We don't have a cheaper way to shoot them down? I thought sending jets out is expensive.
Just thinking that economically, we need an efficient and effective deterrent
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
144 points (98.6% liked)
Europe
12007 readers
893 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The solution exists: 30mm programmable munition. You basically have bullets that are programmed as they are fired to explode right next to the drone. Paired with a radar they can shoot down anything in the range of couple kilometers and the cost is just that of the bullets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airburst_round
The problem is that to secure the border you need to basically put one of those every couple kilometers. AFAIK Germany is making some of them but for example Poland has the license to build them but is not making any at the moment. Spain is making some armored vehicles with 30mm guns compatible with programmable munition. I'm sure other countries are building/buying those systems but on a NATO scale there's not enough of them. It was clear that those will be needed for couple of years now but as usual, military is very slow to react to things like that.
Just got an update from some exhibition in Spain: https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/6014463/arquimea-expone-unvex-interceptor-multicapa-tabano-neutralizar-drones-sobre-vehiculo-4x4?amp%3Butm_medium=email&%3Butm_campaign=Newsletter+www.infodefensa.com
So they are working on different systems but it will take years to build enough of them.
We have jets flying there constantly and I guess they just engaged it.
Also, as shown in the replies, there are several alternatives by multiple countries to this.
Probably just a middle finger to Russia: "oh look, modern flying jets, what are you gonna do about it, send your air forces? Oh wait...!"
ukraine is leading in drone to drone combat from what i hear
German Company interceptor drone : https://quantum-systems.com/strila/
But might be too slow for newest shahed generation
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 β¬. 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.
Russia is just testing our defenses now
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.
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.
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 ~1000β¬ 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..
This is the cheapest way to shoot them down, because the jets already exist and are available.
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 100,000β¬ 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.
Now shoot some targets in Kaliningrad and say it was an accident while shooting down the drones.
"Accidently" sniper shooting Putin~~s double~~