← Back to context

Comment by bell-cot

2 days ago

Yeah, obviously F-16's & humans scale very poorly for this. However:

- At one-a-day scale, political and risk considerations probably favor the expensive solution.

- Using F-16's reveals nothing about your current anti-drone defenses. (Yeah, it's also a real-world basic competence test for your air force - for better and for worse.)

- If your intel people want more data on the drones, an F-16 can haul a whole lotta intel-gathering equipment to the show.

- If you're dealing internally with some head-in-the-sand traditionalists dragging their heels on updating your doctrine/equipment/training to deal with drones, then "real world, right now" examples are probably useful.

(BTW - do the articles say "a2a missile" anywhere? F-16's typically mount a 20mm cannon, a cheap drone is not a hard target, and cannon rounds are dirt cheap by compare.)

5 comments

bell-cot

Reply
nradov  2 days ago

Ukrainian F-16s have used cannons to shoot down some Russian drones. Cheaper than a missile, but a somewhat risky maneuver as it requires getting close at low altitude and possibly flying through the exploding debris.

https://www.zona-militar.com/en/2026/02/09/ukrainian-f-16am-...

  • bell-cot  2 days ago

    Thanks. With the relative speeds, I'd guess the Falcons would use an attack profile similar to ground strafing - letting them pass well above the cloud of debris. Any thoughts?

    Also, Wikipedia gives a 3km effective firing range for the M61 - but it'd be no surprise if the F-16's standard targeting optics can't achieve that against small airborne targets.