Cheap one-way attack drones are creating a serious problem for modern navies.
A drone may cost relatively little. The missile used to shoot it down may cost far more. Against one target, that may not matter. Against a swarm of 100, the numbers become much harder to ignore.
In one of our most popular videos from June, the Grim Reapers put two very different warships against the same mass drone attack:
- A modern Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer
- The legendary battleship Yamato
One relies on advanced guided missiles. The other relies on guns, ammunition and a truly unreasonable amount of anti-aircraft fire.
The modern missile problem
The Arleigh Burke is built to detect and destroy airborne threats at long range.
Its SM-2, SM-6 and ESSM missiles give it a powerful layered defence. The ship can begin engaging the drones while they are still far away, greatly reducing the chance of anything getting close.
But there is a catch.
Modern interceptors are expensive, and a destroyer only carries a limited number of them. Even a successful defence could leave the ship with fewer missiles available for the next attack.
The defender may win the battle while losing the economic argument.
The gunship alternative
Yamato approaches the problem very differently.
Instead of firing expensive guided weapons, it fills the sky with anti-aircraft gunfire. The ammunition is cheaper, and the ship can carry far more of it.
That sounds ideal against a large group of slow drones—but guns have to engage at much shorter range.
The drones get closer. The reaction time becomes shorter. Any target that survives the barrage could still cause serious damage.
Guns may be cheaper, but they also allow far less room for error.
Missiles or guns?
The simulation is not really about proving that an old battleship is better than a modern destroyer.
It highlights a growing problem: today’s warships may be using some of their most advanced and expensive weapons against threats designed to be cheap, simple and disposable.
That does not mean missile warships are obsolete.
It may mean they need more ways to defend themselves, including:
- Rapid-fire guns
- Cheaper anti-drone missiles
- Electronic warfare
- Lasers and other directed-energy weapons
- A layered combination of all of them
The future may not belong to missiles or guns alone.
It may belong to whichever navy can destroy large numbers of cheap threats without emptying its magazines—or its budget.
Watch the full simulation
See how the Arleigh Burke Flight III and Yamato perform against the same swarm of 100 Shahed-136 drones.
Are we heading back towards the gunship era, or do modern missile destroyers still have the advantage?
Missiles, guns, electronic warfare, lasers—or all of the above?
Disclosure: If you buy books linked to our site, we may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookshops.
Join the debate
What should future warships rely on against mass drone attacks?
Missiles, guns, electronic warfare, lasers—or all of the above?
