[esseph]

A CIWS can only fire at one direction at a time, so 2+1 drones has an extremely high chance of taking it out for around $2500 or less. CIWS is multiple magnitudes more expensive.

Also can't use CIWS near troops and fpvs.

P1-SUN and equivalent are the answer there.

[YurgenJurgensen]

Modern dedicated AA gun systems claim multi-km engagement ranges against small drones, and 60 degree/second slew rates. A drone capable of beating that engagement time would be better described as a guided missile, and will certainly not cost $2500. The flaws in gun systems are in the cost required for good coverage, not their effectiveness against targets that do enter their engagement ranges.

[ButlerianJihad]

I should re-read my lease agreement to see exactly which kinds of AA batteries I can install on my 2nd floor balcony.

[esseph]

That's great on a ship but eats shit with ground clutter and sub 1km engagement ranges with multiple targets.

Again, great on a ship.

The Army did a bunch of different testing on this recently.

[nujabe]

I don’t think it’s a technical limitation that CIWS systems today only fire in one direction.

[esseph]

Wouldn't really improve things.

CIWS is just best for a different threat model.

We're moving into the "waves of drones with orchestration" phase and expensive directional systems won't survive that, and cost on the drone swarms is still drastically lower. Won't matter if you added ten ciws and ten fire-finding radars.

[newsclues]

Bigger swarms have more counter battery risk

[baxtr]

You mean P1-SUN interceptor drones?

[esseph]

Yes sorry

For @YurgenJurgensen above:

You're thinking on a ship, which is great, but these need to be able to provide front line coverage where I becomes an expensive target for cheap munitions. It is not a great solution. It's a fine layer against other threat classes.

Terrain clutter quickly becomes a problem on the battlefield.

Great on ships or for a base defense layer.