Loitering munitions have transformed the character of land warfare in Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria, allowing military forces to carry out precision attacks in large numbers and at lower costs than those offered by traditional missiles and aircraft.
Powerful research. What are your thoughts about how these lighter weight (Tier 1) munitions might be employed to simply break the combat effectiveness of a vessel, or softening before true anti-ship systems come into play? Radars, missile hatches, launchers, CIWS, etc would be susceptible to damage beyond organic repair. Pairing with AI that seeks out these systems, you could create a layered offense that aims to drive a wedge into defensive capabilities vs sink a target.
One additional consideration, especially critical for naval applications, is carrying capacity. This raises two key questions:
1. What modifications to ship design—such as launcher integration, storage architecture, or deck space allocation—are necessary to accommodate loitering munitions at scale?
2. At what point do tradeoffs between unit cost and volumetric or weight constraints become operationally limiting? In other words, even if the munition is low-cost and attritable, does its storage footprint justify its inclusion over more expensive but compact alternatives?
Excellent article, but damn, these drones are annoying as hell. I read the article linked about Coyote and Roadrunner, but it still seems to me a too high cost.
I don't understand, can't flak be made today viable at ranges of 1000 meters that would cheaply (in terms of burst size needed) eliminate a drone?
Powerful research. What are your thoughts about how these lighter weight (Tier 1) munitions might be employed to simply break the combat effectiveness of a vessel, or softening before true anti-ship systems come into play? Radars, missile hatches, launchers, CIWS, etc would be susceptible to damage beyond organic repair. Pairing with AI that seeks out these systems, you could create a layered offense that aims to drive a wedge into defensive capabilities vs sink a target.
One additional consideration, especially critical for naval applications, is carrying capacity. This raises two key questions:
1. What modifications to ship design—such as launcher integration, storage architecture, or deck space allocation—are necessary to accommodate loitering munitions at scale?
2. At what point do tradeoffs between unit cost and volumetric or weight constraints become operationally limiting? In other words, even if the munition is low-cost and attritable, does its storage footprint justify its inclusion over more expensive but compact alternatives?
Excellent article, but damn, these drones are annoying as hell. I read the article linked about Coyote and Roadrunner, but it still seems to me a too high cost.
I don't understand, can't flak be made today viable at ranges of 1000 meters that would cheaply (in terms of burst size needed) eliminate a drone?