Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "" video.

Absolutely mentally deficient comment. Instead of spending a 400k USD missile, make 10 drones and launch them at the enemy
2
@Custodes1 do you have problems with reading and processing the information? The OP tried to justify shooting down cheap drones with missiles that cost 10 times more than the drone. To which I replied that instead shooting down those drones it's better to spend those money on building your own drones and use them against enemy. If you can afford to build the as many rockets as enemy can make drones, it means you can make 10 times more drones than the enemy. Unless you're VERY small country, building drones will be more effective strategy. P.S. applied to balloons, it means — instead of shooting them down if enemy starts sending a lot of them, build your own
1
@ryanc9876 literally above yours is my comment in which I thoroughly explain, why that logic is incorrent. Or is it invisible?
1
@pahtar7189 I understand your point, but the problem is that your point is just ridiculous. It's like trying to fight a war without casualties. It's impossible to intercept all missiles, and it's often impossible to even intercept most of them. It is much more cost effective to spend those money on offensive weapons instead of AA missiles which can't attack enemy forces.
1
@aymonfoxc1442 absolutely brаin-dеаd соmmеnt. Fighter is cheaper than bomber and can easily shoot bomber. That's why it's being said that analogy is not an argument
1
@ryanc9876 if enemy can launch drones at you, it means you can launch drones at enemy. There's no need to give drones too much capabilities, and the whole point is to make many cheap drones. You comment doesn't really address issues brought up by mine, you just say "muh building too good kamikaze drones is a bad idea". Yeah, ok, build them cheaper
1
@aymonfoxc1442 factories are definitely indestructible if we are talking about very light drones. On top of that, cheaper systems like lasers or AA guns with proximity fuses can be used against heavier drones. Gladly people in charge of defense aren't idiоts(unIikе уоu) and because of that systems like Skynex and Iron Beam are being developed exactly to counter the threat of cheap drones.
1
@trumanhw 1) anti-icbm defenses are not made to stop all missiles, if you knew something about how both of them work you'd never wrote something like that. 2)You're generally correct about A-10 and F-15/16, but A-10 maybe will be replaced by lighter strike aircrafts, F-15 will probably be replaced together with f-22 by NGAD, and as for F-16 also will eventually be replaced, but US will need something cheap to do it(like project F-36 Kingsnake), as F-16's job is to fill the skies and provide numerical advantage
1
@aymonfoxc1442 1)learn how to write proper grammatic constructions. 2)No, we just should let the drones fly and hit "targets" if they can't be intercepted cheaply. But the best defenses are: a)relocation of production to distant regions; b)decentralization of production; c)protection of production facilities with cheap "armor"(for example something like metal nets would protect from lancet drones and cheap wooden constructions would help against shahed drones). 3)if you think AA guns can't intercept drones it shows you lack even basic knowledge about drone warfare and how for example Ukraine dealt with them
1
 @wape1 to be fair that's largely because US doctrine is based on having air supremacy, with aircrafts being in the role of artillery
1