Shooting down cheap drones not cost effective for US Navy

You pretty much have to run what you brung until some other systems can be brought to bear.

"The cost of using expensive naval missiles — which can run up to $2.1 million a shot — to destroy unsophisticated Houthi drones — estimated at a few thousand dollars each — is a growing concern, according to three other DOD officials. The officials, like others interviewed for this story, were granted anonymity to describe sensitive operations and internal deliberations.

“The cost offset is not on our side,” said one DOD official.

Experts say this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and urge DOD to start looking at lower-cost options for air defense.

“That quickly becomes a problem because the most benefit, even if we do shoot down their incoming missiles and drones, is in their favor,” said Mick Mulroy, a former DOD official and CIA officer. “We, the U.S., need to start looking at systems that can defeat these that are more in line with the costs they are expending to attack us.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2m-missile-vs-2-000-190000271.html

How would they defend themselves if there were 1000 drones?

So the bean counters want to control front line decisions and put at risk US personnel? History is circular.

edited

Simple cheap solution: massed machinegun/autocannon fire. Even a WWII Fletcher-class destroyer has better close-in air defense, though one would think that you could automate fire control so you only need people out on deck hooking up fresh belts of ammo.

It isn’t hard to spend an enemy over the cliff.

Saddam was doing that, he’d threaten the US and we’d start ramping up a US response and then he’d stop being a threat. But the effort still cost the US military millions of dollars. That was the point.

In this instance, low cost drones can quickly raise the cost of defensive operations into multi million dollar amounts. I don’t think this is a case of bean counters not wanting to protect lives but the realization that we need a more cost effective solution to the problem. Not everything needs a super sophisticated high tech solution, especially low tech threats.

Those 2 million dollar missiles were designed to deal with things like enemy fighters and incoming missiles.

I think you are gonna need something faster, but yeah something like ship mounted radar / gps targeting rotary guns probably need to be looked at.

Since when has any government entity done things in an efficient and cost effective manner??

They need to be able to protect themselves, so I have zero issues with whacking the drones. Might be better to whack the shooters but that’s a political CF in normal days much less now.

We just need to up production. Maybe reroute some of that wasted foreign aid $$$ to places like Asscrackistan, and God knows what other useless places we but money at into production.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Navy’s experience and solution will be paid close attention to (at least hopefully) by the U.S. Army’s ADA units. The war in Ukraine has shown just what 21st Century full-on warfare is like, and drones make up a significant part. The Army has already learned and adopted the Navy’s experience by using the C-RAM during OIF, which is basically a land-based Phalynx system. I’m sure they are still in use at our forward deployed bases now.

Thank you SteyrAUG

I would tend to agree that is the solution, or at least a major part of it.

I agree that designing future platforms to accommodate the low tech risk is appropriate. But, this smells like some Biden DOD official lamenting the expenditure of money when it is well known that our current ordnance capabilities have been depleted. Pissing and moaning that a US warship is spending too much money protecting itself and accomplishing the task at hand is bullshit.

If an Apache or Cobra could intercept them and match (or exceed) their speed then cannon fire would be a cheap solution.

The most effective response would be for the USN to vaporize the drone launch sites as soon as they are detected.

Lazers, even sharks with lasers.

Uhm, pretty sure it isn’t a money thing. First off its a magazine/cell thing, then it is a global supply of missles thing. You can 3d print and put an Aurdino board with some c4 and make something that would wreck havoc on the topsides of our aluminum cans. Maybe $15k per killer drone. The dollars are more just a representation of how many there could be.

The solution is anti-drone drone swarms.

The gold-plated defense-contractor dream weapon systems designed to add every capability for every dime to sink the Kirov and hold back Backfire bombers is going to get its ass handed to it by 3D printed drones for pennies on the dollar.

Where are all this pieces-of-crap ‘targets’ that where cLittoral boats? Let those take the hits.

This. This right here. Then start on suspected drone launch sites.

Like I said a while back, lots of Goalkeepers and Phalanxes, maybe M134 Miniguns for the small and cheap threats. :slight_smile:

This seems like a great mission for the Dumwalt class. Spin up a bunch 155mm HE shells that can be fired in the guns, put all of them on station steaming up and down the Yemeni coast dispensing steel rain on anything within 20 miles of the coast that has anything rise above the horizon on radar.

Blow up what needs to be blown up. Can’t let a bunch of goofball pirates harass shipping in the area. I am sick of inflation.

That would require someone in the Biden Administration to actually have a set of balls. They don’t have a single nut between them.