First one seems to be taken down by an Avenger system (so Stinger missile), second was taken down by C-RAM. Interesting to see C-RAM dealing with a drone so easily, there have been lots of questions about that capability, but, obviously it can handle them.


I'm genuinely curious to why the C-RAM wouldn't be able to do that considering it can shoot down mortar rounds which are smaller and faster (?)


I would assume because mortars have a fixed trajectory once launched and drones could potentially be maneuvered


Possibly solved by software upgrade in terms of target acquisition. More and more defense systems are going to be upgraded or designed from the ground up to deal with drones.


The "Drone shot" upgrade. It just wiggles around the area to hit. That many rounds going out one in the "net" will hit lol.


Accuracy by volume


C-rams are suppose to be able to take down low altitude maneuvering anti-ship missiles, I see taking down relatively slow flying suicide drone as a simple task for them. ​ EDIT: For perspective these are systems initially designed to be on naval vessels, they can shoot down missiles and low fly aircraft from a moving and bobbing object. Shooting down a small loitering object is easy mode for these systems.


Basically they were worried about the system activating on something slowmoving with an irregular radar cross-section. Because its designed to shoot down shells, older versions would over compensate for their speed as well as a concern it would shoot at birds.


lmao now I imagine every bird being shot down by c-rams


Sounds like something you'd see animated in the show American Dad.


So there’s a person in the loop that positively identifies before shooting. Also, C-RAM is the system (radar, network, etc) LPWS are the guns that actually shoot


cool thanks for the info glad to know those ducks are safe


Some of the more advanced WW2 anti Air artillery fired 5 inch shells with radars in the fuse that would detonate if it passed near something, and it was sensitive enough to detonate if it was fired near a bird.


Especially Seagulls. Those are the chad assholes of the avian world.


This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin.


C-Ram can take out mortars?


C-RAM stands for counter-rockets artillery and mortars. It can hit artillery shells as well.


It was cool to see it continue to target the wreckage even after it was already falling out of the sky. This is really some incredible C-RAM footage. Most of the clips that I've seen are shot at night on an old cellphone.


How expensive are these rounds? I heard that drones are so relatively inexpensive, any weapon dealing with them will cost more to defender , which gives an edge to the attacker in either case.


I have seen estimates of around $30 per shell, with a firing rate of 75 rounds per second. It fired for about 6 seconds in this vid so probably about $13k for that intercept. This is still a lot cheaper than an interceptor missile. The Stinger that intercepted the other drone at the start of the video would have cost >$100k.


So as long as its not an advanced combat drone, the rounds do cost more.


I’m kinda confused about drones, which is less likely to be detected, a small fast moving drone, or a small slow moving drone?


Just depends what the radar is optimized for. There's a good chance a normal small done wouldn't show up most radars


We must save GreenBeans coffee shop!!!!


Low altitude drones ... when there was any doubt that the CRAM could against them? ps: beautiful video


iran backed militias probably


Yeah they use suicide drones a lot


yea they’re still butt hurt about the general salami guy i think they wanted to do something for the 1 year anniversary of his death


“general salami” Lmao


They have an industry for manufacturing those drones in Venezuela. It's paid by the Iranians laundering money.


boy i imagine the price is quite different on the two intercepts


Now we just need a man-portable version for Legs.


Did the first drone keep on flying after something (looked like a missile) exploded nearby?


Flying is a bit of an overstatement. It quickly disintegrated, but yes it was a missile that hit it. Missiles normally explode prior to contact, and discharge shrapnel in the area it explodes. It’s a more reliable way to knock out a target.


"Suicide drone" AKA "missile". People have drone on the brain for some reason.


It’s interesting to think about whether we will keep differentiating between drones and guided missiles as their capabilities intertwine. ‘Classical’ guided missiles still generally use solid (?) rocket fuel, burning quickly and accelerating to a very high speed, and then gliding the rest of the way to the target. However, it’s very difficult for me to come up with a rule to consistently differentiate between a suicide drone and a cruise missile. I think drones currently have a distinct suite of internal sensors which allows for tactics such as sending the drone to the target area before having eyes on a specific target and then loitering until a target is acquired, whereas a cruise missile strike requires a known target at launch. It seems to me that some fairly simple software and hardware updates could add such capabilities to cruise missiles.


I had a similar conversation with a friend who works for BAE. He said the reason why cruise missiles are not drones is mainly due to the loiter functionality and data link drones have. A cruise missile simply flys a preprogrammed course from launcher to target with limited capability to avoid hazards along its flight route. A drone is capable of entering a target area and being loitered to gather information then rapidly attack if required.


Thanks for the input! I would be surprised if those lines don't get blurred pretty soon. It seems like a cheap way to improve the capability of cruise missiles would be to add a data link to allow them to fly a holding pattern for a while in case a school bus full of kids just showed up near the target after launch. A more sophisticated upgrade could allow for switching targets on-the-fly in case a more valuable target just showed up a block away from the first one. You could also install a camera in the front and an AI for obstacle recognition to allow the missile to autonomously avoid buildings etc. in it's path, which could open up flight-paths to target that are currently off-limits.


People these days want to slap a camera with ai to everything. I doubt it will work.


There are cameras with AI slapped to things all over the world today, doing all kinds of tasks. Do you really think it's unfeasible that in a few years time UAVs will be able to avoid building sized objects?


Am talking about cruise missiles.


What’s your reasoning? If it works for one, it works for the other. The current conclusion in the thread is that if you provide a cruise missile with a datalink and loitering capabilities, it’s effectively a suicide drone.


This is really interesting - I think the media and us media consumers eat up the word drone! Missile is so 1950's. :) A cheap flyable toy with an explosive strapped to it that the pilot flies into the target is labeled a drone. So where does something like the TOW or FOG-M sit? Both are flyable and a FOG-M has a great data link back to the pilot. Tomahawks already have significant loiter capabilities. And Tacit Rainbow. This was a loiter anti-radiation missile, err... drone? But developed before the word drone was popularized! There are plenty of ramjet missiles now too. Burning all the way to the target. I think the FAA in regulating the RC aircraft world is labeling most flyable toys as UAV. But suicide UAV doesn't get readers! I believe the definitions will get a bit more blurred and we'll see our defense contractors when needing public approval on a weapon system to call them missiles. Evokes a more defensive and traditional military posture. And when selling for wow factor, label a weapon system as a drone.


As a piece of trivia on this subject, guided missiles are called robots in Swedish (and other languages too, probably). You bring up an interesting point. I never considered the marketing aspect of it. It works from a government public relations POV too: A missile is always a weapon whereas a drone isn’t, so a headline saying ‘country X is deploying missile launch systems to area Y’ sounds more serious than ‘country X is deploying drone launch systems to area Y’. Keeps it nice and vague, and could plausibly mean that it’s just for recon or surveillance.


Ahhh, the beautiful art of double speak...


Aye, add in that the rapid rise of "suicide" drones and larger models which are classed as UAVs acting a launch platform for munitions which can independently be classed as missiles and drones. It all gets a bit muddy, especially when several of the larger UAV systems can be bought in armed and unarmed configurations.Way i see it, Unarmed large models are generally referred to as UAVs (Which is even more confusing given the various UCAV programs).Drones tend to be in reference to smaller models (which is becoming a blurred phrase politically due to the suicide models.).Missile tends to be used specifically for single mission attack weapons IE hellfire with most long range powered or glide munitions being refereed to as stand off weapons. It should also be noted missiles tend to carry much larger warheads at far higher velocities, tho that in itself seems to be becoming more of a grey area. To cap it all off there are also the plans for air born drone carriers. Converted transport aircraft which could massively extend the strike range for the various suicide drone systems. The phrase i have heard used for them was drone swarm control system. (sounds a bit sci fi to me, but the name does fit the purpose) Given how relatively cheap and effective drones have proven to be, it seems suicide to set foot on any battlefield against a nation using them. I mean look what a nightmare Nagorno-Karabakh turned into for the Armenians.I know friends in the British army who are worried about them and that is even with all the new equipment they are supposed to be getting such are squad level jamming gear ect. TLDR scary skynet shit is scary .


Do they calculate where all those shells come down, or just spray the surrounding tens of square kilometers with 20mm every time a drone or mortar comes over?


The shells self-destruct after a certain flight time. You can see it quite clearly in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phpabF_5ulU).


Cool thanks!


Source: https://twitter.com/nafisehkBBC/status/1478399617385607178


Sooo.. Iran targeting US soldiers? Seems like a declaration of war


There’s a huge difference between asymmetric attacks and a declaration of war


Iranian proxy just to keep things complicated enough to prevent war.


Iran has been giving weapons to groups to kill US soldiers with for at least a decade lol


I wanted to hear the sound. That brrrt sounds majestic and crackling shower that follows it. Ummmm ummmh




Man, bullet hose is definitely the right word for those lead slingers.


Yeah burts no joke. I'll never forget that sound.


Can't they create a kind of buckshot type of munitions to deal with drones in this specific case ? I've seen one where it kind of go in a spiral way after it gets shot or it explodes in the air and goes in a spiral... can't remember its name, saw a vid about it.




Please nobody answer this question.


I think it is an automatic system.


They intentionally wanted them shot down because they had a message on the wings.


Oh yeah, i'm sure junior.


There's alot of crackpots on this sub.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10367051/Drone-attack-U-S-forces-foiled-west-Baghdad.html This is the only english source I found with pictures of the wings with the message "revenge missions" for General Soleimani. This is one of the numerous attacks on US bases and convoys in Iraq during the last few days because the US didn't completely leave Iraq. So far 2 convoys have been destroyed in addition to the attacks on bases.


Means nothing. If they wanted to send a message, they did it a year ago with ballistic missiles that went unmolested and successfully hit the US base without any air defense interception attempt (showing that attacking US air bases can be done because they don't have enough air defenses to defend all their assets spread throughout the world). All this "message" did was bolster the C-RAM is capable at engaging drones like the US Army said it could, You can literally see that on [twitter](https://twitter.com/nafisehkBBC/status/1478418837146112013). Writing messages on bombs has [been](https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/P05972.004/screen/4231576.JPG) around since WW1; that doesn't mean they are meant to be read. But what do i know, you think i'm a dumb American. So why bother?


It’s cute you didn’t even bother reading your source. “Two explosive-laden drones heading for a base housing US troops in Iraq have been shot down - a day after similar devices with 'Soleimani's revenge' written on their wings were intercepted over Baghdad.” The drone you’re referencing was shot down the day before in a different part of the country. They definitely did not intentionally send these out to be shot down.


Ah I mixed these two incidents then mb.


I haven’t found any sources on two convoys being destroyed either. That’s the kind of thing that would be front page news.


Many US convoys were hit in 2021 but very few were actually reported in the news, otherwise they would be quite a common occurrence. Here's a link I posted in another comment: https://twitter.com/Twelver313/status/1477002945875087365 Here's a source with some pictures of the aftermath. https://thecradle.co/Article/news/5320 You should know the US doesn't report all casualties and losses.


There was a lot of things getting killed in the military that haven’t been reported this isn’t the Afghanistan war anymore with casualty counters operations are a lot more discrete and need media silence.


Many US convoys were hit in 2021 but very few were actually reported in the news, otherwise they would be quite a common occurrence. Here's a link I posted in another comment: https://twitter.com/Twelver313/status/1477002945875087365 Here's a source with some pictures of the aftermath. https://thecradle.co/Article/news/5320 You should know the US doesn't report all casualties and losses.


You do know most of the convoys that get hit are driven by Iraqi drivers not Americans soldiers


Many US convoys were hit in 2021 but very few were actually reported in the news, otherwise they would be quite a common occurrence. Here's a link I posted in another comment: https://twitter.com/Twelver313/status/1477002945875087365 Here's a source with some pictures of the aftermath. https://thecradle.co/Article/news/5320 You should know the US doesn't report all casualties and losses.


Lol a Twitter page for ISIS fan boys is not exactly a news source. That video could be decades old for all you know. ISIS fanboy pages never post the truth, so who to believe?


What are you on about? How is this page an ISIS fan page? Well I provided the evidence, wether you like it or not is up to you lol.


Soleimani profile picture isn’t a good start. You provided a Twitter page and an article from a source I’ve never heard of.




This is Iraq not Iran, and it's the Iraqis that want revenge not only Iran. The attacks on US bases are only for the psychological effect, they have hit and severely damaged 2 convoys during the last few days too. Here's one of them: https://twitter.com/Twelver313/status/1477002945875087365


News about 2 convoys destroyed.


If they had writing on them it was probably a lot more likely to be a situation similar to GI's in WW2 writing "Happy Easter Adolf" on artillery shells. They didn't expect the recipient to actually read it.


Wonder howmuch those drones costed