Born too late to shoot down planes with flak Born too early to shoot down spaceships with flak Born just in time to shoot down drones with flak

@lolasdm6959

22 күн бұрын

Bruh you think you got better reflexes than a computer? You are going to be the guy cleaning the dirt off the thing.

@notachair4757

22 күн бұрын

@@lolasdm6959 Don't need reflexes when everything in a 10m radius around the blast is peppered with shrapnel. You also don't need reflexes when you have a computer targeting for you.

@lolasdm6959

22 күн бұрын

@@notachair4757 HAHAHA, flaks are most effective against ground targets. Also 10,000 drones cost less than a modern flak system, and you aren't taking out 10,000 drones with one flak system.

@antoniochalking

22 күн бұрын

⁠@@lolasdm6959Redditor ahh comment lol, but every weapon system needs a gunner, AI or not

@notachair4757

22 күн бұрын

@lolasdm6959 At a cost of $375 each(figure from The Globe and Mail), 10,000 drones would cost $3,750,000 Quora(reliable source, I know) says a 40mm bofors gun costs ~$52,000.

FLAK IS BACK

@lonewaffle231

22 күн бұрын

Bro SPAAGs never went anywhere

@muhammadhabib6231

22 күн бұрын

@@lonewaffle231 objectively false, AA in that form has been basically obsolete due to high and fast flying planes. and even if it wasn't "FLAK" is back.

@karal_the_crazy

20 күн бұрын

Flack is love flack is life

@Huweeey

19 күн бұрын

@@lonewaffle231 I give you two options. You take the blue pill, you wake up with the thousand dollars Stinger missile within your hands and shoot whatever horde of cheap aircraft you want to shoot at. or You take the red pill, you stay in the seat of the few thousand dollars worth afghan built ZU-23 anti aircraft twin autocannon. And I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

@Cowboycomando54

19 күн бұрын

@@muhammadhabib6231 Well its a good thing they are going to fighting low and slow drones.

I have yet to meet drone that can outsmart bullet.

@blueonion808

23 күн бұрын

-Heavy weapons guy

@user-mw9cs6cv7g

22 күн бұрын

I also have yet to meet a drone that can outsmart a bullet that turns into multiple bullets, shrapnel.

@lolasdm6959

22 күн бұрын

100,000 drone swarm which cost less than 1/10 of a fighter jet swarms your air defenses and destoryes dozens of planes*

@aldraone-mu5yg

22 күн бұрын

@@lolasdm6959 True, but bullets cost even less.

@lolasdm6959

22 күн бұрын

@@aldraone-mu5yg yeah but you are not going to shoot down 100,000 drones.

Died: 1945 Born: 2024 Welcome back Ostwind II

"AND WITH THE POWER OF AIRBURST MUNITIONS!"

@RX0_GundamUnicorn

20 күн бұрын

"I JUST SPLIT THIS DRONE'S MOLECULES IN HALF!"

@hibemabygaming4316

20 күн бұрын

@@RX0_GundamUnicorn "BUT WITH THE POWER OF BEAM MAGNUM! YOU CAN REDUCE ITS ATOMS FURTHER!"

@vinculaomega5283

11 күн бұрын

Guys please. We don't need to have nuclear flak!

@november382

5 күн бұрын

@@vinculaomega5283 Fuck are you talking about yes we do

Flakk is the past. Flakk is the present. Flakk is the future.

@dumbleking5172

21 күн бұрын

Flakk is omnipresent

@karal_the_crazy

20 күн бұрын

Clack is love flack is life

the 40mm Bofors "my time has come to an end" NATO "NO IT HASNT!"

@MrViggie37

23 күн бұрын

Swedish engineering baby!

@3VRstudio

22 күн бұрын

40mm Bofors Anti-Tank/Naval/Anti-Air/Anti-Drone gun

@travisdickens4304

22 күн бұрын

Bofors deez

@AceDan-gc9po

22 күн бұрын

Lettttt me diiiiieeee

@octopusoup

20 күн бұрын

You ain't going nowhere. Defib this sucker.

Some of you generals are all right. Don't sit on the podium tomorrow.

There is tons of footage of drones hitting things like Gepards/Strellas and other very expensive air defense systems. The issue is in large part due to the legacy radars being designed for larger mass, fast moving targets. AKA jets and helicopters. Most FPV drones have the radar signature of a small bird and move at slow speeds and low altitude. Meaning potential to spot a target is also limited by the curvature of the earth, 3 miles or 4.8 kilometers. It would also be impractical to shot all possible targets (birds) within the perimeter as there could be upwards of 3000 birds per square mile in a temperate climate. To say nothing of gun ammo capacity, even with lasers this would likely be energy prohibitive. The most realistic solution remains electronic radio jamming even if the cost is limited communication and scrambled satellite signals.

@d0mram-02

23 күн бұрын

Yet with the very real possibility that future drones make more and more use of AI or some other terminal guidance method, soft kill methods are seemingly a waste a money and effort. That is hardkill methods whether it be DEWs or kinetic weapons (though more likely kinetic) are the future. You can disagree with this but you will be wrong. While the guidance methods of old such as radar are indeed useless, newer infrared search and track (IRST) solutions are being developed and with great efficacy. I can see a very realistic reality where multiple AFVs would use IRST scanners and other detection methods to collectively share information to a SPAAG like weapon to destroy the offending target(s). Now I'm not a big fan of the company Andruil, some of there drone vehicles seem a bit gimmicky, however they have developed a networked system using IRST scanners (among an array of other sensors) to accurately map the airspace occupied by smaller UAVs and birds. Their demonstrations prove they can distinguish between birds and drones.

@user-ki3yn6ef7e

23 күн бұрын

Kamiakze drones are not the only threat. Large caliber SPAAs with proximity fuze shells are an excellent counter to surveilance drones like Orlan and Supercam that are just too expensive to shoot down with missiles.

@johanorden

23 күн бұрын

Yet to see footage of a Gepard getting hit by fpv drones... But yes they can only shoot orlans and so on

@robertalaverdov8147

23 күн бұрын

@@d0mram-02 While that does sound interesting and I'm hopeful in these developments. I do have my reservations. For starters infrared sensors can be fooled/saturated with flares/decoys. And if you watch some of the footage you can see thermite/magnesium rain coming down on the frontline. I'm also not sure if AI targeting will be mature enough for frontline work anytime soon. Its perhaps decades away. Though I would be happy to be wrong in this regard.

@robertalaverdov8147

23 күн бұрын

@@johanorden One of the strikes is from a Lancet, other's drones spotting for artillery/missiles. FPV drones on Strelas a few times from both sides. The lancet is less embarrassing as its the size of a small missile. But to be unable to spot larger higher flying drones nearby is actually pretty bad. My guess is that the plastic material used to save weight is inadvertently absorbing/passing through some of the radar waves. Making the target seem even smaller. And again at low speeds, hard to distinguish from background clutter like birds and clouds.

YES WE NEED TO GO DUGGA-DUGGA ON DRONES THIS HAS TO BE THE NEW META HOW FAST CAN WE GET THEM TO THE FRONTLINES

the original miniature model made during prototyping is in front of bravo company in ft lee VA, on ordinance island. i remember going out back and being liike, "wtf is a sgt york doing here!"

Some facts about the "M247 Sergeant York" to dsiplay it's potential combat lethality. Despite the fact that this overall vehicle/project was considered a failure. It is essentially: Radar directed twin Bofors 40mm L/70 rapid fire cannons, with an RPM of 600 PER GUN! With a total RPM of 1200! Firing a 1.57 inch, 40mm X 365mm shell! And, we need to keep in mind, that it is entierly possible to point those guns down toward the ground against infantry! Soldiers during vietnam recall the "effectivness" of using 40mm Bofors cannons against infantry targets. Not just as a weapon system but also as a deterent/discourager for the attackers.

@marseldagistani1989

3 күн бұрын

Aye. But if we want Sergeant York to work this time, we have to fix some things first like it's Radar lock and replace the M48 Patton Hull with the M60 Hull and give it a better engine than the 750 horsepower one it use to have

40mm Bofors cannot die, it just simply cannot

@FleshWizard69420

12 күн бұрын

40mm Bofors Deez Nutz lmfao

Ah yes, yet another piece of expensive military hardware to combat retrofitted commercial drone hordes

@Sonlirain

15 күн бұрын

Point being that proximity shells are probably going to be the cheapest among conventional ways to combat drones. And it'd be funny if the US reactivated a nearly 40 year old platform to combat a new emergent threat on the battlefield. Because suddenly with cheap drones flying around not everything is worth firing an expensive missile at while a couple 40 mm shells for a tenth of the cost will solve the problem. Also keep in mind that there's a potential cost of not shooting down a relatively cheap drone. Lancets for example require a spotter drone to function, if you can detect and destroy the spotters you make the lancets potentially useless. And sure you might have fired 2000$ in ammo at 1000$ worth of drones, but you also likely prevented a nearby artillery system worth 100000 USD from being destroyed or damaged.

At this rate we'll have weaponized bees by 2050.

@jasonwarren9279

3 күн бұрын

But bees are already weaponized...

Don't forget the M247 also had a prototype with GAU-8.

@laxcatthesleepycat2688

21 күн бұрын

Jesus Christ, What were they trying to shoot down? The moon?

@Cowboycomando54

19 күн бұрын

The T249/250 vigilantes

how about... a giant crew served automatic belt fed... shotgun ?:D

@PineCone227_

22 күн бұрын

Rheinmetall 30 mm MK 30-2 ABM

@concretedonkey4726

22 күн бұрын

@@PineCone227_ hah the one on the puma ? Didn't know it had programmable ammo... still for drone threats we probably need something more ubiquitous... and I'm back to the idea of an shotgun equivalent of an LMG, I need to check if somebody tried it before.

@AnotherComment-rl6fv

21 күн бұрын

shotgun wont save you against spotter or Lancet type drones

@concretedonkey4726

20 күн бұрын

@@AnotherComment-rl6fv "but but, what if ballistic missile hits you" , this is unproductive line of thought, also lancets are not some wunderwaffe, they are just a bit larger faster and longer ranged suicide drones, also they don't tend to be used against infantry squads.

@AnotherComment-rl6fv

20 күн бұрын

@@concretedonkey4726 lol how is a belt fed shotgun combat vehicle gonna save you from platforms like TB2 or Heron. Flak is gonna protect you from both low speed and high speed drones. Even for fpv drones , it will have to wait for the drone to get near to have any chance of shooting down with shotgun.

He attecc, he protecc, but most importantly, he flak.

Ive been saying they need a modern SGT york with a single 57mm Flak gun for ages now. basically a more particle Otomatic. with a slightly smaller gun & much more ammo, a 57mm is still overkill for any drone issues.

@cideltacommand7169

23 күн бұрын

The Russians:

@TheAngriestGamer.

23 күн бұрын

@@cideltacommand7169 ik that is pain that they beat the US to this...

@cideltacommand7169

22 күн бұрын

@@TheAngriestGamer. ehh flak Is questionable in its effectiveness

@Cowboycomando54

19 күн бұрын

@@cideltacommand7169 The point of flack is to force a miss, not so much to result in a kill. In this regard it works very well.

@cideltacommand7169

19 күн бұрын

@@Cowboycomando54 getting the right range is hard, the drone is so small even firing on it would waste ammo as you'd need plenty of shots for the shrapnel to hit, artillery can also be called on you so it's not all thar effective

SERGEANT YORK IS SO BACK LETS GOO

@seasons1745

22 күн бұрын

>the AA so bad they never bothered to re examine it

eventually this will happen and it will be just rainin bullets xD

WELCOME BACK SGT YORK!

Aww yeah srgent york is making a comeback baby

Bassically, what Germany did, with their Gepard Flak tanks. Finally - The good 'ol 'shoot guns in the air' is back in action. The shitty bomb, rocket and missle only meta was getting hella annoying

ultimately you'll need fighter drones of your own, to fight for drone superiority.

40mm Bofors: Finally. After 90 long years, decades of upgrades and being fit to different vehicles, I’m free to retire. US Military: I wonder if we can fit a 40mm Bof onto an F-250 bed.

Drones are a bit small for that. Load it up with some shotshell however...

Shotguns are makin a comeback too, baby

@FleshWizard69420

12 күн бұрын

We need to make a shotminigun

The Van Gogh of tanks; unappreciated in its time, but it turns out we just weren't ready for its brilliance.

Mmmmmh, I think the M113 with the 20mm gatling would be better That or the US could bring back the M16 halftrack with the 4x.50 cal machine guns to grind at top tier xD

"Let's do this"

eh, might be better with something thats got plenty of spread for lingering munitions. Theyre flimsy as fuck so you don't need all that much explosive or piercing potential to knock em down.

Will radar be able to detect a Walmart drone?

makes me wonder if it would be 40mm canister or 40mm buckshot

@onerimeuse

20 күн бұрын

*insert "why not both?" meme here*

Sergeant York!

We're so backk

Look up the story about this tank, equal parts cool and hilarious

Isn't the amount of ammo used in the burst to shoot down a drone more costly then the drone itself? (Unless it's not a makeshift drone that's using civilian market drones)

@darkishzapo1155

20 күн бұрын

It's not about the ammo being more expensive than the drone, it's about using the ammo to stop the drone from blowing up something that is even more expensive

@zefflin1451

19 күн бұрын

Oh well, if you put it like that then yeah, I just thought in the context of "The AA-tank Vs the Drone"

@Gustav_Kuriga

14 күн бұрын

@@zefflin1451 they already have that in the Gepard. it's still not working.

Laughs in Shilka and Tunguska

Like they did not try that

Problem . Drones are quiet and hard to shoot down if the fly above you. This means you will have to have the flack gun outside of any obstacles (meaning you can't use homes as cover) This means that recon drones or planes can spot you and call in a arty strike. Second problem. If you use cheap solid shells then you need to shoot a lot to have a statistically good chance of hitting the drone. If you use more expensive explosive flack shots then you will need less, but you will need to have them explode at a variable distance and that means she'll will be expensive. If drone is some cheap Iranian copy with a two stroke engine and bomb then you could find that the drone is cheaper than the ammo. Also the n percent that make it will still cause damage. It would be wiser to find a way of blocking the drone communication line so that they would loose control and crash not into the target. (Think of drone anti-rifles but on a tank)

Расскажите им про Шилку 😁

Hold up wait what about the current M-SHORAD?

Shrapnel Time

ADATS ADATS ADATS ADATS!!!

M163 make it C-RAM

Everything old is new again. Just like smoothbore came back for sabot tank shells.

Wait until they see the T249/250 Vigilante.

We are so back

Ok they could 100% make case rounds for this and just fill the air with tungsten pellets which would in theory shred any drone.

That would be cool but sadly I believe the current plan is trucks with lasers on them. At least for the US

We’re so back Also: “The more things change the more they stay the same” - Someone smart idk

ZSU-37-2 still better

Fawks

US : M247, France : AMX 30 DCA, Germany : Guepard All goes : Brrrrrrrrrrrrr

Gepard already used for this purpose

@cideltacommand7169

23 күн бұрын

What gepard ? I don't see no gepard

@ArmUkraine

22 күн бұрын

@@cideltacommand7169 Flak panzer Gepard

Lasers…

Just use the AA that's already there? Like you're firing bullets at thousands of rpm, I don't think a drone is gonna withstand that.

Who would win: 40$ comercial drone turned into suicide bomber or 1000$ worth of ammunition.

@charriot9666

20 күн бұрын

A Even better who would win: 6 reaper drones that are worth 30 million each Or Probably some 20k SAM rockets

They will just target that thing with fast moving missiles :/

Get the arkham knight he has experience

I think not

The problem with the Sgt York, was both the chassis and the fire control system. The M48 hull couldn't keep up with Abrams and Bradleys and the fire control system was just complete dogshit having immense trouble aquiring even the simplest targets

@Nelo390

10 күн бұрын

Really wasn't that bad, There was this one dude named "thetrueadept" who had some excellent first hand experience with it, and noted the media propaganda blowing it wildly out of proportion. I will paste it for your convenience. Sgt. York was killed because the program discovered the biggest snag in more modern systems: it's not the steel that's expensive; it's the SILICON (i.e., all the electronics) that is expensive (and not just in the installation but also in the debugging). That and from my readings, the Sgt. York was a victim of post-WW2 penny pinching (it was discovered that quite a few barrels from the stocks were actually worn-out instead of actually viable), the FCS being a buggy mess, the hydraulics they had weren't up to the task (which were going to be replaced with 5kPSI variants in the production prototypes as the 3kPSI units would break in certain scenarios), and the M48 being the chassis of choice instead of something like the M60 (though, this is understandable as the M48 was being retired and the M60 was the frontline tank until the M1 showed up a while later). I've got a bit from a tester where he says the system was better than you would think: Tom Farrier Retired USAF rescue helicopter pilot; current aviation safety contractor (UAS) said: In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video. The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar). A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically. On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us. I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems. So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack. Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.) Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?) To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation. (The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.) Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above. If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was: Helicopter flies over. Traverse/re-acquire movement starts. Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself). Guns started to elevate to re-engage. Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language. The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change. Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ” I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad. On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check. I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time. Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time. _______ Again this is not me saying this, this is @TheTrueAdept saying it, but it sounds pretty solid.

@Panzerfan93

9 күн бұрын

@@Nelo390 that was a good read, thanks for that. I think i could now see Sgt York having entered service with an M60 chassis (later possibly an M1) and 35mm Oerlikon guns (like the Gepard)

Just make a 30mm shotgun anti air gun.

God, please don't try to bring back that disaster. Literally nothing about it worked.

Sgt. York won't save the troops from undersized civilian drones. The price of one of its shells will in any case be higher than the price of one UAV. But even if the price of one shell could be reduced to the level of the price of one UAV (which is unlikely in itself), it would not save the anti-aircraft system from a mass attack by UAVs.

@darkishzapo1155

20 күн бұрын

It's not about the ammo being more expensive than the drone, it's about using the ammo to stop the drone from blowing up something that is even more expensive

@Kaskad_22350

19 күн бұрын

@@darkishzapo1155 The point is that if a drone is cheaper than a shell, then even a successful shooting down of the drone will cause losses to the defending side and in the long run it will create problems. I believe that the Russian army's approach of creating tanks with absolute drone protection is the most promising, as it is much cheaper than other drone defense options and relatively simple at the same time

@darkishzapo1155

19 күн бұрын

@@Kaskad_22350 the difference between, say, a middle eastern team using commercial drones and the US Army using a flak gun, or a Euro army using Gepard, is that the latter definitely has the money to spend to make more ammo, where as the former does not have the money yo maintain such an assault. It doesn't matter if the drone is cheap if your army runs out of money buying it. I completely understand what the idea is, but the execution requires a fantasy world scenario where western nations, especially the United States and their limitless military spending, run out of money to spend on military projects. If the Americans are willing to spend *billions* on Ukraine, a country on the other side of the planet, you can bet they'll spend that much for their own personal defense.

@Gustav_Kuriga

14 күн бұрын

@@darkishzapo1155 We have money but no production genius. Even if we could technically afford it, we can't actually produce enough for it to be useful. And you're forgetting how expensive the platform you have the gun on is. You have to include that into the cost, especially if you lose it.

@Nelo390

10 күн бұрын

@@Gustav_Kuriga Just make more lol

evendoe it failed so badly

@harlisviikmae6240

24 күн бұрын

It was canned because soviets adopted a new longer range atgm that could massively outreach that, and a few software errors, and being slower then the things it was supposed to protect. However the concept could work which is why the SHORAD became a thing.

@ikillstupidcomments

22 күн бұрын

Because of the context of when it was developed. A lot of Cold War gun SPAA was considered obsolete before it could enter production because of the rapidly ballooning speed and range of potential targets.

Swarm drones enter the chat*

@Leindesky

23 күн бұрын

Ammo with time fuse and small steel balls enter the chat*

@Leindesky

23 күн бұрын

Drone jammer enter the chat*

@02suraditpengsaeng41

23 күн бұрын

New short-range radar will come in schedule

@vcguerrilla6438

23 күн бұрын

airburst ammo joined the group.

US: Hippies keep complaining about the bodies dropping in war but it's like they don't understand that's what war is! Not me, I love a good war but I when I reinstate the draft, no one will wanna fight they'll be busy protesting the BOMBINGS! NATO/OTAN: Hmmm maybe there's a way we can help each other....... US: What do you have in mind? NATO/OTAN: Follow me......

Proxy rounds are way ahead of their time.

Drones are gayyest weapon of this time. Sneaky, small, like to attack in groups. Yuk.

Aren't modern CIWS is better than this old flak...?

@krzysztoftracz819

22 күн бұрын

No, and longer no because 40mm proximity rounds

@lolasdm6959

21 күн бұрын

@@krzysztoftracz819 What are you saying? CIWS can fire proximity fragmentation rounds, in fact during the Iraq war, British and US ships often ended up damaging each other with shrapnel when intercepting missiles. CIWS have integrated radar fire control systems and can actually hit small fast moving targets reliably.

Chicken fence would be easier but I guess there is no money to be made there.

@O2F2

21 күн бұрын

like thirty mile tall Chicken fence?

You mean the spaa whose radar goes ape shit whenever the barrels go up???

:Problem is drones can be hard to detect and physically small. And if that isn't enough they cost a fraction of what normal military weapons cost to wipe them out.. And we haven't even considered swarm techniques and kamikazi drones.

Great warhead, but very expensive. Dont it need self guided supersonic delivery system distracted by fire? ~glues warhead to kids toy~ i think not, comrade.