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)
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
This is something a lot of people just don't seem to grasp, and I've been saying it for a very long time.
If you spend a six or even seven figure sum to successfully intercept a five figure piece of ordinance, that's actually a win for whoever fired it.
Only if you ignore the cost of letting them bomb whatever they want.
Nope, you've missed the point even after I've explained it.
Yes, you need to intercept that missile or drone, because it's headed towards something worth far more than the missile.
But, because the cost of a successful intercept is so high, your enemy can just keep spamming cheap ordinance at your until you run out.
I get your point, but that point is spoiling the ship to save a ha'penny of tar - the cost of the tar doesn't matter, it's about the cost of the ship. Period. Can you find less expensive tar? Great! If not, don't lose the ship because the tar feels expensive.
That analogy doesn't really make sense.
In a longer war you're only delaying that point a little bit until you run out of the deluxe turbo pro interceptors you make 100 of per year.
Of course ýou'd want to consider the value of the target.
So let's consider a 10-story building costs $16 million to build. The enemy sends 3 20k drones out to destroy it. You counter with 6 missiles, for a total of $24 million. You've now, in a single afternoon, spent $8 million more than the building costs to rebuild.
The building obviously has utility, and might generate some income on its own, but the enemy has basically given you economic damage that is even greater than destroying the building. They spent 60k and you spent 24 million, a multiplier of 400!
Then the enemy sends 3 more drones, you're out of interceptors, and you lose the building anyway. Total cost to them: 120k. Total cost to you: $40 million. The funny thing is that by sending in 3 extra drones to destroy the building, the multiplier DROPS to 333. If they wanted to purely drain your treasury, they'd try not to destroy your buildings to motivate you to keep intercepting drones!
Wars run on money. GRRM knew exactly what he was doing when he made the Iron Bank a major political player. You need money to win wars, and even if you win the war, you may have indebted your government so much it can't recover.
One of the common themes of the fall of empires is that they own the fiat currency, therefore it is very easy for them to borrow money. So they keep borrowing money, and borrowing money, and borrowing money, until the day comes that they are spending most of their budget covering the interest.
Wars are the number one way empires run up their budgets.
The next step is the empire, losing its grip on the world, and becoming financially less stable, starts paying higher interest rates.
This is where on the map, we'd put a big arrow with the text: YOU ARE HERE (meaning the US). Bond yields are rising.
The next step is when even the interest become unaffordable, which triggers even higher rates, which cycles into higher taxes, lower services, which trigger less investment, and then it's a vicious cycle to total economic meltdown.
It's more likely they're protecting an aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but yes, you're very much right. You can just bleed someone dry with cheap ordinance.
Hitting a drone is like winning a prize at the carnival.
This is why we need to get rid of the $4,000+ bullet proof vests which protect against $0.40 bullets.
You can typically just shoot the person back, and deal with the problem that way.
username checks out
Well, unless your opponent can afford to outspend you by several orders of magnitude and still win the war.
True, but even for a country like the USA, that becomes pretty hard to justify to your voters unless you're in a war of national survival.
Call it a win win because trump keeps the media distracted from his global child sex trafficking ring
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.