…
The drone was shot down by Italian troops stationed at the NATO air base in Šiauliai using Eurofighter jets.
Military police, regular police and other emergency services were dispatched to the crash site, where they recovered debris overnight, the Lithuanian military said.
…
Warnings of a possible air threat were initially sent to residents of Vilnius and the surrounding district, as well as the Trakai and Elektrėnai districts. The warning was later extended to the Kaunas region as the drone continued westward. The alerts were subsequently cancelled.
…
This is the cheapest way to shoot them down, because the jets already exist and are available.
Sure you can build more cost efficient (per drone shot down) anti-air alongside the border… for billions and billions that don’t do anything but shoot down one drone every once in a while. That’s much more expensive than the cost to get a Eurofighter in to the air to do it.
(Reference: the first two Skynex units for Ukraine cost ~180 million €. That’s one radar, the control unit and 4 guns, each with just a few kilmometers range. Say you want some overlap to not create gaps between them and you can assume to cover 10 km of the border for nearly 100m… you can do the math yourself.)
Long story short: You cannot defend huge areas cost efficiently against single flexible threats with pre-build, often even static defenses. That’s like equiping the whole population “cheaply” with bulletproof clothing because someone might get their hands on a gun.
This is true as long as Russia is not sending hundredths or drones at the same time. Russia is just testing our defenses now and it’s clear NATO would not be able to stop actual drone attacks. It would not be able to defend it’s critical infrastructure or biggest cities. I don’t think “it’s expensive” is a valid excuse for a defense pact not to build effective defenses.
Correct, but not in the way you think. Covering everything in air defense (especially against low text/cost) wepons is simply not viable. The actual defense is deterrence, the ability to react offensively (in this case even as part of a big defensive alliance) to an act of war, while protecting only the most critical infrastructure and the stuff used offensively (the latter being the reason air-defense is mobile).
So the actual and very real failure is our cowardly politicians being afraid to call an act of war by its name and react accordingly.
Drones incursion are a growing problem. I suspect the development cost is worth it. A laser firing system may cost more than a jet. But shooting an extra drone cost 5-10 EUR of energy, vs 10-200kEUR for the missile and jet fuel.
So you didn’t do the math… Let’s say we go with the 200k per interception of a drone (because there is more than just the spend missiles/fuel but also wear on the jet and a lot of work going into it for just a few hours of use). By above’s cost for efficient gun-based systems those 200k get you about 20m of border covered. You would need 13,750 times that money just to cover the small Lithuanian border with Russia (pretending that flying object cannot jsut go around the direct route…).
Sure, you can spend some more money on developing lasers (in fact they do - because that’s peanuts spend anyway compared to the actual production costs in numbers) to decrease the cost from ~1000€ for a salvo of smart air-burst ammunition to a fraction of that. Doesn’t change the base calculation. It actually only gets worse if those guns are more expensive because of the high energy systems required for each.
Good point, the limited range does make laser system more expensive for covering the border of a country.
It probably make more sense to use laser systems as an extra layer of protection around specific strategic locations, ie transportation hub, large power stations, military bases, large city centers…
That may be the most wrong way to say something right. Perhaps proof read your writing a little bit more to make sure it’s saying what you think it’s saying.
No, because a jet on the ground is still cheaper than a jet in the air. Also jet and helicopter engines have a limited life span after which they must be replaced.
Its not like jets just stay on the ground forever until we need them. They’re constantly on training sorties anyway, targeting something like 180 hours a year minimum flying time. A mission like this just contributes some hours to that target.
If we assume the cost of bringing on jet into the air just to shoot down one drone is several 100,000€ than you would need about 10,000 times the amount to cover a short border like the Luthuania-Russia one with gun systems. That’s before the operational cost of these guns that also need maintainance etc.