It's a component in a layered air defense network. Different tools for different problems, working in concert.
This may be good for defending FOBs and important infrastructure against shahed drones and similar
This may be good for defending FOBs and important infrastructure against shahed drones and similar
it could replace in that specific scenarios: fighting against cheap but slow drones.
You don't have them near the high-value target right now because it's simply too expansive to build enough of these to cover all the thousands of kms of frontline and thousands of high-value targets all over the country. So you put them where they are most needed and cover the rest with long-range missiles.
I'm pretty sure AA cannon is cheaper to build than this RFDEW device. If you can't build enough AA to defend against drones now - you won't be able to build enough RFDEW either. Yes operating costs will be lower, but initial cost will be higher, so you still won't have enough of them.
So you'd still need to use the long-range missiles to deal with the drones that slipped through the gaps.
BTW I do hope they can improve the range, but as is it's not going to replace long-range missiles.
I suspect AA cannon may suffer in accuracy on such ranges trying to target small moving target, because too much physics is involved (wind, bullet drop), from another hand those beaming devices will have near 100% accuracy.
This seems like a good, ship mounted, close range AA option
The cost of the drone is less important than the price of what you are protecting
But where is the connection to that this missile is the one intended to be replaced? Where is the military saying this? I suspect they talk more in terms of expanding the available types of fires they can use depending on the circumstance