Directed energy weapon replaces million-dollar missiles at 13 cents a shot | Hacker News Reader

Directed energy weapon replaces million-dollar missiles at 13 cents a shot

newatlas.com

42 pointsBrajeshwar26 comments

Cost per shot is only one of the relevant metrics for comparing actual cost-effectiveness.

For one example - surface-to-air missiles usually have ranges of 20-100 km. This device has range of 1 km.

So each shot can be orders of magnitued cheaper, but to cover the same ground you'd need 20^2=400 to 100^2=10 000 times the number of these devices compared to the number of missile launchers you need today. And you still would't be able to hit drones that fly too high.

Basically it's only a replacement for point-defence AA artillery (which is already pretty cheap to fire), possibly for MANPADS that have 4-5 times the range of this, not for long-range expansive surface-to-air missiles like Patriot, Sea Viper or CAMM.

It's a component in a layered air defense network. Different tools for different problems, working in concert.

This may be good for defending FOBs and important infrastructure against shahed drones and similar

Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false.

Who's advertising this? The military or the journalist?

it's the headline of the article we're discussing

Correct, the journalist is stating it "is a replacement" without providing source

> Well, yes, but it's advertised as "replacing million-dollar missiles" which is just false.

it could replace in that specific scenarios: fighting against cheap but slow drones.

If you're shooting at a cheap drone with a million-dollar-missile - it's because you don't have anything more appropriate at the right place to defend a high-value target. The appropriate solution right now is AA artillery (Gepard or ZS-23-2 or -4, etc.) or electronic jammers.

You don't have them near the high-value target right now because it's simply too expansive to build enough of these to cover all the thousands of kms of frontline and thousands of high-value targets all over the country. So you put them where they are most needed and cover the rest with long-range missiles.

I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device. If you can't build enough AA to defend against drones now - you won't be able to build enough RFDEW either. Yes operating costs will be lower, but initial cost will be higher, so you still won't have enough of them.

So you'd still need to use the long-range missiles to deal with the drones that slipped through the gaps.

BTW I do hope they can improve the range, but as is it's not going to replace long-range missiles.

> I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device

I suspect AA cannon may suffer in accuracy on such ranges trying to target small moving target, because too much physics is involved (wind, bullet drop), from another hand those beaming devices will have near 100% accuracy.

yup, they need to be highly mobile for an environment like Ukraine, where they put flak AA on technicals and use phones on 6' polls to locate shaheds

This seems like a good, ship mounted, close range AA option

> If you're shooting at a cheap drone with a million-dollar-missile - ... to defend a high-value target.

The cost of the drone is less important than the price of what you are protecting

> see, for example, the US$1.3-2.5 million Sea Viper missile used to take out a US$20,000 drone

That is an example of a $1M+ missile

But where is the connection to that this missile is the one intended to be replaced? Where is the military saying this? I suspect they talk more in terms of expanding the available types of fires they can use depending on the circumstance

Whether this phrase bothers you or not seems entirely to depend on whether you think replacement means not having to have such missiles on hand at all, versus not having to waste them on specific tasks and therefore not have to manufacture replacements as frequently...?

Is it enough to destroy drones?

That's what it's for, depending on how you define "destroy"

It fries on board electronics, so could be used against missiles as well, really anything within the effective range / frequency

I'd rather a beam of light be fired over a city than a constant stream of projectiles that have to come down somewhere.

I think you are unjustified in squaring those numbers. A system that protects the borders protects the whole territory—so the relationship will surely be more linear than quadratic.

it won't because drones can go higher than 1 km

>The RFDEW is a self-contained energy weapon that can be operated by one person, and can detect, track, and engage multiple threats at a range of up to a kilometer (0.62 miles).

So it obviously can not replace the million-dollar missile systems, which can, with a few installations, cover an entire country.

Not that it can't be used effectively. It certainly isn't a replacement, but a new tool in the arsenal to offer higher protection to more vulnerable areas like military installations.

Also very useful for ships, including commercial transporters

No doubt, if you have something relatively small to defend this might absolutely be effective. For a ship I think you have to worry about energy consumption though and design for that.

And are easily countered with tinfoil layers containing vape fluid or bad weather.

How do you put bad weather inside tinfoil layers?

You don't really need to, just attack on days with bad weather.

+ tax + service fee + tip

Reply on news.ycombinator.com