If You Are Making a Priority List…

This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

16 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
thexrayboy
thexrayboy
1 day ago

Just ONE tool to deal with the evolving drone threat. Can’t just rely on this though because some clever opponent WILL come up with a way to counter this..or destroy it.

Crawfisher
Crawfisher
1 day ago

Bet the military has a version thst can ‘cook’ people, especially in large crowds?

DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
1 day ago
Reply to  Crawfisher

Yep. .mil has had that tech for years. The DEW can be pointed at rioters, or parents protesting outside of a school board. The energy heats the moisture underneath the skin and the crowds disperse to avoid the pain. I watched this demonstrated on The Military Channel on cable over 12 years ago.

Latigo Morgan
Latigo Morgan
15 hours ago
Reply to  Crawfisher

This tech was originally developed for crowd control. I recall reading about it a good 20 years ago.

Irod Folsom
Irod Folsom
1 day ago

Pretty good it’s starting fires, and burning down cities

Tom Winslow
Tom Winslow
1 day ago

Critical Analysis:
The post aligns with real-world developments in directed-energy weapons, particularly Epirus’ Leonidas system, which is part of the U.S. military’s push to counter the growing threat of drone swarms, as seen in conflicts like Ukraine. However, the language used by Defence Index on X amplifies the system’s capabilities for effect, presenting it as a near-futuristic solution without acknowledging limitations like range (reportedly a few kilometers), environmental factors, or the need for further testing. Additionally, X posts are not primary sources and often prioritize attention-grabbing narratives over precision. The claim’s core is grounded, but the hype risks overstating the system’s readiness and impact.
The post is not “bullshit” in the sense that the Leonidas system exists and has demonstrated counter-drone capabilities. However, it’s misleading in its exaggerated portrayal of the system as a fully realized, swarm-vaporizing superweapon. The technology is promising but still in development, with practical limitations yet to be fully addressed. Always cross-check such claims with primary sources or reputable defense publications for a clearer picture.

RHT447
RHT447
1 day ago
Reply to  Tom Winslow

“…with practical limitations yet to be fully addressed”.
Indeed. I wonder how portable the power source is.

RHT447
RHT447
1 day ago
Reply to  DRenegade

I did. The video is just an artist’s rendition of the concept. If the rendition is accurate, no worries. In the meantime, I stand by my statement.

Mcvierh
Mcvierh
1 day ago

Can you say “faraday cage”?

Fido
Fido
22 hours ago
Reply to  Mcvierh

A “faraday cage” would also block radio communications with the drone, so that’s really only feasible for drones dragging a fiberoptic cable… which can potentially be tracked back to the operator. (conceivably, laser communications might be possible, but I know of no such system in use, and it would severely add to battery drain, unlike fiber which drastically reduces battery drain)

Quatermain
20 hours ago

Drones, Like Aircraft Carriers, are weapons’ limited in time and technology. Both are approaching obsolescence.

Snotty Boy
Snotty Boy
20 hours ago
Reply to  Quatermain

Don’t forget the main battle tank……

Patriot_One
Patriot_One
17 hours ago

Lame. I think we can do better than 1950s tech straight out of Flash Gordon. LOL

Martha
Martha
4 hours ago

And how will this Not be used against commercial airlines? Fear of flying!