After action report on use of loitering munitions

injinji

Well-Known Member
We all know what loitering munitions are capable of doing when the right weapon system is used in the right situation. The fact they can hang around until the kill shot is a game changer.

Wiki wiki says A loitering munition (also known as a suicide drone[1][2][3][4] or kamikaze drone[5][6][7]) is an aerial weapon system category in which the munition loiters (waits passively) around the target area for some time and attacks only once a target is located.[8][9][10] Loitering munitions enable faster reaction times against concealed or hidden targets that emerge for short periods without placing high-value platforms close to the target area, and also allow more selective targeting as the attack can easily be aborted.

But the weapon I'm looking at is less dependable, and can not always be called off once sent on it's mission. But there is more deniability than with more traditional weapons systems.



As we all saw with the attack on Paul P. these weapon systems do not have dependable payloads. And the fact that they think they are doing the right thing, they are likely to talk about it afterward. (never a good look with a weapon system)

Thoughts? Are we likely to see many more of these loitering munitions in the years to come?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
We all know what loitering munitions are capable of doing when the right weapon system is used in the right situation. The fact they can hang around until the kill shot is a game changer.

Wiki wiki says A loitering munition (also known as a suicide drone[1][2][3][4] or kamikaze drone[5][6][7]) is an aerial weapon system category in which the munition loiters (waits passively) around the target area for some time and attacks only once a target is located.[8][9][10] Loitering munitions enable faster reaction times against concealed or hidden targets that emerge for short periods without placing high-value platforms close to the target area, and also allow more selective targeting as the attack can easily be aborted.

But the weapon I'm looking at is less dependable, and can not always be called off once sent on it's mission. But there is more deniability than with more traditional weapons systems.



As we all saw with the attack on Paul P. these weapon systems do not have dependable payloads. And the fact that they think they are doing the right thing, they are likely to talk about it afterward. (never a good look with a weapon system)

Thoughts? Are we likely to see many more of these loitering munitions in the years to come?
Sadly yes.

Well, maybe depending on the definition of 'many'. Too many for sure.

Good description of the nuts that are being radicalized btw.

Another example:

 
Top