• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Anti quadcopter missile

Balu

Moderator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
#2
"That quadcopter that cost 200 bucks from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a [$3m] Patriot," he said.

:-D
 

PsyBorg

Wake up! Time to fly!
Mentor
#4
Well at least they know the Patriot has great "vision" and a high degree of accuracy. Better then having a system that is more like shooting a box of rubber bands at Godzilla.
 

JimCR120

Got Lobstah?
Site Moderator
#7
First I would point out that national defense in general is not about shooting stuff but rather defending a nation and its interests. Firefighters, when asked what their job is, many people will respond with, "fighting fires." Ask a fire fighter and he will respond with, "saving lives."

Whether we are squirting water from expensive trucks at a rapidly depreciating building or shooting expensive missiles at inexpensive drones the end result should be the same, preserve human life (the most precious thing on the planet).

When there is a real potential for injury to human life our first concern shouldn't be how much it costs to preserve life but rather ensure it can be done, then afterward seek to do it safely, effectively, and efficiently. Perhaps they could have done it more efficiently. How to do that would be a good discussion indeed. Whether they should put a dollar value on whether to save lives is another thing.

Since both evil exists and accidents happen we will forever be spending money and even risking lives in the pursuit of preserving life, and it is right to do so.
 

cranialrectosis

Faster than a speeding faceplant!
Mentor
#8
High tech wins battles. Low tech wins wars.

We have seen it time and again.

IMO this was an IQ test of someone with more dollars than sense.

This was not a win for whoever fired the missile. It was a win for the person operating the drone.