• Bread@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know mate, that’s only 16 million. The price of an F-22 is $150 million. Spending a ninth of a jet to win a war by strategically targeting the capital seems pretty cheap to me. Bring it up to the full cost and you have 750,000 drones. You are going to get overwhelmed by drones no matter how much ammo you have. It is too much.

    • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, if you’re talking about drones which can operate over long distances you’re talking about $20,000 drones, or more expensive. You’d need satcoms and that isn’t cheap or lightweight.

      • Bread@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am talking about small commercial drones that act like suicide bombers. They go one way and can be real cheap. Just deploy somewhat locally.

          • Bread@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not necessarily. A semi truck full of drones could be parked in an isolated area, set up and take off. A single semi could take down a capital. You could realistically either smuggle it in the country or build them there. A lot of parts can even be 3D printed.

      • oatscoop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Tech gets cheaper each year and software becomes more advanced. You don’t need wireless control when each drone can autonomously navigate to and identify a pre-programmed target.

        The block II tomahawk cruise missile had that 40 years ago. That image processing and satellite communications capability is available in modern smartphones.