the life of the soldiers and we all know that experienced soldiers are irreplaceable.

[@drcover6632]

As airplanes go (primarily) against airplanes and tanks are (mostly) engaging tanks, the worst opponent of a drone is another drone. Period.

[@Lexoka]

Perhaps a good option would be to fight fire with fire: create a massive fleet of cheap drones with anti-air capabilities to take out incoming cheap drones, perhaps using very small-caliber machine guns. Basically WW1-style air combat, but with smaller, automated machines.

[@comediangj4955]

Sounds like a fun thing to watch

[@donovanteale6502]

It seems very likely.

[@rohzpopper4922]

American weapons won't come cheap. They need huge profits....🤣🤣🤣

[@johno1544]

Defense is way harder then offense with these types of weapons. You could use off the shelf gps to guide a suicide drone. You ain't going to knock a incoming drone out of the air with such cheap components.

[@xblade11230]

Extremely dumb idea, the suicide drone is going to blow up on the target before you can scramble your drones to do a intercept

[@apegues]

Barrage Balloons with fishing net’s hanging from them. Simple and cheap. They worked well in WW1 and WW2

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

But then balloons are targeted first.

[@chriswerb7482]

I really love the originality, production quality and personality (especially humour) that goes into these videos. I have spent a long time thinking this through over the last decade and, for every countermeasure we could deploy there is an obvious counter countermeasure that is going to be cheaper to deploy than the countermeasure. For example directed electronic energy can be countered by using drones using increasingly accurate over time solid state INS and image recognition of terrain and targets. Also, if the jamming is directional, just have several.drones attack the jammer simultaneously from different directions using terrain screening to get as close as possible, or simply direct artillery onto the emitter. Gun systems like Skynex are very expensive and relatively short ranged. Their ammunition is hideously expensive and they can easily be overwhelmed by simultaneous attacks from different axes. Drones themselves can be used as kinetic kill vehicles but a killer drone would probably be more expensive than one used to attack ground targets. I honestly think we are getting into MAD territory here. The only solution against state actors is to have more and better drones than they have and survivable recon assets and command and control.to target them. For this to work all.the systems employed need to be cheap, easily mass produced and stockpiled, massively redundant and (for the command and control and recon elements) survivable.

[@chahineyalla4838]

What you describe would cause a sea change in the Western way of war. The focus on few high-end systems has led to low production rates and questionable industrial capacity, plus, as mentioned, an unwillingness to accept casualties, which are always high in wars against a peer enemy. Manpower will probably become a high priority again.

[@chriswerb7482]

@@chahineyalla4838 I completely agree with you.

[@markawbolton]

Or how about negotiate in good faith at Minsk?

[@janinetrue]

Could it be that we are closer to making war obsolete or at least much less likely for benefit to outweigh cost: if offense becomes cheaper and cheaper but defense can still somewhat keep up, lagging only slightly behind such that no one's infantry can ever really be sufficiently secure, and similar kinds of impasse happen in the aerial mid and long range space possibly also becoming cheaper over time...due to the already stunning degree of accuracy of surveillance and targeting...a non nuclear MAD situation distributed across a multipolar geopolitical environment...or am I dreaming...

[@markawbolton]

@@janinetrue No I think you might be onto something. I thought it was hilarious when the Russians started to deploy those Iranian knockoff UAVs and all the armchair Military experts sneered about how slow and unstealthy (you could hear them miles away) and how unprofitable, and hence how unpopular they would prove with the MIC. Only to see the wretched things buzzing along at tree top height at a hundred some knots with practically no heat or radar signature. Coppers blowing off a cuppla mags of AK fire hopelessly trying to hit the thing as it went overhead in a blur. You cant jam them because they use GPS and have no ground command. Some are even retain identifying. They are sneering on the on the side of their noses now. Still doent worry powderensky or his Washington mates - they still have thier mansions in Malibu. . Might piss off the locals though. The ones in the dark and cold with no water. Has a kind of 1917 ring about it.

[@HughSheehy]

Surely the main issue in Ukraine is that Ukraine doesn't have (hasn't been given) weapons to attack the launch sites. Even the V1 wasn't defeated by intercepting it with planes or shooting it down. It was defeated by destroying the launch sites.

[@marcushavland9316]

The point about increasing complexity of force structure is an interesting one. Intelligence and command systems need to be sophisticated to coordinate everything. The increased complexity probabbly favours larger tactical units; brigade size vs battalion size.

[@MatoVuc]

The return of conventinal warfare, as opposed to curbstomping some small near-irrelevant force of barely armed insurgents also kind of pushes organizational level and tactics back to beigade and even division level.

[@petersmythe6462]

The scary thing is that none of these modern drones are even close to being a slaughterbot swarm. If you can't deal with unsophisticated threats like this, how will you deal with a coordinated assault by a million tank-killing bees that cost close to nothing to produce?

[@hic1993]

What about using cheap drones against cheap drones?

[@GM-xk1nw]

impossible to be cheap

[@donovanteale6502]

@@GM-xk1nw reusable means cheap in long run. Half of my friends would pay for their own fighter drone if the government would let them legit fly them into battle

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

Probably the idea of the wing loong III

[@rohzpopper4922]

There is NO cheap drones made in USA. Only China and Iran can do it !

[@nadjiguemarful]

I remember a report by the Pentagon that they had lost a simulated battle for the coastline of Iran because in the Simulation Iran used very low tech means of communications like carriers an the US had to expend a lot of resources trying to crack their codes to no effect and that was a deciding factor in the outcome of the battle. It kinda reminded me of this. Iran seems to excell in asymetric warfare.

[@PhycoKrusk]

There were some other issues with that simulation (such as severe disagreements about the speed at which motorbikes could deliver messages), so while still an interesting study, it's not really a good one to base analyses on.

[@shaider1982]

@No-one in particular yup, just good soundbites for motivational "KISS " speakers.

[@cameronspence4977]

Yeah exactly, "seems". We have seen little slivers of their military in actual action...and theyve been complete dogshit. Typical dictatorship military: all bark, little- no bite

[@nadjiguemarful]

@@cameronspence4977 You're talking nonsense lol.

[@userequaltoNull]

@No-one in particular "Keep It Simple, Stupid"

[@dosa2990]

Awesome video 👍

[@coced]

Unpopular opinion: Use the Zhukov way of dealing with minefields; Ignore the treat, continue with the offensive as if the mines weren't there. Maybe the resources spent on the air defence would be better spent on offensive capabilities. That would mean that we would have to blunt the initial damage done by the first wave and deal with the psychological burden. I wouldn't like to be the guy that propose this strategy to commanders however !

[@bigdopamine9343]

We can afford it. Keep kicking ass. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦

[@pdaniel97675]

It doesn't seem like anyone has gone for the "hillbilly option": Use 20mm cannons that are already mounted on many vehicles, except loaded with bird/buckshot, whichever is more effective against small drones. If they wanna get fancy they can add an electrostatic potential to the shot to make it more effective against electronic devices. Problem solved.

[@sigmaoctantis_nz]

The obvious solution to me is to deploy a lot of versatile C-RAM systems which can destroy incoming rockets, artillery, and mortar rounds. From what I understand the C-RAM is being upgraded to also detect and destroy drones and the ammunition would be much cheaper than launching missiles.

[@dibqip]

This not sure why it didn’t appear in the video

[@appa609]

A laser truck would be good against enemy armour by destroying its sensors. Using it against infantry is almost definitely a war crime

[@shaider1982]

Another interesting development are drones vs drones. Ones was being developed by Andruil. Not sure if this is already in service.

[@SgtCandy]

Lasers don't necessarily need to knock a drone/loitering munition directly out of the sky at first but can possibly "sow" a swarm of drones with progressive damage like burned out cameras and seized rotors. If the swarm recovers then it can be "reaped" or prioritized for more attention. Ground laser defenses if they're mobile could also be used to blind thermal sights/cameras on opposing vehicles, BUT this admittedly would be highly risky and likely something advertised but never doctrinally espoused

[@truckerallikatuk]

I guess it helps a lot having a subject matter expert to hand... Otis deserves credit :) Edit: Perhaps small man-carried and operated hunter-killer drones could be used?

[@StepiaCreation]

Had the same idea. Use cheap drones to take down drones. However give them additional abilities, so they are still usefull without enemy drones.

[@appa609]

@@StepiaCreation They're called manpads

[@petunized]

He is as expert as i am a balley dancer. He is just a typical mix of western arrogance and ignorance.

[@BBBrasil]

Man-carried is too expensive. It needs life-support, ejection, space and the weight and bad maneuverability just makes them cumbersome. The best could be a killer-drone drone. Powerful radars on mini AWACS. Ground AA guns for drones. All with AI's for target acquisitions and classification. Those systems are for platoon defense or above, including high-value target defense. Iron Beam, IRIS-T, NASAMS are for static, high value defense against missiles. HAWK should all be given to Ukraine so we can get rid of it already.

[@ikrisoft]

@@BBBrasil Man-carried means that the man carries the drone. As in the infantry has a drone in their backpack. From your objections it sounds you were thinking the other way around: a man riding a drone. But that is just an aircraft

[@mgeb101]

Interesting would also be how direct energy weapons play out when effective not only against drones but also against incoming artillery and mortar rounds.

[@0MoTheG]

A 20kW fiber laser can do that. It has been tested too.

[@johaocarl]

The best weapon against drones are… drones. Remember the World War I, when airplanes fought other airplanes.

[@mikgsal1384]

Super video thanks

[@russellfreestone8580]

Main problem is that you have got to be in the right place and that's thousands of places 24/7

[@antsleepless]

I could see there being more drone vs drone combat, basically drone dogfights. Then again that might not be cost effective or viable option if the enemy implements drone swarm tactics. Unless the defending drones have some kind of automatic AI to engage incoming drones. The future battlefield will be interesting that's for sure.

[@nedkelly9688]

Australia's Ghost Bat AI drone can track and lock on to over 6 targets at once

[@tsorevitch2409]

Drone swarms won't work under heavy jamming and effective dron on drone combat is a fantasy - systems that can reliably detect drones at distance are too expensive to use them on one time use anti-drones. Only one actually viable solution in a near future is medium calibre AA with programmable fuses. Platforms is relatively cheap and each Intercept is even cheaper.

[@BBBrasil]

In the second Lebanon war, Israel said if Hezbollah continued to focus civilian targets, it would have Lebanon back 20 years in infrastructure works. They did it with F-15's and 16's and expensive AGM. Now we are seeing Ruzzia making the same with cheap Iranian drones. I imagine Israel is not prepared for that asymmetric warfare and saturated airspace. It needs several I-Beam units per city and high-value targets. Iron Dome is too expensive for drone saturated attacks such as we know Iran is preparing.

[@Hdhshsbssjsjsj]

6:26 LOL THAT EXPRESSION 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jozob]

IMO both LASERs and EMP/radio interference countermeasures are just temporary fixes. They are easily defeated by shielding and moving towards more AI - away from remote control. Only future I see, drones will become more and more AI controlled and countered by AI controlled drone fighters equipped with simple projectile weapons.

[@briankrebs7534]

I feel like the obvious answer to drone warfare is counter-drone warfare. Then it comes down to who can get the most drones to the right place at the lowest cost.

[@steffenjespersen247]

I think the counter to "small" drones will be other drones. That can controlled by computer in a vehicle with a simple objective intercept, fly close and shoot off a simple cheap payload, like birdshot shotgun shell. Return and you can rearm/recharge them for next encounter. The benifit of a mobile drone system to a anti-drone laser vehicle is that your drones can be used for other objectives as well. When not used for intercepting drones there is nothing to stop you from controlling your drones and drop mortars or even fly down and shoot soldiers in the trenches. Atleast until laser systems becomes efficient/small enought to just mount as an extra hard kill system on your standard vehicles.

[@delfinenteddyson9865]

all the hours in flight sims will finally pay off

[@prastagus3]

one wonders why Western defenses cannot be made cheaper

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

For-profit private military-industrial complex. Corruption. You need to bribe your way into military contracts, even if it is called "campaign contribution".

[@marcgatto9675]

The Lancet has been the star of the war. King of Bang for the Buck

[@Ilamarea]

You are ignoring one thing. The purpose of the Western Air Defense is only to facilitate the Western Air Power to go on the offensive.

[@mangrumpyold1871]

What about a low-tech solution like barrage balloons or aerial drone nets.

[@danharold3087]

That was my thinking too.

[@ivandimitrovivanov7584]

Very intelligent analysis. I will visit this channel frequently.

[@xxxm981]

>You can´t use a laser against AFVs, infantry or buildings. Well you can, as long as there is no journalists around.

[@Nalot56]

30mm air burst rounds are the best. They can be made much cheaper than they are now through manufacturing optimization

[@marklowden5054]

What museum was this shot at

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

IWM Duxford

[@AirRider44]

Every single vehicle will need 360 degree terminal drone defense, able to protect an area measured in meters, perhaps 100-400 meters or so. I imagine a layered defense where small missiles, EW, and lasers/AA guns target drones up to 1-5 miles out and each vehicles local defense system handles drones inside that radius. Forests, hills, and urban areas will remain challenging.

[@Sophocles13]

We need High Powered Lasers to defend against threats such as quadcopters, drones and loitering munitions. The platform might be expensive but the munition costs nothing since it's just focused light. And as technology increases the systems will become cheaper and more compact. This type of system is great against saturation attacks and maneuvering threats too! Combine this with soft kill systems like jamming etc and you're well on your way.

[@ozan1234561]

Defense against cheap old tech is, sometimes, not needed at all Those iranian drones are basically just smaller v2 missiles, they have no active seeking, they pose no threat to anything that is mobile or fortified Armies go for quality over quantity because its proven time and time that a system working at 100% capability will outperform one working at 75% several times over, no cold war era plane will ever shoot down an f-35 no matter the numbers advantage, an abrams would win against a fleet of tigers and a modern drone with guided munitions and advanced targeting will outperform cheap gps guided gliders

[@johnaikema1055]

well done! this is the modern transition that is currently happening within military tactics. bringing economic warfare into a tactical conflict will have a huge effect. I am surprised this hasn't been publicly seen as the threat it really is. our high dollar MIC simply can't compete or defeat this threat. the newest of fighter's simply cannot perform anywhere near as cost effectively as UCAV's or drones. our most modern fighters cost more to fly (does not include munitions) then UCAV's used effectively to hit targets even if some are lost in the process. loss of a single f35 (modern fighter) would cost $100 million plus...100 $1 million drones or UCAV's could be purchased and operated far cheaper for just the $100 million fly away cost of a new fighter. this is a huge problem for western nations that are tied to a high cost for profit MIC manned fighters should still play a role as "quarterbacks" to ensure a human that can be held responsible is in the loop. the idea of spending huge on a fighter without considering use of forward low cost unmanned teaming is irresponsible. our current western MIC WILL fight the change to lower cost equipment in order to maintain their profits...regardless of the detrimental effect. our as it seems current "for profit" only MIC is a concern for democracy.

[@nedkelly9688]

Lol why there is Australia's MQ28 Ghost Bat AI drone and it outperforms humans by 5 times in combat so far in it's tests. Cheap and quick to replace

[@anthonyatienza3363]

They're not targeting the army, they're targeting their banks.

[@douginorlando6260]

If a target is attacked by N drones each with a probability of P to get through defenses, then the odds of at least one getting through is equal to 1-(1-P)**N For example if 10 drones each with a1% chance, then the cumulative chance of getting through is 1 minus .99 to the 10th power or 9.6%

[@billcampbell1627]

The developers of defense tech have never thought of any of these points. They just sit around and figure out ways to build ineffective systems.

[@atrece13]

Expensive and ineffective

[@mfromaustralia1]

Yet another thought provoking technological and tactical analysis thank you. The rise of the drones makes me question whether the management class in our western militaries are up to the task of understanding what equipment they need to buy and how to deploy it. Or will they, as usual, just receive the arms company salespeople and be talked into buying whatever appears good in the sales video. There were after all, plenty of salespeople selling sabres to cavalry units when WWI broke out.

[@SCIFIguy64]

Precision artillery strikes and demoralization is the key. Russia is hardly a legitimate threat these days, they can’t even feed their frontline.

[@Danilo125815]

The real counter to existing drones are new drones.

[@distorteddingo9230]

2 SOLUTIONs: 1) Loitering EMP Drone. 2) Loitering .50cal Drone

[@mackjsm7105]

Fantastic video.. you sir are a realist. THANK YOU..

[@k53847]

Singe board inertial guidance systems exist, which protects direct attack drones from GPS jamming. These drift over time and distance, but for short & maybe medium range use they will likely be adequate. Combined with programed on launch paths the only EW solution is one that damages or resets the drone computer. Which needs a lot of power.

[@msimon6808]

I was doing drone software for an American Asian ally back in 2002. I'd say Americans have experience in the area.

[@sharifahzaini3561]

same story that happened in WW2 where German's tanks are of high quality but lacks quantities. at the end of the day. 1 superior tank against 10 moderate tanks would still be out gun, out numbered. where is this case, the cost to counter such drone attacks. cheap yet saturating will bankrupt the west. just like what the USSR has achieved with T34

[@wessnyder6192]

Hey heard you have some Health problems. I hope you receive the best care and have a full recovery! All my best.

[@thepilotman5378]

I can hear it now. The ultimate solution to drones. "Pa! Get the shotgun!"

[@madass888]

Cheap drones like Shahed aren’t that cheap. They are around 20k which is the same cost of a guided JDAM that’s 5x more powerful. They can be cost effectively countered by CRAM, Lynx, Gepard, laser weapons, ww2 era aa guns or even small arms. This means you can’t use them against high value military targets like (air) bases, government buildings and bunkers. They are pretty much only used as terror weapons. E.g. destroying random electrical substations. Very annoying and cruel, but militarily insignificant.

[@swoodard7446]

A spitfire or a hurricane and some warning radar would seem to be more than a match for a cheap drone.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Lasers are very effective against infantry. They are banned to, in era when small, cheap and high power semiconductor lasers were more in real of science fiction or in better case, "decade or two away". Few quads with multiple lasers could wreck many infantrymen. Bonus: there is no protection against that.

[@LoisoPondohva]

Anyone who's investing into EW as the main drone countermeasure is making a "buying nft in 2023" level mistake.

[@alexanderm2702]

The reason existing systems are expensive is they're built to stop fast-moving aircraft. A quadcopter could be stopped with another quadcopter dragging a nylon mesh that can jam propellers. Detecting them is another issue, but you could use a combination of microphones, cameras and LIDAR, all monitored by AI. And radar optimized for the task might be a lot smaller and cheaper, since it's searching only at short range. Passive sensors might be useful too, e.g. a drone's electric motors may emit a detectable electromagnetic signal.

[@werwolfnate]

Not to mention those expensive systems would still have their use, as cheap drones may be useful to overwhelm defenses but would flounder to defend against advanced systems, that could avoid attention and outpace anything that did outside of equaly advanced systems. Priority targets would be anyplace that builds or stores those cheap drones.

[@AKlover]

CIWS needs to be scaled down from 20-30mm to 14.5mm to .308/5.56 and mounted on the back of every 3 APC or light armor piece. Mule ground drones loaded with these scaled down CIWS guns need to be A thing too.

[@pt17171]

Drones even cheap ones make a Navy fleet unless in terms of force delivery, you simply can't defend against hundreds of drones.

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

China is dominant in consumer drones. Consumer drones are capable n cheap.

[@Surestick88]

I'd guess that the sophistication required from a missile to shoot down a drone is a lot less than what's needed to shoot down a manned aircraft, especially with the cheap sensors and computing power available nowadays. There's probably a lot of money to be saved in a two-tier air-defense system with cheap anti-drone missiles and more expensive anti-aircraft missiles. At least until drones adapt.. Cheaper yet might be to go after the factories building the drones, wherever they are.

[@ajmaeenmahtab8456]

Western engineering is unnecessarily complicated and reduces their cost effectiveness which also includes their weapons.

[@jebise1126]

35mm ammo can be overkill for small drones. so stations with 12,7 mm or even smaller for small drones. that will require lots of maybe land drones. inexpensive small vehicles that would have very small radars protecting only against very small drones. a bit bigger vehicles against a bit bigger drones and so on... or air killer drones. something that could approach such drones fast enough to cover bigger area.

[@tyn6211]

Thank for explicitly noting that infinite money != infinite resources. The Houthis have bled the Saudis of their reserves of Patriot missiles to the extent that they had to get a waiver from the US to borrow missiles from Greece.

[@nikolatasev4948]

Many drones are increasingly resistant to jamming. They lose connection to the controller and GPS, but can continue at a pre-programmed route using inertial navigation. This means their operator can not react to dangers on the ground and does not get immediate data to pass to friendly forces (e.g. artillery), but the drone is usually safe and the data gets retrieved with a small delay. I think the Russians have the best approach with the Pantsir - autocannons and cheap missiles that are remotely guided from the ground. But their implementation had some flaws, judging from the videos of Pantsir getting destroyed by drones (including operational ones shooting at the drone). As for the German approach with expensive air-burst shell and the previous Chinese doctrine of massive cheap bullets, well maybe we'll see their effectiveness in the real world.

[@By-s]

Guess Codm does a Great demonstration on how effective the swarm scorestreak is.

[@kevinlaw6191]

Depends what you are defending too

[@deth3021]

Remember watching an american admiral/general talk about this topic... must be at least 10 years ago now. Though if memory serves he was talking about the asymetric cost of scud like misiles and the abms used to shoot them down. Cant remember the exact numbers but something like 200 million in abm missiles to shoot down a 100k in scud. He had a great phrase for it, which fails me now. His point was however that the us just couldn't afford those numbers. This is even worse on ships where they no longer have the ability to do underway replenishment of vls tubes. Heck i even heard that the ships go to sea without a full compliment of missiles, not sure if its true, but given their cost... it wouldnt be all that suprising.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Exactly. Missile defences are on the wrong side of the equation.

[@benokanruzgar8863]

West (and East too) has always got ready for conventional war, which requires sources (trained personel, reserved resources like rations, healthy infrastructure even like productions of uniforms...) But since Soviet-Afghan war , world has seen low cost - low train equipment are the best. Back in the day, the stinger missile was the star of the show. Nowadays all sorts of low spreed drones. To counter them, well ... Good luck! It will definitely take time and will be costly.

[@ktm8848]

An air defense battery with 9 missile with 1M$ for each missile VS 20 drones with 20K for each drone who's gonna win !!

[@georgethompson1460]

Lasers can also target mortar shells and protect from anti-tank missiles, it will likely be defensive in nature and may replace AAA entirely. Also the problem with EW is that it might be indiscriminate hence Russia's reluctance to use it in the early days of the war, and each EW piece lights itself up like a christmas tree when it activates.

[@joelau2383]

Laser weapon is too fragile for such frontline purpose. Even a fragment can break the emitter.

[@Ilamarea]

Lasers are nullified by mirrors, which cost nothing to paint... Lasers are only useful against sensors, be it cameras are human eyes, which by definition have to be vulnerable to light.

[@comediangj4955]

I doubt lasers will be effective against mortars or AT missiles. You get a lot more time on target when using against drones compare to the other two, which means the laser needs to be many times more powerful.

[@Ilamarea]

@@comediangj4955 They already work on mortars and missiles. It's just that it's easy to counter with reflective paint.

[@comediangj4955]

@@Ilamarea what I am saying is there's a massive difference between the energy requirements between the two, which means it might not be resource efficient to use the same system on both

[@thelovertunisia]

If the laser is taken out, millions are wasted.

[@martindice5424]

Nice shots at Duxford too. I haven’t been for a few years - am jealous.