I wonder, though. Electricity is much cheaper. Sha136 uses GPS targeting, so some GPS techniques might be able to walk it off target entirely? As well, modern missiles assume combat under large electronic warfare attack, or attacking targets with electronic defense. But drones usually can't fit these. Price and mass. Defeat with very cheap swarmers guided by radio or beamride?
It's a little hard to parse out what you're saying here. I completely agree that the electronics aboard "cheap, attritable drones" and guided shells will be subject to very strong size, weight and power (SWaP) constraints, with very real consequences for their EW capabilities, in particular the ability of the drone to jam the shell's proximity fuse and cause a premature airburst, and the ability of the shell to defeat this jamming. What's important to note that, because both the offensive drones and defensive shells are small and cheap, they will BOTH be subject to these strong SWaP constraints, more or less leveling the playing field. GNSS spoofing would certainly be a very cheap way to counter a suicide drone attack, but it would certainly not be an option in every tactical situation. @@sunrisejackdaw1779
Laser is the cheapest air defense solution against drones and missiles. There's no reason to use anti-aircraft artillery when laser doesn't need physical ammunition to work.
@@oim8254 You're absolutely right that lasers will only become more important to air defense in the future. Every day, diode-pumped fiber lasers and diode-pumped alkali lasers are better able to meet the challenging size, weight and power requirements. And of course, directed energy weapons have the deepest magazines of all. But you shouldn't underestimate the challenges of getting a small laser spot size on the target, i.e. using adaptive optics to compensate for distortion of the beam by the heterogeneous atmosphere. Also, hardening drones against laser weapons might impose much less of a weight penalty than hardening them against HE and KE projectiles. For example, the lightweight ablative thermal protection systems of reentry vehicles dissipate many more MW/cm2 than any laser could possibly hope to put on target. For the foreseeable future, air defense will involve some mix of conventional and directed-energy weapons.
@@Ken-no5ipThey had laser-guided 5-inch shells in the 1970s, and OTO and BAe cooperated on a Course Corrected Shell for the 76mm naval gun in the 1980s.
U.S. has never really had a workable mobile AA platform. Duster got relegated to fire support. VADS got relegated to fire support. Now we get 155m guided rounds for response and 30mm for close in? They'll add the 70mm rocket solutions already available to the mix. Thanks Ukraine, for showing the way.
Honestly, I can foresee battleships making a comeback in the next half century. With more advanced countermeasures, you’re going to need some kind of munitions that can be hit several times and still make their way to the target. A missile or drone may be torn apart by cannon fire, but a large, solid battleship shell? Well, even if you mangle the outside of it, you’re still having a 1-ton hunk of metal with a LOT of kinetic energy barreling towards you. Now, while I doubt we’ll see the legendary Iowa-class battleships brought back into service, I can imagine a new class of ships equipped with smart cannon systems being designed and built. Plus, even advanced, guided artillery shells are FAR cheaper per shot than a missile. They may not have the same range, but with technologies like rocket or ramjet-assisted shells, or possibly even railguns, you can get a lot closer to the range of a missile for far less cost, as well as greater magazine capacity and fire rate. Not to mention the ability to reload the magazine while underway; ships with vertical launch systems (VLS) require cranes to load in the missile tubes, and cannot do so while underway due to the swaying of the ship. Cannon shells, on the other hand, can be easily rolled into a magazine below decks.
@@raptor2265Ranges too short. Make them guided and they're crappified missiles. Can't benefit from low visibility shells so radar can see them and engage them. Worse payloads too. Plus, against aggressively maneuvering threats, they got no self propulsion.
@@sunrisejackdaw1779 You literally didn't read anything that I wrote beyond the first sentence. There's ramjet and rocket-assisted shells that give them a range comparable to missiles at a fraction of the cost, there's GPS-guided shells with pop-out fins to guide it to the target, and the sheer kinetic energy and density of the projectile makes them extremely difficult to shoot down. With a missile, you simply need to rupture the casing of the rocket motor and the entire thing disintegrates; with an enormous solid chunk of steel, you could riddle it with a hundred rounds and it would continue barreling towards the target. Sure, it may be cosmetically mangled, but it will still deliver enough kinetic energy to strike a devastating blow.
Isn't that similar in concept to the 18-inch Type 3 'Beehive' anti-aircraft shells used by the IJN Yamato-class battleships back in WW2? Didn't work out too well for them - but then again, the Japs didn't have radar-guided gunnery or proximity fuses...
на таких балбесов как ты этот бред и рассчитан. а будет как с украми в Куеве где Пэтриот в автоматическом режиме сделал полный залп за пол минуты а потом получил удар Кинжалом)
sorry, but this advertising picture is somewhat different from what is happening in real fighting in Ukraine. And this is still the only valid example of the use of weapons to destroy objects of modern warfare. And this, first of all, is the search and support of goals. Second, it is valuable adequate destruction of targets. And thirdly, this is the complete destruction of the target, because large fragments that are not destroyed lead to destruction no less than a direct hit.
I mean its cool but instead of using LAVs wby dont u just armor up a toyota hilux and mount and auto cannon on it with smart munitions. Seems a whole lot cheaper lol
Depending on the missile, it can be as cheap as 300k or 400k for shorter ranged AIM-9X or up to $4 million for SM-6. For guided projectiles, it also depends. Idk for these specifically, but they tend to range from tens of thousands to slightly over 100k for larger sizes, such as 127mm or 155mm. So maybe you're looking at 100k at the high end, and much less for 30mm. You sacrifice range but gain in magazine depth. And these are perfect for low performance UAVs. They're good if a soft kill fails, like DEWs
No, so the fellow who mentioned Rheinmetall is confusing Skyranger with airbursting proximity rounds which the Skyranger has. They have not yet developed guided rounds as small as 50mm.@@MrKylekincaid
Saturation attack in form of thousands of drones, missiles and even rocket propelled artillery shells will overcome this defense and other based on electronic defense and lasers. I suggest humbly VERY short air-defense layer alike the one developed recently in Poland by PGZ. 12.7 mm 4 barreled Gatling cannon (license from USA) combined with optic head shooting automatically everything coming through air. 30 mm could use programmed munitions and A-10 Warthhog flied cannon like that. 10000 imminent targets? No problem. It just goes prrrrr...
Очевидно, что для эффективной защиты Украины от шахедов нужны подобные системы. Rheinmetall должен также уже поставить свои skyguard с AHEAD боеприпасами.
