I am aware, I don't know exactly at what temp the engine would be during flight but what is based on empirical evidence, the Manpad team guarding the Ukrenergo building completely missed, and failed to acquire the target. It had several minutes to do it.
We already have the IR signature of the drone seen on camera, and it is very small. This is a still from a Shahed UAS strike on a UKR position which slightly missed and hit the center of the road, but probably was good enough to damage the vehicle.
View attachment 887354
It still depends on what type of sensor you use to pick up that drone. A lot of IR sensor is very sensitive, especially the heat seeking one, just because it appear to be a small dot on a infrared cam (which no reference to the resolution) it does not mean it cannot be picked up, or at least hard to pick up.
No, this is too small for these systems to be integrated, maybe in a later larger design or never. It doesn't need flare/chaff which such a low signature it already has. Adding any high end electronics (even if it is available) is not cheap and defeats the purpose of a mass producible cheap system.
Hence my point, once you were targeted, you can't run, you can't maneuver, you can't throw decoy, that's almost a guarantee kill
I feel like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, where did I disagree with anything you said here? These are the limitations I also stated.
I don't think I said you disagree with me, I am just reiterating my position.
What I said about open source has nothing to do with this. The word open source is meant to describe the physical attributes. Not the doctrine behind the usage.
I already explained this. Because trying to use a UCAV to interdict targets in this airspace is a guaranteed loss of the asset. Lets be realistic a UCAV can't survive long in this war if it acts in a combat role
It actually mean both. Open Source can be doctrinal, In fact, everything can be doctrinal because everything on the battlefield have its own say about the battle.
On the other hand, the entire thesis of drone warfare is cost effectiveness. That's why you use a $30,000 drone instead of a multi-million dollars fighter jet for your mission. But that have a limit when it hit the ceiling of its efficiency.
This is true, but the asset that acts as the eyes is far from the danger zone and has low risk. Considering how little aviation is used here, expect that TB2 UAVs for example are far back supporting recon.
Anything well beyond the front is pre-programmed. My only question is how well it can navigate and it does seem to have a decent CEP.
How do you reckon that? In fact, I would argue that asset is going to be more risk than the drone, because if I know you are using this accurately, which mean there are going to be spotting involved, That mean I will do all I can to seek ut and destroy that spotter. And I know you can't be "far" from danger zone because you need first hand intel to guide the drone in.
TB-2 is not at similar to loitering munition, they don't need that much support to guide their munition in, because TB-2 itself is a ISTAR asset. Which mean if you can stop the TB-2, you will stop the strike, which mean the question will become "Can you stop the TB-2"
Bear in mind, any asset you use to guide the loitering munition in is going to cost multiple fold of the loitering munition itself, again, it depends on whether or not you can bring it down. At this moment. the reason why Shahed drone weren't effectively intercepted is because Ukrainian don't have a vast functioning anti-air system like NATO did, that would depends on whether or not NATO would arm Ukraine with respect to their AA system, if that does, than it will negate the impact of those drone cost.
