In any case, if you are watching the invader launch Shaheds into your country, and know that many will hit buildings full of people, that has to be factored in as well. Even if it cost $1M to take down a $25k Shahed, but it saved a life/lives, I could see a decision maker still doing that. I am certainly glad that I am not in the position to make such a decision.
Of course, unless you have 40x the budget of the enemy forever, it's not sustainable. Also, how fast can you produce your $1M missile, vs. the enemy's $25k Shahed?
I have been arguing that Shahed-style (cheap/easy to build/very long-range) cruise missiles completely changed the nature of warfare, for years now. A saturation attack like that is currently possible for a non-peer to pull off, and is currently not fully defendable.
US and other military procurement folks have been asleep at the wheel on this for what, 4 years now? The proof is what Iran was able to do. How did not they see this coming? This should be a huge public scandal.
Comments
In any case, if you are watching the invader launch Shaheds into your country, and know that many will hit buildings full of people, that has to be factored in as well. Even if it cost $1M to take down a $25k Shahed, but it saved a life/lives, I could see a decision maker still doing that. I am certainly glad that I am not in the position to make such a decision.
Of course, unless you have 40x the budget of the enemy forever, it's not sustainable. Also, how fast can you produce your $1M missile, vs. the enemy's $25k Shahed?
I have been arguing that Shahed-style (cheap/easy to build/very long-range) cruise missiles completely changed the nature of warfare, for years now. A saturation attack like that is currently possible for a non-peer to pull off, and is currently not fully defendable.
US and other military procurement folks have been asleep at the wheel on this for what, 4 years now? The proof is what Iran was able to do. How did not they see this coming? This should be a huge public scandal.