Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A US Ally Shot Down a $200 Drone With a $3 Million Patriot Missile (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the economics-101 dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report on The Verge: Earlier this week, General David Perkins, the commander of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) spoke at the Association of the US Army's Global Force symposium, where he discussed the threats that the US military would begin to face in the coming years. One notable example is how a US ally recently shot down a $200 consumer drone with a $3.4 million worth Patriot Missile. Perkins' talk during the symposium focused on the complexity of a military organization in the field, and how the interconnected nature of air, ground, and sea forces can lead to a fragmented response to a threat between the commanders who are in charge of specific areas. [...] "The gut instinct was," he explains, "that's an air defense problem, because they're in the air." "In fact," he went on to say, "we have a very close ally of ours that was dealing with an adversary using small quadcopter UASs, and they shot it down with a Patriot missile." The problem, he said, wasn't effectiveness: the tiny drone didn't stand a chance -- the issue is economics.

12 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Potential Damages? by Scoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess a potentially more interesting question is whether that drone could have done $3.4 million of damage via surveillance or something. Seems unlikely in this case, but if we're talking some kind of super top secret installation then it might be worth that kind of force to make sure it's really, really blown up.

    Still worth investigating sufficient response that's more economical.

    1. Re:Potential Damages? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Still worth investigating sufficient response that's more economical.

      Maybe they could contract with that shotgun-toting old woman from Virginia.

    2. Re:Potential Damages? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess a potentially more interesting question is whether that drone could have done $3.4 million of damage

      Note that this is purely a thought exercise and I would never ever think about doing this in real life (FBI take note of this disclaimer!)

      1. Buy some large sized consumer drone off craigslist for cash. (bonus points for showing up in a stolen car and having a disguise)
      2. Modify them to drop small canisters of red paint.
      3. Re-flash the software to ignore all flight restrictions
      4. Wait until the president is at Mar-A-Largo
      5. Program the drones to fly to 1000 feet, drop down over the target and release their "bombs" over visible areas and then fly out to sea on a random flight path until their batteries run out
      6. Release the hounds^w drones at night (or more bonus points for the middle of a golf game)
      7. Wash. Rinse. Repeat at other locations.
      8. Sit back and watch the government spend a shitload more than $3.4 million as they try to control the situation.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Potential Damages? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't a new issue with drones. I recall a debriefing from the Iraq war where an Apache pilot was asked what he thought the cost of the missiles that he fired and the value of the convoy of trucks that he destroyed were. Hopefully the trucks contained something important to the enemy's war effort, because otherwise he'd spent a few million dollars to destroy a few tens of thousands of dollars. One of the strategies that's been core military doctrine since the US-Soviet conflict in Afghanistan (and Vietnam before that) has been to try to make your enemy outspend you by a large margin. A superpower like the USA might be able to afford to spend $100 for every $1 you spend, but starts to struggle when it has to spend $1,000 or even $10,000 for every $1 that you spend.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Potential Damages? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Funny

      The headline should read "Patriot missile finally shoots something down"

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:Potential Damages? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's talk about the F-35 in this context, shall we....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. On the bright side... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... this conclusively disproves all of the naysayers who claim that the Patriot missile doesn't work.

  3. Free stuff by ghoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with free stuff. When you are getting the Patriot missiles free from the US but the bullets from a rifle are paid by your national govt, the Patriot is the more cost effective solution.
    Children in US dont have healthcare because the govt is busy spending billions on hight tech toys like Patriots.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Free stuff by psycho12345 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excellent, we can finally write off the 3rd world conservative states who can't fund such things. We liberals can sit back and enjoy the show. A pity we are forced to subsidize them for now, but at last, we have our future free labor from desperate states.

  4. Big problems come in small packages... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the price of a Patriot missile, the enemy could have bought 1,500 drones to overwhelm air defenses with multiple targets.

  5. Getting my money's worth by halltk1983 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can I at least get the video so it's not a complete waste of my tax dollars?

    --
    Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  6. Rifle Bullet? No? by Eloking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, we're talking consumer drone so we're talking what? ~500 feet (~150m) and 100 mph? (~160kph)

    Why don't they simply shoot at it with their rifle?

    --
    Elok