• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Why suddenly are these required to be taken out by anti rad munitions?

    It’s radar. They’re practically setting off a beacon of their location through operation.

    No I’m not disagreeing with you on the principle and have been making the exact same argument about scaling and cost in regards to the US defense doctrine for years. But there is no special munitions required to take out a small radar system, which is basically a bunch of highly sensitive electronics which must be exposed for the instrument to work. Any basic quad drone with a reasonable payload could easily take one out.

    This doesn’t detract from you main point, which I entirely agree with and have been promoting for years.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m talking about HARM and friends because in terms of quickly executing a kill chain against a transmitting radar, antirad munitions are the gold standard. Sure, it can be done other ways. But it generally involves a lot more systems with relatively complex integration.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah I mean, this speaks even further to the doctrinal difference I’m trying to highlight.

        How are the Ukrainians pushing back on radar systems? Are they relying on anti-rad munitions? Well. No. We’re seeing them using long range drones, which, arguably, is far less complex, much more versatile, easier to produce, and cheaper to produce. The difference highlights the doctrine difference.

        This is all really a debate about how one thinks about fighting a war and what one values along the way.