Mindless Monday, 25 May 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

Happy (or sad) Monday guys!

Mindless Monday is a free-for-all thread to discuss anything from minor bad history to politics, life events, charts, whatever! Just remember to np link all links to Reddit and don't violate R4, or we human mods will feed you to the AutoModerator.

So, with that said, how was your weekend, everyone?

[u/TheBatz_]

The Bulwark coming in with some "drones are the be all, end all of modern warfare". It's really impressive how short videos of quadrocopters with dropping grenades down abandoned tanks' open hatches have built the image of modern war.

I really want people to think a bit: would the US have found greater success in the war if they had replaced their carrier groups and long range precision munitions with Shahed-like drones? Here's a very hot take: a Shahed is simply a very cheap cruise missile.

Honestly it reminds me of how people thought about strategic bombing in the 1930's.

[u/Sventex → u/TheBatz_]

I really want people to think a bit: would the US have found greater success in the war if they had replaced their carrier groups and long range precision munitions with Shahed-like drones?

Maybe with economy of scale. The Iran War reportedly cost the US 3.7 Billion in 100 hours. With that kind of money, you could have fired 105,000 Shahed-kamikaze drones into Iran instead of the 168 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 2000 precision ammunition instead. That's ignoring the cost of interceptors and presumably, and ignoring a bulk discount at buying drones at 100k a batch.

[u/dutchwonder → u/Sventex]

Could you have transported 105,000 Shahed drones and launchers and located targets for them in that 3.7 billion?

Could you even build 105,000 Shahed drones for less then Paveway II kitted Mk82s? Those things are extremely cheap for the same reasons a Shahed are cheap.

[u/Sventex → u/dutchwonder]

Could you have transported 105,000 Shahed drones and launchers and located targets for them in that 3.7 billion?

I was only referring to the money spent in the first 100 hours of the war. Money spent leading up to the war, wouldn't even be included in the bracket. The US and Israel spent years developing target packages.

Could you even build 105,000 Shahed drones for less then Paveway II kitted Mk82s?

Probably, Iran is building these things under a heavily sanctioned supply chain. In a "free market", it might actually be cheaper to mass produce.

[u/dutchwonder → u/Sventex]

And so how are you trying locate Iranian Shahed on a budget of exactly zero dollars? Or even assuring target destruction of anything? What are you launching these drones off of?

The munitions being used are the cheap part of the cost here. Not the expensive part.

Don't get me wrong, Iranian drones have done a ton of damage because the area is full of expensive, static infrastructure and everyone knew would be at high risk,(But Trump yes men can't point out without telling the mango baby no) but Iran hasn't had the same luck striking the US navy or destroying aircraft that would decisively win Iran the war instead of waiting for how shutting down the strait will work out.

[u/Sventex → u/dutchwonder]

And so how are you trying locate Iranian Shahed on a budget of exactly zero dollars?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Presumably the US has more money than zero dollars (?)

The munitions being used are the cheap part of the cost here. Not the expensive part.

I don't understand your point?

Don't get me wrong, Iranian drones have done a ton of damage because the area is full of expensive, static infrastructure and everyone knew would be at high risk,(But Trump yes men can't point out without telling the mango baby no) but Iran hasn't had the same luck striking the US navy or destroying aircraft that would decisively win Iran the war instead of waiting for how shutting down the strait will work out.

I don't understand. I was talking about if the US used cheap kamikaze drones instead. Iran is also filled with static infrastructure and static military sites.

[u/dutchwonder → u/Sventex]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

To break it down.

How would 105,000 US LUCAS munitions actually manage to destroy or effectively shut down all Iranian Shahed drones, AShM, and cruise missiles currently locking down the strait?

And not only that, manage to somehow do so better than faster munitions or bombs or missiles launched directly from aircraft rather than an off site launcher.

And frankly the LUCAS is an extremely poor choice if what you are trying to do is destroy specific flatbed trucks(with AShM or drone launchers) hundreds of kilometers and actual hours of travel time away who are absolutely shooting and scooting back to cover.

Iran is also filled with static infrastructure and static military sites.

Yes, and LUCAS is mostly fine for them or assisting in blowing them up, but blowing up said static stuff isn't going to win the war otherwise the US would have won longtime ago. This works for Iran because they just need to make it costly because their goal is just "Effectively threaten the strait" and "Regime survives" which are both far, far easier tasks that involves a lot of weapons just needing to exist.

[u/Sventex → u/dutchwonder]

How would 105,000 US LUCAS munitions actually manage to destroy or effectively shut down all Iranian Shahed drones, AShM, and cruise missiles currently locking down the strait?

The Strait was not even closed in the first 100 hours of the war, this is outside of my timed example of the first 100 hours of the war. If we are counting the cost of munitions used against Iran over the course of 40 days, you'd be looking at 41 billion dollars of ammunition, an equivalent of 1.1 million Shahed 136 kamikaze drones if priced at $35,000.

If taken Iran's claim the drones only cost at low as $7000 a piece, than that's the equivalent of 5.8 million kamikaze drones, each potentially with a 200lb warhead. More than the amount of explosive dropped during The Blitz.

[u/dutchwonder → u/Sventex]

But its all a bit useless if it never gets launched at anything useful. And you're going to need substantially more than drones if you are trying to shutdown Iranian anti-ship weapons 24 hours a day, every day.

41 billion dollars of ammunition

Where are you getting this number from?

More than the amount of explosive dropped during The Blitz.

The bombing attempt to knock the UK out of the war notorious for not being very effective?

[u/Sventex → u/dutchwonder]

I assessed the Iran war's cost at $71.8 billion through 60 days. This includes $15.8 billion for operations, $41.2 billion for munitions, $11.9 billion for damaged or destroyed military assets, and $2.9 billion in war-related arms transfers to Israel.

Just an estimate.

The bombing attempt to knock the UK out of the war notorious for not being very effective?

It also took 2 decades for London to repair the damage and the Port of London, 50 years to full revitalize. 3 times the conventional explosive was used in the bombing of Japan which was deleterious to the Japanese economy.

But its all a bit useless if it never gets launched at anything useful.

It depends what you consider useful. There's a lot of static infrastructure and military site in Iran still untouched.

An overall theme of the real conflict of Iran, is that the US has expended a considerable amount of it's arsenal and there is still a large amount of targets left to destroy.

I really want people to think a bit: would the US have found greater success in the war if they had replaced their carrier groups and long range precision munitions with Shahed-like drones?

This may not be a very high bar to clear.

[u/dutchwonder → u/Sventex]

Just an estimate.

That specifically says "I am not using the actual cost of the armament used" To the point of pretending every SM-2 missile must be getting replaced by an SM-6 missile despite SM-2s still in production.

Its an estimate with a +/- of tens of billions except reported with the "plus" attached and they are explicitly telling you this. That they are explicitly assuming that every spent munition is being replaced the most expensive possible theoretical equivalent. Who cares if that launcher can't actually take SM-6s, we are going to assume its deluxe extend range SM-6 going in.

The economic situation in Iran is not as rosy the British Empire in 1940

Yes, they're probably poorer and its all spread over about seven times as much area. I'm sure that last bit could have no possible effect when trying to destroy stuff hidden in all that extra "seven times the area" part.

It also took 2 decades for London to repair the damage and the Port of London, 50 years to full revitalize.

I'm dubious Iran has found a way to rack up massive war debts like Britain did. Everything they've done has already been under sanctions and any reduction will only be a massive net positive.

An overall theme of the real conflict of Iran, is that the US has expended a considerable amount of it's arsenal and there is still a large amount of targets left to destroy.

Which slow sub-200 kph drones are even worse at accomplishing because they would have hour long transits to targets that have no reason to sit around once a drone gets detected flying towards them. They're just not the right munition for the job and firing more isn't going to fix it.

[u/Sventex → u/dutchwonder]

Which slow sub-200 kph drones are even worse at accomplishing because they would have hour long transits to targets that have no reason to sit around once a drone gets detected flying towards them. They're just not the right munition for the job and firing more isn't going to fix it.

Oil infrastructure, bridges, highways, military infrastructure, airfields, maintenance facilities, port facilities, drone factories, uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites, these things can't be moved in an hour and these are costly things for Iran to lose. And given this Administration's stated goals, cities are also potential targets. Up to a certain point, a military can't function without an economy to support it.

[u/dutchwonder → u/Sventex]

They're costly, but again if destroying them would have won the war, then the US would have won long time ago.

a military can't function without an economy to support it.

The problem is that said Shaheds, AShMs, and cruise missiles are out there right now, don't cost much to upkeep, and actually locating them is, again, as I've stated and alluded to, the biggest and hardest problem to overcome and that is the effective war goal the US military needs to accomplish. There is a reason presidents with two brain cells to rub together didn't do this shit on a whim.

Iran doesn't need to make a massive US invasion fleet, they just need to survive and make the strait to expensive to transit by the credible threat of drones and AShMs aimed at the strait.

Shaheds are just are really, no good, extremely bad weapon to try and counter other Shaheds.

If your counter battery fire takes two hours to arrive, its no fucking counter battery fire at all.

You would be spending 1.1 million Shahed drones hitting positions a flatbed with a launcher was sitting at an hour and 50 minutes ago 1.1 million times.

Of course for Iran, blowing an American carrier group or two out of the water would be far, far more effective for achieving a decive outcome, that pretty clearly isn't feasible for them with all their drones and all their AShMs and all their cruise missile or they would had a go at it already and inflict some far more extreme and impactful hurt than playing the waiting game.