this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
145 points (97.4% liked)
Ukraine
8593 readers
575 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³π₯ Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
π³βοΈβοΈ Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
πͺ π«‘ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I dont think its much of an issue at this point. A 2-3 seconds pulse should be more than enough to bring a consumer drone down.
Interesting showcase of a US weapon system used for this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFiDYFnlp7s If they showcase this, then its probably outdated already and the current version is even better.
2-3 seconds to destroy is tracking the target an additional 400 feet (if they travel at 100mph, they're too small to go very fast). I was basing my response based on that. If they decreased the time to half that, it would be significantly more effective.
If you send swarms of the UAVs say 16 - it would take one turret 48 seconds of fire time - probably more like a minute switching between targets, but that seems extremely fast. That means that the longest living UAV made it an additional mile and a half.
Of course the more you field, the more likely they are to reach their target. Which is true regardless of the kill vehicle being energy or kinetic.
In any case, it should be far cheaper to take down a drone, and more successful even without a better kill time.