[hedora]

Currently, we're using $1M interceptors to take out $30K drones. This asymmetry is here to stay.

The end game probably involves < $1000 autonomous drones that target IR or RF and drop something like hand grenades. On the defense side, there would similarly-priced interceptors with bolas, backed up with sharp-shooters for important targets.

At that point, it turns into a logistics problem that's much easier for the attacker than the defender. Iran's already demonstrated that one successful drone can do $100B-1T in damages, so a hit rate of 0.1% means a 1:100K cost:damage ratio.

[owenmarshall]

This leans towards my belief that the US is fundamentally fighting last century's war against adversaries that have _massively_ evolved.

Look at the Ukranians: they are currently fielding an entire suite of counter-drone tech: fast pursuit systems to hit Russian drones on launch, cheap FPV drones for last-mile intercept, integrated radar/acoustic monitoring to target and respond to launches... and of course, the Russians are responding with IR floodlights and air to air launchers on their drones, or even just launching a bunch of cheap foam decoy Gerbera's in the middle of their Shahed's to soak up intercepts. Meanwhile, the front lines are basically static -- any infantry from either side that tries to go into the kill box gets picked off by loitering drones.

And the best the US can field today is "$1mm per Patriot" or "cover a tiny area with Land Phalanx (which also costs something like $4k/second burst)".

[jandrewrogers]

This betrays your ignorance of drone defense tech.

The US had APKWS (anti-drone guided missiles) operational in the 2010s and these have been widely deployed. They are effective and cost less than a Shahed. These are just mods of an existing dirt-cheap rocket for which the US has an effectively unlimited supply. The Europeans have similar systems under development.

The US has deployed high-power anti-drone laser systems for a few years now with several operational kills. These are still new but are expected to replace CIWS. It can kill a drone for the cost of a Starbucks coffee and has a virtually unlimited magazine.

US pioneered military drones and defenses decades before the Ukraine/Russia war. There are many operational lessons to be learned from that war but both sides are using drone defense tech that is considerably less sophisticated than what the US has available.

[dilyevsky]

Not to mention US is at the forefront of drone interceptor tech which are particularly useful against Shaheds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merops_(weapon)

[owenmarshall]

> The US had APKWS (anti-drone guided missiles) operational in the 2010s and these have been widely deployed

... on 4th/5th gen fighters that cost tens of thousands per flight hour[0] based on current evidence of deployment. We're still killing mosquitoes with hand grenades.

Iron Beam/the US systems are certainly interesting, but haven't been scaled up to meaningful deployments yet.

Meanwhile, those "considerably less sophisticated" systems were fielded in exercises by the Ukranians against NATO doctrine and won handily[1].

[0] https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2026/03/fighter-j...

[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/nato-has-seen-the-future-and-is-...

[dilyevsky]

No one is using Patriots against Shaheds.

> fast pursuit systems to hit Russian drones on launch

They haven't done much of that at all...

> cheap FPV drones for last-mile intercept

Where do you think these particular drones are made? I'll give you a hint - it's pretty sunny here.

[darepublic]

Isn't Ukraine helping now with the anti missile/drone defense?

[pc86]

What Iranian drone did a trillion dollars in damages?

I'm not saying the general thrust of your argument is wrong, quite the opposite. But that's a big number for one drone.

[dlisboa]

A trillion seems large but it's not that absurd. The drone that shut down 17% of Qatar's LNG capacity is said to have caused 20 billion USD worth of annual lost revenue. They said it'll take up to 5 years to rebuild so that could be 100 billion USD in lost revenue, plus whatever it costs to do the rebuild.

A trillion dollars worth of damage seems possible if spread over some years for some countries in the Gulf where shutting down a desalination plant would cause depopulation.

[maratc]

> that could be 100 billion USD in lost revenue

that could be 100 billion USD in deferred revenue, if we assume that LNG is not going anywhere from wherever it's sitting underground, and will be simply extracted and sold later

> plus whatever it costs to do the rebuild

That is the real cost, which I would assume is nowhere near billions

[dlisboa]

> that could be 100 billion USD in deferred revenue, if we assume that LNG is not going anywhere from wherever it's sitting underground, and will be simply extracted and sold later

That's not how revenue works at all.

[maratc]

I don't think anyone should have any concern whatsoever regarding Qatar revenues vs. Qatar budgets, as they are nowhere near bankruptcy, with this setback or without. Their position by projected GDP per capita may decrease from 6th (currently) to maybe 10th place in the world, which is still better than about 180 other countries.

[logicchains]

>The drone that shut down 17% of Qatar's LNG capacity is said to have caused 20 billion USD worth of annual lost revenue.

That was a missile not a drone.