But why?? We have had rocket powered anti-aircraft interceptor drones that go at mach 3 since 1955.

throwawayffffas 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Cost, your average stinger cost 38000 dollars in the 80s. I am guessing here but they are aiming at a price of probably under 10000 dollars.

Now why doesn't anyone take a rocket and stick the drone guidance on it? Again I am only guessing here, the drone guidance components probably can't cope with 2-3 mach. At 1000 meters per second with a 60 fps camera you advance 16.6 meters per frame, add to that the latency of whatever guidance system you have. You are looking at 20-30 meters offset between frames.

Better guidance probably balloons the cost to the 10s of thousands of dollars.

	▲	throwawayffffas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh and probably loiter time, the rocket is you shoot and it's gone. The interceptor may have enough battery to fly around for a few minutes looking for the next one if its target is downed by something else. Plus you can probably recover these if they miss. This is all very speculative though.

▲

Stevvo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anyone can build this style of interceptor with commercial off the shelf parts for a a few thousand dollars. It's also reusable. A rocket for the same budget will be unguided and single use. Not useable as an interceptor.

▲

tormeh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maneuverability and cost. Why this specific stunt? Marketing, presumably.

	▲	throwawayffffas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maneuverability not so much modern AA missiles can pull over 60gs. That capability costs 100s of thousands of dollars though.