The Dope on Drones: For Discussions on Combat Drones on all Battlefields and civilian Use

[TokyoBayer]

@ParallelLines

I don’t think @Chronos was making a specific claim - just a general point that expensive countermeasures can kill you on expense, especially if it’s a defense in depth

Actually, he did make a specific claim:

@Chronos

That [having four machine guns instead of one] just makes the system even more expensive, though. Certainly more expensive than the number of drones it’d take to overwhelm it.

The claim is so wild that I’m asking for a cite.

The argument is absurd and perhaps there is confusion between machine guns and bullets (which are damn cheap as these things go) and things such as Patriot missiles, which are expensive as hell and can cost far more than a drone.

Presumably, the cost of the radar and targeting system cost far more than the machine guns.

@gnoitall gave a good overview. It’s worth reading again. As gnoitall says:

@gnoitall

This is an example of a surprisingly thrifty anti-drone system.

The only point I disagree with is:

@gnoitall

If you need 100 shots to down a drone, you’ve spent $50 to take down a $500 or $1500 drone, not to mention saving millions in losses if the target had been hit.

It seems that the majority of attacks on oil facilities are being done by the An-196 Liutyi (Lyutyi) drone, and googling the costs show a wide range from $55,000 to $200,000 per unit. At any rate, it’s not the $500 to $1500 drones that are being targeted here.