Sources:
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/the-f-47-fighter-cost-problem-no-one-wants-to-touch/
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-shahed-drones-gulf-patriot-air-defence-cost-crisis/ (assuming 2 missiles to each drone and the lowest estimate of drone costs)
Depends how much damage the drone would have caused if it was allowed to proceed to the target.
Nope, still missing the point, still not getting it.
What the drone might have hit is irrelevant. The problem is you’re spending an order of magnitude more to intercept this drone than the drone cost, meaning you will likely run out of interceptors before your enemy runs out of drones.
Okay, I’m assuming you’re being willfully ignorant to troll then. Goodbye.
Imagine thinking I’m trolling because you simply cannot comprehend the point I’m trying to make.
Frankly I’m not sure why this point seems difficult to grasp. “Smaller number better” is a pretty dead simple concept.
Just give up dude. The OP who posted this also posted a reply to me with some figures backing up the logic behind this.
Yes, I know a missile is cheaper than the asset it’s protecting, but your enemy can just keep sending cheap drones until you run out of interceptor missiles, and that’s a massive problem.