• istanbullu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    The problem is the huge cost differential. You can do all of that, and get a tank that costs 20 million each that can shoot down drones. The enemy then just sends more cheap drones at it.

    Huge metal cans are no longer cost effective weapons.

    • TraumaDumpling@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      it wouldnt cost 20 million if it werent for MIC grifting, one of those tanks could take out a swarm of cheap drones with an autocannon burst of airbust shells. Drones are not going to replace tanks and infantry, they are simply going to change how they are built and used, and what weapons and engineering features are considered necessary. Like airplanes didn’t completely remove the need for naval power, it just made aircraft carriers important instead of destroyers. it is ignorant tech hype to assume that the Current Trending Thing is going to be the be-all end-all of warfare, there is no reason to believe that. Drones are going to be a part of warfare, they are not going to replace it.

      • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        a huge metal can will be very expensive no matter what. tanks don’t make much economic sense anymore.