In 15 months, the Navy fired more air
defense missiles than it did in the last
30 years
Task & Purpose,
by
Jeff Schogol
Original Article
Posted By: sunset,
3/8/2025 11:20:00 PM
The U.S. Navy has used more missiles for air defense since combat operations in the Red Sea began in October 2023 than the service used in all the years since Operation Desert Storm in the 1990s, said retired Navy Cmdr. Bryan Clark, of the Hudson Institute. Over that 15-month-period, which ran to Jan. 19, 2025, the Navy saw the most combat at sea since World War II. “It’s kind of amazing how the Navy has held up with no losses, but the cost has been pretty enormous,” Clark said. “The estimates are the Navy has used up $1 billion-plus worth of interceptors to shoot down these drone and missile threats.”
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Strike3 3/9/2025 9:05:38 AM (No. 1911520)
Million-dollar missiles to splash thousand-dollar drones. It adds up...
6 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
JackBurton 3/9/2025 9:52:59 AM (No. 1911541)
Well, I'd say you have to use some more missiles. But not the defensive kind.
I'd say the Ginzu would be appropriate but give them the ISIS treatment.
4 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 3/9/2025 9:57:31 AM (No. 1911544)
It is insane to combat drones by trying to shoot them down one by one. We need to take out their bases in such a devastating way that they will not be operational for a good while. Yes, I get that these missiles are very portable and such strikes that we might launch might have collateral damage. I DON'T CARE. Until the cost of the retaliation exceeds the benefit they perceive from the attacks, they will continue. And, if missiles are launched from a country, that country is an enemy of the US and deserves any retaliation we deem necessary.
It seems odd that Israel has effectively delivered this message to Hamas and Hezbollah and we, the much more powerful country, cannot seem to get the job done. Declare a national emergency. Divert funds from things like environmental causes to build weapons. GET THE JOB DONE!
10 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Rob_NC 3/9/2025 10:04:13 AM (No. 1911553)
LINEBACKER 3...
Needs to happen..
2 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 3/9/2025 10:08:02 AM (No. 1911556)
Who says we aren't at war. The people launching these attacks most certainly are. There is a term for people unwilling to defend themselves. It's called decadence. Our enemies like to call us that. Guessing the main offenders are the Iranians and Houthis. We could wipe them out if we wanted to. Yet we let them exist.
7 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 3/9/2025 11:49:52 AM (No. 1911622)
When these anti-aircraft missiles were created and built, the intended targets were enemy manned aircraft costing many tens of millions of dollars, and capable of inflicting huge damage, up to nuclear warheads.
In today's climate, cheapo cruise missiles, basically overgrown model airplanes with little piston engines not far removed from yard tractor engines, are the most common target. They are far from harmless, carrying significant explosive warheads, and, of course, no pilots, so cannot be ignored.
So, the original "defense math" was to trade one or two $1.5 million dollar (a guess) anti-aircraft missiles for a $50-70 million dollar manned, potentially nuclear armed, full sized aircraft. THAT made some economic sense, in addition to the obvious military/defensive sense.
Now, we expend dozens and dozens of extremely capable anti-aircraft missiles against a flurry of unmanned, $10,000 to $20,000, large model airplanes ---with a bomb in the nose. The dilemma is that we cannot fail to engage these threats, they do carry substantial explosive warheads, but in "winning the battle" we lose the economic war, trading a $20K attack drone/cruise missile for a $1.5 million anti-aircraft missile.
We need to be looking VERY hard at inexpensive "cost appropriate" ways to destroy these "oversized model airplane" class of low cost cruise missiles. This is a major new threat class, and the quad copter class and seaborn "motorboat drone" class are also extremely problematic. Cheap, and while not fast or not invulnerable, they are dangerous enough to have sunk 1/2 of the Russian Black Sea fleet, and destroyed literally thousands of Russian tanks.
The battlefield has changed, and these cheapo unmanned attack systems are a real problem at two levels. First, how to take them out AT ALL, and then how to not go bankrupt in the process.
2 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 3/9/2025 12:19:15 PM (No. 1911632)
Occupy Houtiland on the Red Sea and build hotels
1 person likes this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 3/9/2025 12:38:46 PM (No. 1911644)
The root cause of the attacks on shipping lies in Iran, not Yemen.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 3/9/2025 6:59:34 PM (No. 1911833)
Excellent point #8. The choices re to nuke Tehran, probably not a great idea, no matter how attractive it seems, or to level the factory where they make those things. Not trivial, Iran has substantial air defense capability, but doable, especially if WE use our cruise missiles.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "sunset"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
During combat operations in the Red Sea, the Navy fired so many air defense missiles that it drained the service’s stockpile of munitions. So, it turned to 5-inch gun rounds to down drones.