I'm not a tactician with any experience, just thinking this through at my keyboard, but I'm not even sure drone v. drone is the answer here.

Depending on how low they are flying and how large they are, you could conceivably set up anti-drone defenses using service rifles or shotguns wired up to a detection and fire control system. I know that someone in Thailand did exactly that with a bunch of M16A1s.

Of course, if they're larger and higher up, you could possibly use more traditional AAA artillery.

Both of those routes use things that are already "cheap" and in the supply chain.

▲

pjc50 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Depending on how low they are flying and how large they are

It's a real problem that "drone" gets used for things that can fit in your hand, all the way up to the same size as single-seater aircraft. These seem to be aimed at the latter. The Shahed is more of a slow cruise missile with wings, or the WW2 V1 pulsejet "flying bombs"

(we've not seen the return of the pulsejet, have we? "V1 with modern guidance" seems like it might fit a niche)

	▲	idiotsecant 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		pulsejets would certainly be cheap, but they'd have terrible fuel efficiency, which is one of the most important attributes for a drone - how long can you loiter and how far can you go?

▲

fpoling 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Russia has started to fly Shahed drones much higher after Ukrainians became effective with shooting low-flying ones with mobile low cost AAA guns. This made drones easier to detect with radars and shoot with missiles, but missiles cost like 10-100 times more then drones and is not sustainable.

Russia also started to deploy mobile anti-drone guns and there a lot of vides that show their effectiveness but Ukraine still fly drones low as Russia still willing to use expensive missiles against them on massive scale.

	▲	ponector 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The issue is not the cost, but availability of AA missiles. Russia is capable of sending 500+ drones in a given day. After few weeks/months any stockpile of missiles will be consumed.

▲

idiotsecant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

a bunch of shotguns or service rifles is not going to help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

This is what people talk about when they say 'drones' in this context - basically a remote-guided 100 lb bomb flying in a 400lb chassis at 115 mph thousands of meters up.

▲

lenerdenator 2 days ago | parent [-]

In that case, yeah, I could see aerial drones being a response.

It's not an altogether different concept from the V1 Buzz Bomb. Those were easy enough to blow out of the sky if you were in a WWII prop fighter.

I wonder how effective heavy machine guns would be against one. What's its service ceiling? It's running on a gasoline motor so it can't be that high.

▲

tim333 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think they go up to like 5000 feet so within anti aircraft gun range but you'd need a lot of such guns to cover the long Ukraine border and they are not cheap. Drones may be more practical.

>the Skyranger, a twin radar-guided 30mm gun turret made by Rheinmetall, making this the natural choice for the German Army. The gun system costs around $12 million https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2025/09/10/why-so...

and ammo is about $600/round apparently.

EDIT:

They used to go 5000 ft or so. Now " fly between 2,000 to 5,000 meters to evade small arms fire, while the high-altitude reconnaissance drone Shahed 147 can reach 18,288 meters (60,000 feet). "

	▲	lenerdenator 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Eh, yeah, that's pretty far up to hit with small arms fire, at least until it begins to drop for terminal descent.

▲

idiotsecant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The answer is simple, but not easy - you own the ground they launch from. Range is limited, so you need to add more of it between you and them. Otherwise the problem is inherently an asymmetric one - drones cost 100k. Solutions cost much more than that. You can't win on a cost basis. You have to win on a strategic basis.

▲

lupusreal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Radar directed anti-aircraft artillery with analogue computers for trajectory prediction, firing proximity fused shells, were extremely effective against V-1 bombs. Far more so than interceptor aircraft.

	▲	fpoling 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They were effective because Germans targeted mostly London where one could have dense defenses and V-1 flew relatively low. With drones few kilometers up this is simply not effective.