But the defence at any cost mentality prevents actual solutions by focusing too heavily on higher cost and exquisite technology, and there will be fewer incentives to pivot to EW suits, high-volume autocannons and lasers, which would change the cost per shot from two million dollars to much, much lower. And the army deserves a raft of cost-effective man-portable solutions pushing the cost per shot even lower.Who said anything about Javelin?
And which Javelin are you talking about? The Anti-tank missile? Or the SAM that was retired 30 years ago in the late 1990's.
-------------
APKWS (Hydra 70 with laser guidance kit) was tested against drones this month by a Typhoon and is quite inexpensive ($40-50k AUD?).
LMM (Martlet) is somewhere around $100-150k AUD per shot and is optimised for launch from helicopters and ground platforms.
I think the French just trialed something this week as a cheap anti-drone weapon from Rafele as well, but I didn't read to see what the missile was.
Not saying those exact missiles should be purchased, but they are both much more cost effective then using a Sidewinder, ASRAAM or AMRAAM.
-------------
Probably don't fall into the trap of comparing the cost of the counter measure to what it is countering, compare it to the damage that could be done if the drone is *not* countered.
Mmm. Dronemaster. I can see the advertising now.I don’t think this is that much of an issue.
1) Buy a bunch of Bushmasters in Strikemaster config.
2) Put a box launcher on the back carry 24x Ukrainian interceptor drones at $2k to $5k a pop.
3) Integrate it with NASAMs and their CEATAC radars.
4) Bye bye drones.
I do think that there ought to be a standard for selecting emerging technology that includes human mortality as well.Mmm. Dronemaster. I can see the advertising now.
Jokes aside, I think this is exactly the concept needed. Their interceptors are so small that I think a Dronemaster could hold a lot more than 24. I'm thinking over a hundred.
This doesn't replace more advanced systems, but it enables them to be used on the few real targets.
Singapore doesn't have a large population. It has a high population density because it has a very small area, much less than the ACT, with a bit more than the population of Queensland crammed into it - & almost a third of the population consists of temporary residents, not part of the pool of potential recruits for the armed forces.Singapore with a large population and a small geographic area (hence a high population density) could use technology to increase the effect per person. Ukraine with a larger population and a larger area has used technology to offset the manpower advantage enjoyed by their adversary. Australia with a small population and a very large area needs to use technology to increase both the effectiveness of the personnel and increase the reach of the individual (and collective) combatant.