Iran creates new drone-bomber

[The Yosemite Bear]

is it just me or does it look like they just remade the V3?

[Ilya Muromets]

I think you mean V-1. V-3 was a cannon IRL, or that pseudo-Scud from Red Alert 2.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah that's the one.

[Shroom Man 777]

So Sheps, what you're saying is that these new drone-missiles aren't really some kind of futuristic UCAV to take on fighter roles, but just some alternate evolutionary pathway of the tactical ballistic missile artillery and SCUDs favored by Iraq and Iran? Except, this time, a bit more accurate, so salvo launching them would actually achieve more effect then a SCUD? Different technology, different machine, but same niche?

[MKSheppard]

Yes basically -- use them in the strike bomber role to strike large fixed targets which don't move that often; like air force bases -- there's more than just the revetments you can hit -- if you dropped a few bombs into the fuel tank farm (in many places this is unarmored), you would burn up all the jet fuel needed by the fighters.

Plus, you can get them back at the end of their mission if they haven't been shot down; so you can reuse them and get more BOOM for your buck.

[Shroom Man 777]

Even with GPS, I wonder just how accurate the Iranians can make them.

Also, if they launch so fucking many that shooting them down is going to be hard simply because they outnumber the missiles American IADS and fighters are armed with, then the simple solution is that the enemy just blows up these drones while they're still on the ground.

Do the Iranians have what it takes to maximize the effectiveness of these drones? Cause, yeah, you are right. Weaponized 60s/70s era drones would still be a somewhat effective weapon, used in mass and used appropriately. But we all know the guys in the Middle East aren't exactly gifted with an overabundance of brains, man. Could they get it to work? You make it sound so simple, but even simple for you might be very damn complicated for these guys.

[MKSheppard]

You make it sound so simple, but even simple for you might be very damn complicated for these guys.

There's also the fact that Drones aren't "Sexy".

"Sexy" is a squadron of Su-5231UBKMKKK SUPER UBER FLANKERS made by the russians in your national colors.

I got no doubt that the Chinese are working on this approach though -- because while they can control the airspace over taiwan fairly easily; they can't deal with bases on Okiwana or Guam as easily.

[Sea Skimmer]

It’s really not that hard to operate drones if you are anywhere near Iran’s technical sophistication, the US didn’t put GPS on Predator until after the 1999 war with Serbia for example. That didn’t stop them from navigating, though it did cause trouble. But everyone had trouble with navigation before GPS. History could have been far different had the US not made deliberate decisions to nix many of its 1970s drone programs in favor of manned programs like the F-117.

[CSJM]

is it just me or does it look like they just remade the V3?

I think you mean V-1. V-3 was a cannon IRL, or that pseudo-Scud from Red Alert 2.

That was my first thought, too. It looks like someone strapped a bomb to a V-1. Well, I guess that's one way to improve it...

[Iosef Cross]

Iran is a rising power today. Their economy grows at an average rate of 5.5%, faster than any first world country, and their population is 75 million now, nearly as big as Germany's. As they are in the middle of the world, with potential enemies at all sides, while having the US as an enemy, the world's hegemon, the tendency for increase expenditures in the military is felt.

Also, it is quite common for talks of the US invading Iran (in magazines and newspapers). So, it is understandable that the country is preparing itself if the US comes at them. They don't intend to be beaten easily like Iraq was.

[Patroklos]

I don't see Iran as any harder of a nut to crack than Iraq was in 91, and they had a much more potent airforce. Iran would probably be much easier actually.

Iran does have a larger navy compared to Iraq but thats just geography. And its a insignificant difference given the likely opponent.

You are correct though, Iran is the up and coming regional power.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't see Iran as any harder of a nut to crack than Iraq was in 91, and they had a much more potent airforce. Iran would probably be much easier actually.

Iran does have a larger navy compared to Iraq but thats just geography. And its a insignificant difference given the likely opponent.

You are correct though, Iran is the up and coming regional power.

Well, there's one key difference: the Iranians are not arabs... If you look at the performance of the respective air forces during the Iran-Iraq war, you will notice that on the whole the Iranians fared much better. Partially this was because they still had a fairly large number of modern US made fighters, but that advantage was more than negated by the fact the Iraq received massive equipment support from the Soviets and later from France, not to mention a lot of intelligence from various US intelligence agencies, a very significant advantage in itself.

Now, this does not mean that the Iranian air force would be more than a speed bump for the US military, but then again there are not too many air forces in the world which could claim to put up a meaningful resistance against the US. The main reason why Iran is a harder to crack is geography, if you want to do any kind of land invasion. If you just want to bomb them, you certainly can do that, but the Chinese would not like that at all. They have long time oil contracts with Iran. The Russians would also not like any military intervention at this time, although they also do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but they just don't like the US to go around bombing sovereign countries in what is practically their backyard.

[Simon_Jester]

Its really irrelevant. COMPASS isn't slated to reach worldwide coverage until 2020, GLOSNASS is still short satillites, and Galileo won't be able provide a quality worldwide signal until 2014.

Everybody else in the world is designing weapons they expect to keep and be able to use until mid-century; why can't the Iranians? Granted it's comically low performance compared to what the superpowers design for themselves, it's still not really different from the US "unveiling" the F-35 years before the first ones rolled off the production line, and still more years before they were actually fit for service (which still hasn't happened yet).

is it just me or does it look like they just remade the V3?

This is more sophisticated than the V1, probably; it's just not up to snuff by modern standards. Just sticking a civilian GPS unit on gets rid of the biggest single problem the V1 faced- winding up miles off target.

[ShadowDragon8685]

So, the basic idea of this thing is dirt-simple: zerg-rush with shittons of expendible, cheap-ass drones that are each carrying a big bomb or two medium bombs (or presumably, four small bombs?)

Tactically, it's the exact opposite approach of our ultramodern jet aircraft - instead of being so invisible nobody can see it to shoot it, they send so many that modern anti-aircraft defense can't even hope to shoot them all down, basically swarming over the enemy's base; if they lose one, it's no big deal, if they get one onto target and it hits, and then they lose it, even better, and any that make it back to base for another run are gravy?

Quantity over quality. As Shep said, it might well work by virtue of simply overwhelming all of a given air-bases SAM launchers and having another wave show up when none of the batteries are loaded.


It also makes me wonder, what kind of defense should be developed against this kind of attack? Some kind of modification on, say, a CIWS would seem to be appropriate, though you'd need a fair lot of them, and for ground-based permanent deployment you'd probably want to stick them up pretty high, on a tower-like thing, to get nice clear fields of fire...

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, the obvious counter to these drones are radar-guided AA guns like the ZSU-23, or for that matter gun-equipped fighters. SAMs are a tricky proposition both because of the time taken to reload the launchers.

Also it's kind of annoying to have to use million dollar SAMs to shoot down half million dollar planes that would otherwise destroy ten million dollar targets. You lose less hard by firing the SAM, but you still lose in some sense.

[Shroom Man 777]

Gun-equipped fighters? The time and fuel it takes to chase one of these drone cruise missiles, and come close enough to try manually shooting it down with guns, would make dealing with the missile swarm a total bitch.

The best way to defeat these missiles is to send bombers to blow the fuck out of the enemy and reduce his own capabilities of shooting back with these cruise missile-drones. Attacking him to destroy his ability to attack you, rather then sit down and be defensive while he throws wave after wave of crappy drones at you.

Oh. Lasers. Good counter!

[ShadowDragon8685]

So, how long before Iran gets the idea to start selling these zergrushing wonder-weapons straight out of the '70s to other powers in the region, which may not have the money to affordably field a brand-new fleet of Russian export-jets (since they'll just get shot down anyway,) but can certainly afford to blow some disposable chaff-drones on bombing the living daylights out of their targets du jour?

And how much longer after that before air-defenses in the region start to look like a game of your average Tower Defense flash game?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Gun-equipped fighters? The time and fuel it takes to chase one of these drone cruise missiles, and come close enough to try manually shooting it down with guns, would make dealing with the missile swarm a total bitch.

Manned gun-fighters aren't the answer. Unmanned ones would be too fuel-prohibitive to keep them up all the time, unless they were some kind of solar-panel-powered electro-prop, and then it becomes questionable if they'd have the speed to catch these things.

The best way to defeat these missiles is to send bombers to blow the fuck out of the enemy and reduce his own capabilities of shooting back with these cruise missile-drones. Attacking him to destroy his ability to attack you, rather then sit down and be defensive while he throws wave after wave of crappy drones at you.

True, but the problem is that unless you're already in a war, that's not an option. The best offense is only a good defense when offense is an acceptable option. We haven't gone and pre-emptively bombed everyone else's air forces back into the stone age for a reason. You need a way to prevent these things from getting to you after they've already been launched without warning.

Oh. Lasers. Good counter!

There is always room for lasers. Lasers make everything better.

[MKSheppard]

Gun-equipped fighters? The time and fuel it takes to chase one of these drone cruise missiles, and come close enough to try manually shooting it down with guns, would make dealing with the missile swarm a total bitch.

There's also the fact the enemy can simply have his drones fly at 75 feet above ground level via radar altimeter. It's kind of hard to do a gun kill if you're worried about smacking into the ground.

One [Lightning Bug] suffered a malfunction in its flight-control computer and decided to fly at an altitude of 150 feet (45 m) instead of 1,500 feet (450 m) as planned. The drone made it back safely, though photo interpreters were startled to find out that the images included a picture of a power line tower, taken from underneath the power lines. The picture was posted on the unit bulletin board, with a caption provided by the commander: "The FAA frowns on this bullshit!"

But yes; the solution is as others have said -- lasers, or some sort of really cheap multimode missle that costs $50,000 and can be left unmanned in remote box launchers that get radioed fire signals via remote network, like NetFires was for FCS.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yeah, the obvious counter to these drones are radar-guided AA guns like the ZSU-23, or for that matter gun-equipped fighters. SAMs are a tricky proposition both because of the time taken to reload the launchers.

Your friendly international defense company has already designed a solution (there are others, but this is one of the better ones): the Oerlikon Skyshield. Although I'm sure if any of the US military branches, with the possible exception of the USMC, would buy it they would demand so much gold plating that it would take at least five years to actually field it.

It also comes with effectors. It appears that the people writing the Rheinmetall press releases do not read Iain M. Banks...

A question for Sea Skimmer or somebody else with good information: is 'effector' a commonly used word nowadays for the actual weapons in a weapon system? I haven't seen it before in that meaning.

[Shroom Man 777]

So, how long before Iran gets the idea to start selling these zergrushing wonder-weapons straight out of the '70s to other powers in the region, which may not have the money to affordably field a brand-new fleet of Russian export-jets (since they'll just get shot down anyway,) but can certainly afford to blow some disposable chaff-drones on bombing the living daylights out of their targets du jour?

Depends on the cost. Depends if the customers can buy in bulk to make it worthwhile. It's not like the market is lacking in terms of old Soviet artillery rockets, SCUDs, and stuff like that. Hell, it depends on whether the Iranians can get this thing to work at all, and how it performs compared to other pre-existing systems.

And how much longer after that before air-defenses in the region start to look like a game of your average Tower Defense flash game?

Isn't that what it looked like in WW2?

The best way to defeat these missiles is to send bombers to blow the fuck out of the enemy and reduce his own capabilities of shooting back with these cruise missile-drones. Attacking him to destroy his ability to attack you, rather then sit down and be defensive while he throws wave after wave of crappy drones at you.

True, but the problem is that unless you're already in a war, that's not an option. The best offense is only a good defense when offense is an acceptable option. We haven't gone and pre-emptively bombed everyone else's air forces back into the stone age for a reason. You need a way to prevent these things from getting to you after they've already been launched without warning.

The fear of retaliating with the bombers will prevent them from launching the drone-missile-swarm? You say the best offense is only a good defense when offense is an acceptable option. So if they launch drone-shits, then they make offense an acceptable option, and that offense is a great defense because that offense will flatten their nation, and that is a great defense because when their nation is flattened by your offense then there'll be nothing left to defend against.

So, yeah. You would be more scared of punching someone if that someone can punch you back and kill you with one punch, then if that guy would just stand there and block your punch.

[Sea Skimmer]

Your friendly international defense company has already designed a solution (there are others, but this is one of the better ones): the Oerlikon Skyshield. Although I'm sure if any of the US military branches, with the possible exception of the USMC, would buy it they would demand so much gold plating that it would take at least five years to actually field it.

Buying Skyguard which can also use missiles would make a lot more sense then buying its specialist Skyshield anti rocket and mortar variant don't you think? But it would still be irrational to buy such a large system when we've already bought dozens of self contained Centurion C-RAM firing units. If you are concerned about gold plating then a system moved on one trailer sure beats a system moved on three trailers. It would be rather simple to change the software on C-RAM back to making them anti aircraft rather then anti mortar weapons. C-RAM really is just an outgrowth of concepts going back to the 1980s to put Phalanx on a truck for air base defense. But no light automatic gun system can defend a very large area, and the tent cities around US bases can extend for miles. Army base areas could go for tens of miles. A gun would be more relevant against really tiny and slow drones, not so much ones capable of 500mph at which point the flaming wreck is still likely to land on the base.

Lasers will be real nice because even a 'short' effective range of 5km or so would still be far better then what a 20-40mm gun can manage. One of those RAND studies also suggests you might need .50cal guns on towers to defend against micro drone assault, this is probably true in the absence of a laser. One problem with the micro drones is they basically are the same size and speed as birds... they might be flapping wing in the future too. Think about how annoying that will make life for any automatic defense system! You'd need to have a man in the loop, and that means it takes longer to decide to open fire. The instant effects of a laser can help make up the time lost.

The main problem with cruise missiles and low flying drones is ever detecting and identifying them in the first place with worthwhile warning time, all the more so since the USAF is still stuck with the dated E-3 Sentry. Meanwhile the E-10 is dead, and other planned deployments of its MP-RTIP radar have been progressively scaled back. That radar is intended mainly as a ground search sensor but it’s also intended to be highly capable for looking down at low flying air targets. The aerostat radar, is moving along but it’s still many years away from service and will have trouble with weather as any aerosat does.

Once you can detect and track the low flying threat you can use a lot of options to counter it together. One pretty rational idea to solve the need for area coverage as opposed to mere point defense is simply to turn other target-decoy types of drones into low cost yet long range SAMs. You get way more range then something like Sparrow or ground launched AMRAAM, and yet you can still dream of buying several of them for the price of a 3.8 million dollar Patriot missile.

A question for Sea Skimmer or somebody else with good information: is 'effector' a commonly used word nowadays for the actual weapons in a weapon system? I haven't seen it before in that meaning.

I've seen it used now and then, not common I think.

[Simon_Jester]

Gun-equipped fighters? The time and fuel it takes to chase one of these drone cruise missiles, and come close enough to try manually shooting it down with guns, would make dealing with the missile swarm a total bitch.

OK, you're right, it was a bad idea. I was imagining these things coming in a big solid wave, in which case the problem of interception would be reduced because they're all on more or less the same course and speed.

The best way to defeat these missiles is to send bombers to blow the fuck out of the enemy and reduce his own capabilities of shooting back with these cruise missile-drones. Attacking him to destroy his ability to attack you, rather then sit down and be defensive while he throws wave after wave of crappy drones at you.

It's certainly more fun; the difficulty is the risk that it'll be the prelude to a surprise attack and you won't get a chance to reply effectively before he hits whatever he was aiming at.

[Shroom Man 777]

The bomber force deterrent is there to convince the enemy in the unwiseness of carrying out a surprise attack. Because even if he thinks he can hit whatever he was aiming at, he'll also think it's not worth doing that because he'll know your retaliatory bomber strike will also hit what it's aimed at - namely his ovaries.

Effectors = hydraulic shit. As wiki says.

[Patroklos]

The cheap and easy answer is just to jam all of them, this would not be hard for a localized defense.

Additionally, if you direct enough radar energy at them you will essentially get a soft kill, assuming they are not hardened.