Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[HavokFour]

Since you're all on the topic. The barrage balloon enters the C-UAS game, and still leagues cheaper that traditional missiles.

Ukraine develops new drone-and-aerostat air defense system to counter Shahed attacks on Kyiv​

 

[FJAG]

What an odd way of saying $250 million and $400 million.

When it comes to major equipment we need to start thinking in billions.

The army needs a lot of gear. It won't be had for fractions of billions. That's just perpetuating the "one set of equipment for the deployed force; another for the folks at home" way of thinking. We need to define our force structure and then equip it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A ordinary hanger will provide protection against a homemade/civilian based drone attack if the bay door is closed. It does mean that you need a protection team in place when bay doors are open and aircraft are being moved. Protecting the fighters will be easier than the larger aircraft. You may have to build "net tents" that the aircraft can fit under. Likely incorporated in with protective berms. Permanent jammers in place that can be switched on and off as needed and optical trackers. Which will no doubt cue onto every fricking bird that goes by. Hopefully energy weapons will become reliable enough to be used near urban areas to avoid falling shrapnel. A couple of dudes with shotguns on duty with a truck mounted optical tracker is also required to escort aircraft as they move or hangers/nets are open.

For airfields not in urban areas, but near non-military structures (ruralish) I have to think that 20mm gives you some reach, but with a smaller safety zone for falling shells/debris, for airfields closers to other structures, a smaller caliber. The internet gives me a danger zone of a 20mm at roughly 6.5km. So for Comox, you would have to stick to 5.56 or 7.62 and you need gunners well trained to avoid shooting your own buildings, antennas, etc.

 

[PrairieFella]

Remote weapon stations have fire inhibit zones programmed in to prevent you from shooting yourself and your antenna mounts. I imagine the same can be done with CUAS guns.

 

[lenaitch]

A ordinary hanger will provide protection against a homemade/civilian based drone attack if the bay door is closed. It does mean that you need a protection team in place when bay doors are open and aircraft are being moved. Protecting the fighters will be easier than the larger aircraft. You may have to build "net tents" that the aircraft can fit under. Likely incorporated in with protective berms. Permanent jammers in place that can be switched on and off as needed and optical trackers. Which will no doubt cue onto every fricking bird that goes by. Hopefully energy weapons will become reliable enough to be used near urban areas to avoid falling shrapnel. A couple of dudes with shotguns on duty with a truck mounted optical tracker is also required to escort aircraft as they move or hangers/nets are open.

For airfields not in urban areas, but near non-military structures (ruralish) I have to think that 20mm gives you some reach, but with a smaller safety zone for falling shells/debris, for airfields closers to other structures, a smaller caliber. The internet gives me a danger zone of a 20mm at roughly 6.5km. So for Comox, you would have to stick to 5.56 or 7.62 and you need gunners well trained to avoid shooting your own buildings, antennas, etc.

Made all the more complicated for those who advocate to move CAF bases to urban areas because that's where folks want to live.

I would imagine firing weapons in anger on Canadian soil who require a whole command structure behind the few folks who would have to pull the triggers.

 

[brihard]

Made all the more complicated for those who advocate to move CAF bases to urban areas because that's where folks want to live.

I would imagine firing weapons in anger on Canadian soil who require a whole command structure behind the few folks who would have to pull the triggers.

And from looking at video of drone attacks, those people would need to be empowered and trusted to pull the trigger independent of any command input. Because when it happens, the OODA loop might take not much more time that it did to read this reply. The difference between decision and delay could be a destroyed CC-177 or CC-330.

 

[Kirkhill]

A ordinary hanger will provide protection against a homemade/civilian based drone attack if the bay door is closed. It does mean that you need a protection team in place when bay doors are open and aircraft are being moved. Protecting the fighters will be easier than the larger aircraft. You may have to build "net tents" that the aircraft can fit under. Likely incorporated in with protective berms. Permanent jammers in place that can be switched on and off as needed and optical trackers. Which will no doubt cue onto every fricking bird that goes by. Hopefully energy weapons will become reliable enough to be used near urban areas to avoid falling shrapnel. A couple of dudes with shotguns on duty with a truck mounted optical tracker is also required to escort aircraft as they move or hangers/nets are open.

For airfields not in urban areas, but near non-military structures (ruralish) I have to think that 20mm gives you some reach, but with a smaller safety zone for falling shells/debris, for airfields closers to other structures, a smaller caliber. The internet gives me a danger zone of a 20mm at roughly 6.5km. So for Comox, you would have to stick to 5.56 or 7.62 and you need gunners well trained to avoid shooting your own buildings, antennas, etc.

How about when working with programmable ammunition?

Is the danger zone the same?

Wouldn't you just get a cloud of pellets tumbling to the ground at the detonation point?

 

[Kirkhill]

And from looking at video of drone attacks, those people would need to be empowered and trusted to pull the trigger independent of any command input. Because when it happens, the OODA loop might take not much more time that it did to read this reply. The difference between decision and delay could be a destroyed CC-177 or CC-330.

That seems to be why the US is looking at AI solutions. They are being forced to consider trusting AI precisely because of short OODA loops.

Drone defenses will need to act first, ask later, commander says

“We will push the boundaries on that, because we have to,” Lt. Gen. Gainey said.

www.defenseone.com

Recent interactions in the Middle East, plus Russia’s relentless assault on Ukraine, have shown that even smaller adversaries like Iran are able to quickly produce ever-larger swarms of drones, in addition to other missiles. While U.S. forces have shown that they can handle the current volume of threats, they are increasingly relying on expensive missiles to do so.

Taking humans out of the decision loop may sound like a brave new world of unthinking killer robots, but the technology behind autonomous defense against threats like drones isn’t actually new. The Navy has long relied on the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System to protect ships from fast-moving threats at sea. The currentPhalanx system uses radar to detect rapidly incoming objects and shoot at them without requiring human permission or input.

Of course, for a Navy ship in open water, shooting at the boat that’s barreling toward your destroyer is unlikely to result in a collateral damage catastrophe, though it is possible.

Greater autonomy is also creeping into land-based drone defense systems.