On 7/19/26 18:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:38:31 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Meanwhile, everything made in USA costs a million dollars per unit
and take forever to build.

I forget who said 'Generals do not end wars; accountants do.' Estimates
vary but the Tamir missile used by Iron Dome costs around $50K. When you
use them to blow up a $5K DJI drone the costs add up fast. That's chicken
feed compared to the cost of a Tomahawk.

The USA and Israel are getting deep into laser weapons now for that
reason, but I'm just waiting for drones/missiles to arrive sporting
mirrors designed to reflect those beams back and set fire to things
on the ground instead.

Um ... that would NOT be so difficult/expensive
to do :-)

Even a sub-micron of gold on the missile body
would reflect most laser attacks. Putting a
'lens' pattern, retroflectors, in that would
kinda help do what you said.

Alas, "phasors", particle-beam weapons, have
proven impractical - at least within an
atmosphere.

This leaves lasers and, to an extent, masers.

But over-heating a big missile in flight with
a laser ... NOT as easy as it sounds. Lasers
may be better for blasting little DRONES. This
WILL be useful, but not the WHOLE modern picture.

Governments, esp the USA, still have this fixation
on giant warships/bombers and such. Lots of troops
to salute the high officers, very impressive. Alas
these are now huge slow TARGETS. Massive money for
something that will be blown up almost instantly.

The MODERN paradigm - pioneered by Ukraine - is
the "nest of hornets" picture.

Sometimes attributed to Stalin - "Quantity has
a quality all of its own". Ukraine has proven
that. Dirt-cheap drones, but LOTS of them, get
through 20th-century defenses very well.

On 19/07/2026 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:38:31 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Meanwhile, everything made in USA costs a million dollars per unit
and take forever to build.

I forget who said 'Generals do not end wars; accountants do.' Estimates
vary but the Tamir missile used by Iron Dome costs around $50K. When you
use them to blow up a $5K DJI drone the costs add up fast. That's chicken
feed compared to the cost of a Tomahawk.

The USA and Israel are getting deep into laser weapons now

UK already has them

for that
reason, but I'm just waiting for drones/missiles to arrive sporting
mirrors designed to reflect those beams back and set fire to things
on the ground instead.

Not very aerodynamic.
Easier to buzz along hugging the terrain.

Your general purpose drone deploys photovoltaic 'wings' by day and
crawls, swims or flies towards its target until it smells the particular
DNA combination in the air, when its off like a bloodhound to its
intended target, and it's bye bye Trump, or Putin, or Justin Bieber...
--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 2026-07-20 06:52, c186282 wrote:

On 7/19/26 18:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:38:31 -0400, c186282 wrote:

    Meanwhile, everything made in USA costs a million dollars per unit >>>>     and take forever to build.

I forget who said 'Generals do not end wars; accountants do.'  Estimates >>> vary but the Tamir missile used by Iron Dome costs around $50K. When you >>> use them to blow up a $5K DJI drone the costs add up fast. That's
chicken
feed compared to the cost of a Tomahawk.

The USA and Israel are getting deep into laser weapons now for that
reason, but I'm just waiting for drones/missiles to arrive sporting
mirrors designed to reflect those beams back and set fire to things
on the ground instead.

  Um ... that would NOT be so difficult/expensive
  to do :-)

  Even a sub-micron of gold on the missile body
  would reflect most laser attacks. Putting a
  'lens' pattern, retroflectors, in that would
  kinda help do what you said.

  Alas, "phasors", particle-beam weapons, have
  proven impractical - at least within an
  atmosphere.

  This leaves lasers and, to an extent, masers.

  But over-heating a big missile in flight with
  a laser ... NOT as easy as it sounds. Lasers
  may be better for blasting little DRONES. This
  WILL be useful, but not the WHOLE modern picture.

  Governments, esp the USA, still have this fixation
  on giant warships/bombers and such. Lots of troops
  to salute the high officers, very impressive. Alas
  these are now huge slow TARGETS. Massive money for
  something that will be blown up almost instantly.

Iran has not yet blown an air carrier over there.

  The MODERN paradigm - pioneered by Ukraine - is
  the "nest of hornets" picture.

  Sometimes attributed to Stalin - "Quantity has
  a quality all of its own". Ukraine has proven
  that. Dirt-cheap drones, but LOTS of them, get
  through 20th-century defenses very well.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

On 20/07/2026 13:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Iran has not yet blown an air carrier over there.

   The MODERN paradigm - pioneered by Ukraine - is
   the "nest of hornets" picture.

There is no one solution, and an F35 certainly isn't it.

Low speed drone swarms are best countered by medium speed drone swarms

Ballistic missiles probably need a patriot system or lasers.

Gliding bombs are a pain. Probably a drone system or proximity cannon shells
--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:13:27 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Iran has not yet blown an air carrier over there.

Not yet. Maybe because they fear that Drumpf will use nukes to
retaliate. To stroke his ego, he would use at least 3, because that's
one more than they used in WWII.

I think Iran could have easily hit one or more ships in that fleet. Look
at what Ukraine is doing with the Russian shadow fleet and their oil
tankers.
--
s|b

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:13:27 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Iran has not yet blown an air carrier over there.

Not yet. Maybe because they fear that Drumpf will use nukes to
retaliate. To stroke his ego, he would use at least 3, because that's
one more than they used in WWII.

I've seen press reports (I have no idea of their actual accuracy) that indicate that the US Navy is keeping the carriers far away from the
believed reach of Iran's drones, just so they can't get hit (well,
hopefully)

I think Iran could have easily hit one or more ships in that fleet.
Look at what Ukraine is doing with the Russian shadow fleet and their
oil tankers.

If they (the carriers) were positioned close enough to strike I would
have expected some attempts to do so already.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:24:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/07/2026 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:38:31 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Meanwhile, everything made in USA costs a million dollars per
unit and take forever to build.

I forget who said 'Generals do not end wars; accountants do.'
Estimates vary but the Tamir missile used by Iron Dome costs around
$50K. When you use them to blow up a $5K DJI drone the costs add up
fast. That's chicken feed compared to the cost of a Tomahawk.

The USA and Israel are getting deep into laser weapons now

UK already has them

DragonFire might be operational next year and may live up to the hype. Apparently US air defense systems aren't 100% successful, The media seem reluctant to examine the repercussions of Iran hitting US assets in
Jordan.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

I've seen press reports (I have no idea of their actual accuracy) that indicate that the US Navy is keeping the carriers far away from the
believed reach of Iran's drones, just so they can't get hit (well,
hopefully)

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal if
you have to park them 1000 miles away. I don't know if the Iranians have
the capability but China and Russia certainly do.

On 20/07/2026 19:30, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

I've seen press reports (I have no idea of their actual accuracy) that
indicate that the US Navy is keeping the carriers far away from the
believed reach of Iran's drones, just so they can't get hit (well,
hopefully)

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal if
you have to park them 1000 miles away.

Well they will have to do. No one wants US aircraft on their nations
land anymore
--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

I've seen press reports (I have no idea of their actual accuracy) that
indicate that the US Navy is keeping the carriers far away from the
believed reach of Iran's drones, just so they can't get hit (well,
hopefully)

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal if
you have to park them 1000 miles away. I don't know if the Iranians have
the capability but China and Russia certainly do.

Yes indeed. Just as "aircraft" made the "battleship" obselete, what we
are seeing is the fact that "drone swarms" and/or "cheap drones" are
making the "aircraft carrier" ship obselete as well.

Yes, less useful if parked 1000mi away, although the planes on board
may still have enough range to be somewhat useful at that distance.
But the longer the travel from launch to engagement, the less fuel
remaining for that "engagement" which does whittle down the "air power"
angle quite a lot.

Although this page: https://www.flyajetfighter.com/the-real-range-of-modern-fighter-planes/
looks to indicate that 1000mi (1600km) starts to put a number of
warplanes at a point where they have limited engagement possibilites
unless they start out carrying extra tanks, which mean less ordinance,
before they would have to return to refuel, or return to an air tanker
to refuel -- but then the air tanker must be kept beyond harms way,
because it makes an especially juicy target as taking it out reduces a
lot of the attack capability of the war planes.

On 20 Jul 2026 18:30:21 GMT, rbowman wrote:

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal if
you have to park them 1000 miles away. I don't know if the Iranians have
the capability but China and Russia certainly do.

Ukraine has drones that can fly over 3.000 km, so if Iran has those,
then those carriers will have to park them even further.
--
s|b

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:24:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/07/2026 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:38:31 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Meanwhile, everything made in USA costs a million dollars per
unit and take forever to build.

I forget who said 'Generals do not end wars; accountants do.'
Estimates vary but the Tamir missile used by Iron Dome costs
around $50K. When you use them to blow up a $5K DJI drone the
costs add up fast. That's chicken feed compared to the cost of a
Tomahawk.

The USA and Israel are getting deep into laser weapons now

UK already has them

DragonFire might be operational next year and may live up to the
hype. Apparently US air defense systems aren't 100% successful, The
media seem reluctant to examine the repercussions of Iran hitting US
assets in Jordan.

And therein lies the problem with "swarms of cheap drones". The
attacker can build, and launch, 50 "low cost drones" (granted, $50k
seems a lot, but it is 'low cost' as compared to a US Military missle
of 5M and up each) at an attack target.

The drone defense has to be 100% perfect every time because if even one
drone survives to its target, some damage will be taken by the target.
And it is very unlikely *any* of the air/drone defense systems are 100% perfect every time.

Plus, if the "drone defence" is firing anything that is more costly to
build than the drone itself, then there is a significant asymetric cost
factor applied to the defender as well.

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On 20 Jul 2026 18:30:21 GMT, rbowman wrote:

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal if
you have to park them 1000 miles away. I don't know if the Iranians have
the capability but China and Russia certainly do.

Ukraine has drones that can fly over 3.000 km, so if Iran has those,
then those carriers will have to park them even further.

An aircraft carrier that has to park over 3000km away from the
engagement zone is all but useless. So yes, if Iran aquires 3000km
range drones, the US Navy air squads will basically have to retreat and
remain away.

That would seriously hurt the orange turds ability to continue to push
his vanity war.

On 20/07/2026 20:39, s|b wrote:

On 20 Jul 2026 18:30:21 GMT, rbowman wrote:

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal if
you have to park them 1000 miles away. I don't know if the Iranians have
the capability but China and Russia certainly do.

Ukraine has drones that can fly over 3.000 km, so if Iran has those,
then those carriers will have to park them even further.

We can be thankful that Islam does not mesh well with Science.
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 20/07/2026 21:26, Rich wrote:

That would seriously hurt the orange turds ability to continue to push
his vanity war.

I think its all about money really.
US military is for hire to the highest bidder..
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 20:21:32 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

Plus, if the "drone defence" is firing anything that is more costly to
build than the drone itself, then there is a significant asymetric cost factor applied to the defender as well.

They are more flying sewer pipes than drones but taking out a $500 Qassam rocket with a $50,000 Tamir missile is asymmetric. A Qassam can't hit the proverbial broad side of a barn but it might get lucky and hit something
other than a sheep so they can't be ignored.

Something that might actually hit a HVT ups the game considerably.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:36:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/07/2026 19:30, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

I've seen press reports (I have no idea of their actual accuracy) that
indicate that the US Navy is keeping the carriers far away from the
believed reach of Iran's drones, just so they can't get hit (well,
hopefully)

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal
if you have to park them 1000 miles away.

Well they will have to do. No one wants US aircraft on their nations
land anymore

Is your new boy going to kick the USAF out? Assuming he lasts longer than
a mayfly At least you don't have things falling out of the sky like
Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:29:09 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

https://www.flyajetfighter.com/the-real-range-of-modern-fighter-planes/
looks to indicate that 1000mi (1600km) starts to put a number of
warplanes at a point where they have limited engagement possibilites
unless they start out carrying extra tanks, which mean less ordinance,
before they would have to return to refuel, or return to an air tanker
to refuel -- but then the air tanker must be kept beyond harms way,
because it makes an especially juicy target as taking it out reduces a
lot of the attack capability of the war planes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_2026_Iran_war

I don't know to what extent they were specifically targets but KC-135s are
the second most popular things to destroy after Reapers. Reportedly 2 were
an own goal.

I take the list cum grano salis. I blame my cynicism on early influences.
I was quite young when my grandmother listened to the radio while doing housework but I can recall the breathless reporting of how many MiGs had
been shot down that day in MiG Alley. I wasn't entirely sure what a 'mig'
was but I think the US shot down more MiG-15s than were ever made at the
time. The NK bag for the day wasn't mentioned.

I was more aware when the reports said we were winning bigly in Vietnam
until we weren't. I've lost count of how many times we've put Iran in its place.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 21:53:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/07/2026 20:39, s|b wrote:

On 20 Jul 2026 18:30:21 GMT, rbowman wrote:

Aircraft carriers are 20th century technology. They lose their appeal
if you have to park them 1000 miles away. I don't know if the Iranians
have the capability but China and Russia certainly do.

Ukraine has drones that can fly over 3.000 km, so if Iran has those,
then those carriers will have to park them even further.

We can be thankful that Islam does not mesh well with Science.

I'm not so sure about that. Arabs don't seem to be able to understand
anything more complex than a camel but Persians aren't Arabs. The rock
stars of the 'Golden age of Islam' were mostly Persian.

Quite a few Christians don't mesh well with Science, including the
Christian Scientists. They've had their moments but Catholics seem to do a better job than the Evangelicals.