APKWS interceptor is about 35K USD and works much better than drone-based interceptors. The problem is to scale the production, training and deployment. Another problem is detection. One needs wast multilayered system that US military missed to build as big stationary radars are very hard to defend.
Air-launched interceptors like this have the problem on relying on a super-expensive manned carrier (fighter or helicopter).
The intercept cost is now not only the cost of the interceptor, but also the cost of the flying hours of the launching platform, and the risk of losing the launching platform.
If you equip even some of your Shaheds with AA missiles (cheap manpads with autonomous IR target acquisition and guidance), like is already happening in Ukraine, the feasibility of APKWS becomes problematic. The technology is developing fast these days.
APKWS launching from air is a stop-gap measure in any case. The detection range for Shahed-type drones is tenths of kilometers, not hundreds, like with fighter jets or big missiles. One cannot have that many fighter jets in the air all the time even without the threat of manpads.
But ground-based platforms work just fine and cheap enough to scale up the deployment to cover the big area.
The big advantage of APKWS over interceptor drones is the rocket engine, they are much faster and can catch Shaheds within much bigger radius or within much smaller timeframe than interceptor drones.
With Bayraktar it was a software update for radar that allowed for Russian to destroy them. The radar signature of Bayraktar was way off from a typical target that radars were looking for at the beginning of the war.
It is vastly more complicated to find targets at 1500 miles than at 20. So drones are effective at destroying big stationary civilian infrastructure and much less at long distance strikes at military targets. Russia's inability to destroy Ukrainian aviation is a good example.
But then with solar and batteries civilian infrastructure becomes much more resilient against drone strikes.
At a certain distance, I'd contend all infrastructure is big and static. Our energy comes from large facilities, without these facilities continent scale infrastructure will grind to a halt at 1500 miles. Rail, power lines, warehouses, factories and trucks are all relatively static. It's not unreasonable to expend a Shahed type drone on a simple semi-truck parked overnight from nearly a continent away. There are only 3 million semi-trucks in the entire US, and I'd be shocked if the country could run without them.
Ukraine tried to come up with drones that can fly over 1000 miles. But drones the size of Shaheds just cannot fly that distance without significantly reducing the warhead. To attack things beyond that range Ukraine have used essentially Cessna. Which is much more expensive and visible on radars.
Instead Ukraine came up with an idea of mass producing extremely simple cruise missiles that could fly 2000 miles and deliver up to a ton of explosives with a cost of 100K and make 1000 of them per month. But then it seems Russia was able to discover the production sites and destroy them.
> It is vastly more complicated to find targets at 1500 miles than at 20.
It's true but they are so cheap that launching a whole bunch and/or improving them incrementally is possible. Yeah they are for stationary targets mostly, for sure. And of course their sounds and relatively low speed does make them somewhat easier to shoot down with short range AA guns and can have automated acoustic early warning system (it's like a flying lawnmower or chainsaw).
Average age of cars in Norway is higher than in many other countries due to high taxes on cars.
And then in China number of cars per capita is much less then in West. As more and more people there can afford a car and that car will be EV, transitioning to mostly EV should happen faster than in Norway.
Russia has been recovering from Ukrainian drone strikes again oil industries within months. And Ukraine inflicted much serious damage than Iran on Gulf states.
Drones with 100-150kg just not capable of inflicting hard to recover damage. What they are good is striking repeatedly. But judging by numbers Iran is not capable any longer of sustained stacks with hundreds of drones per day.
Very interesting take. Not sure about the comparisons though: 1) Russia is a huge powerhouse that can do a lot on its own, I don't think Gulf states have the same capability to recover (at least that's what energy analysts are saying), 2) The US claimed they had completely maimed Iran in the first few days of the war, saying they had fully destroyed their navy and their missile launching capabilities. However, that clearly doesn't seem to be the case, and yesterday Iran even downed an F35, which until then was thought of as an almost impossible feat
I guess there's a lot up in the air right now, so I personally wouldn't bet on things getting better that quickly
The same analysts predicted that it would take years for Russia to recover from the strikes. And Russia is no longer a powerhouse. They gets most of their equipment from China including the oil and gas industries.
As for Iran just count the number of drones it uses per day. They started from hundreds but now it is below 50.
With this prices it is cheaper to make fuel from coal, the break even price was about 80-90 USD/barrel. And if this continues for months this will pushes wind and solar and electrical cars making natural gas and oil much less relevant. Maybe that was the plan.
> And if this continues for months this will pushes wind and solar and electrical cars making natural gas and oil much less relevant. Maybe that was the plan.
This is one of the most batshit insane things I've ever read. What on Earth would make you think this?
I doubt it was anyone's plan. However it is likely the effect - you can build more wind and solar anywhere. Asia is finding it hard to get oil which means anyplace in Asia that gets power from wind/solar (or coal - but not where the investments will go although there are a number of things like that in play) instead of oil/gas will have no problems. People unable to get gas who see EVs still working will want one - those with money will buy them. People who see EVs stranded too (because the local power is oil/gas) will still be mad - but they will ask what can change, and wind/solar are right there are cheap answers and so they will get it.
Of course the open question is how long will this last? If this situation ends this week (seems unlikely but...) people will go back to what they did before and forget about this until the next oil crisis - just like every other one. However if this drags on a few years expect major changes in energy mix as people find other answers. Either way, wind/solar are cheap and so utilities around the world are looking to get some installed because it is generally a great investment.
"Trump started the war in Iran to make green energy and EVs more desirable" is an actual conspiracy theory that is going around, although, ya, definitely an unintended consequence.
High oil prices does increase demand for petrodollar, but EV adoption decreases. But I don't think revenue from petrodollar really matters much when you spend nearly $1b per day on missiles.
I think real irony is that Iran keeps shipping oil to China and India. At which point US will start nabbing these tankers?
I don't think the US wants a war with China yet, so bombing a Chinese tanker sounds like a bad idea, but Trump isn't exactly the most stable genius, so who knows.
India is right next to Iran, it would be really hard to cut off trade between them. Pakistan definitely doesn't want to get involved (being an ally of the US AND China).
reply