Here is an article, dont know how reliable, let you decide. https://www.twz.com/air/f-15e-armed-with-drone-killing-laser-guided-rockets-appears-in-middle-east

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 03:06 pm: Edit

It's a quite cost effective way to down a Shaheed drone.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 03:23 pm: Edit

That TWZ article seems pretty good. I note they specified the AAMs as four AIM-9X and four AIM-120, which makes a lot more sense than using AIM-7 Sparrow missiles for this mission.

AIM-120 is the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile), which has largely replaced the AIM-7 Sparrow. We probably still have some AIM-7s in a warehouse somewhere. But that's like the Russians sending T-62s to Ukraine because of extreme losses among their more modern tanks.

AIM-9X is the most advanced current version of the "Sidewinder". But it's so much more advanced than the 1950s and 1960s "Sidewinders", or even the Vietnam-era ones, that I'm not sure they actually share anythng execpt the name. Maybe the metal tube that comprises the missile "body" is the same.

I also note that the TMZ article clarifies that the current rockets are laser-guided and an infrared seeker is being developed so that the aircrew won't have to lase the missile all the way to impact.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Yes, there are anti-drone weapons. But . . .

What about the drones you don't expect? Or drones you think are neutral . . . but they aren't?
What about ground drones?
What about short-range drones that are launched from inside your country, such as happened in Operation Spider Web?
What about submarine drones?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 04:04 pm: Edit

...meanwhile, ammunition for the M61A1 Vulcan cannon is roughly $45 per round, with over 500 rounds on both the F-15 and F-16 (all variants). Time to practice good old-fashioned gunnery skills. (Heck, if necessary, we could start pulling F-4Es out of the boneyard and get them flying again; they're more than up to the task.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 05:14 pm: Edit

I would think that part of the cost equation is the replacement cost of whatever the drone doesn't destroy.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Killing drones is unlikely to be "cost effective" if all you are doing is killing a swarm of drones.

Accurate enough and hard hitting enough to reliably kill a drone is likely to cost more than a minimal cost drone.

But the thing is, a small-cheap drone able to be used in a swarm (i.e. requiring little or no prep work immediately prior to launch) is likely to be relatively short ranged. If you stop the drones, and then kill the much more expensive transporter/laucher/controler unit, then that can still be a win.

And if you are a ship well out to sea, then the TLC (or whatever it's called) will have to also be at sea and relatively vulnerable itself.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 06:00 pm: Edit

While were at it I will mention that those UFO tapes the Navy has been releasing are not aliens but Chinese spy drones from a well-known spy ship masquerading as a container ship. Taking out those "alien drones" would do much to damage the ratings of the History Channel.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Well, given that the last time I tried watching History Channel, it had reduced itself to little more than a few shows featuring a camera set up in a pawn shop, I doubt its ratings could be hurt too much...


As far as drones go, I've seen a couple YouTube videos from Saab that showcase 40 and 57 millimeter ammo that can be programmed to air burst at pretty exact ranges, with each shell given its own specific and unique distance, all while maintaining a full rate of fire for the guns. If this ammo performs as advertised, it may be possible for a single round to take out quite a few drones and a short burst to take out a good chunk of a swarm.

(Or I may have seen some corporate propaganda and have fallen for it hook, line, and stinker. Anyone know anything about it?)

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 04:18 am: Edit

Jeff, Saab programmable 3P rounds have been available since 2006 at least.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 04:22 am: Edit

I find it curious that the F-15EX was reported to carry "sparrow". Could that have been an AI product perhaps?

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 10:44 am: Edit

The F-15EX does carry the AIM-7 Sparrow. But that missile is being phased out in favor of the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 11:23 am: Edit

The F-15EX is capable of carrying the AIM-7 Sparrow but that missile has been phased out of front line service with U.S. forces for approximately 3 decades now.

By Randy Green (Hollywood750) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 03:13 pm: Edit

The story was likely partially AI-generated, with lackadaisical fact-checking.

From SVC: "I would think that part of the cost equation is the replacement cost of whatever the drone doesn't destroy." Concur. That's about the only way to cost-effectively destroy a drone. Except maybe with an even cheaper drone.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Unless someone can devise a working laser that can disable a cheap drones tracking guidance system….not sure how close a working laser able to torch a drone without a prolonged lock on…the navy has been working on that but there have not been regular public update.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 08:29 pm: Edit

Of course there are ways to destroy drones. It happens all the time.

The issue is the drones you don't manage to destroy.

No system is going to be able to deal with the tremendous variety of drones that are coming. Your laser is useless against submarine drones, for example. It needs line of sight to work against other drones, which might or might not make it useless against ground drones, depending on circumstances. Even against air drones, it would be vulnerable to a sneak attack or possibly in the wrong weather.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 10:36 pm: Edit

It being a Navy issue, have to wonder how much EW the E-2 Hawkeye Radar puts out.....
Would it be capable of downing smaller drones....

Before someone comments on it, if an aircraft radar and locate them, then the AWACS should be able to...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 31, 2025 - 10:53 am: Edit

---

Quote:

No system is going to be able to deal with the tremendous variety of drones that are coming.

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 31, 2025 - 11:18 am: Edit

Well, ignoring the old joke that after World War 3, World War 4 would be fought with rocks...

...


Is there a cheaper way of dowing drones with say bags of Gravel?

Compressed Air fired 'Bag Launchers?

Drop 1-3 bags of gravel in the top - point and fire?

Yep - wouldn't want to be 5 to 50 metres 'down range' of where the bag thrower (the bags burst on firing) - but a good metal hat should protect most of your friendlys?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 31, 2025 - 11:36 am: Edit

LOL, interesting thought Paul. Might work for suicide drones, but 50 meters is cutting it awfully close. Even a slow commercial drone might make 50 mph, which translates to 22.4 meters per second. That gives you 2 seconds to make your shot. Many non-military drones can make 100 mph, which is double that - giving you just over 1 second to make your shot.

Remember the image of the Russian ship the Ukrainian's sunk with a drone. The drone dodged and weaved at probably 50 mph (or less) and completely avoided all kinds of gunfire.

Still, I imagine that a real-world, practical drone defense strategy will include multiple layers at various ranges. A "rock-hucker" for close range basically amounts to a shotgun, for which you get a last ditch shot. If it were computer guided (say, with a laser on the launcher that paints the target), it might be fast and accurate enough to be effective.

I'm guessing that it's probably better to use some kind of auto scatter-gun (shotgun), or rifled bullet that's launched from a laser guided platform. Range is considerably greater, giving you more time to engage and multiple firing opportunities in the time available.

But... more expensive.

Which is the whole problem.

Reminds me of the days of doing work for the old DARPA back in the early 90s. Back then we were working on chemical and biological WMD detection. Solved the problem, but sadly politics got in the way and we didn't get funded.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Thursday, July 31, 2025 - 01:09 pm: Edit

For the ground pounders...
Surround your position with, basically Soccer Nets..
Each end with a small rocket, or spring loaded that can be shot upwards when drones are bearing down on the unit....
Shouldn't be too difficult to reset, after an attack or accident deployment....
Can't just hang them out, that would allow for drones o avoid them....

By Darrenvnk on Friday, August 01, 2025 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Authentication Error

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, August 05, 2025 - 07:53 pm: Edit

New tactic being reported in Ukraine of Russian Soldiers carrying landmines on their backs as they move forward into Ukrainian territory:

Apparently, Russian logistics system has been crippled by Ukrainian forces(drones, artillery, tanks, air support and rockets etc…) so the Russian soldiers advance as far in to Ukrainian territory until they are spotted and attacked. Once attacked, they defend the location, and when ordered to retreat, they deploy the land mines to discourage Ukrainian occupation of the site.

The problem for the Russians, is now that Ukraine knows the Russian troops are Carrying landmines, they target the single soldier that once the Ukrainians “detonates” the land mine, will kill the most soldiers with the least cost in exploding drones, artillery or close air support.

Nice of the Russians to bring their own explosives along just so the Ukrainians can kill more Russian troops at less cost.

A successful invasion is successful because of a number of things, air superiority, better counter battery fire, superior tabks, mortors, artillery, etc.

Improvised use of frontline troops to carry landmines into combat is not a sign of a successful invasion.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 05, 2025 - 11:33 pm: Edit

The Russians are short of tanks and are sending their infantry in first, then the tanks follow up any success.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 12:19 am: Edit

Steve, there are now reports that WW2 vintage trucks are showing up on the perimeter of the battlefields.

There is one report that I am aware of that claims a T-34 was used in an attack…. But details are few.

By all rights, this war should have ended months ago with a Russian victory… but things do not seem to be going Putins way.