With the new technology of attack drones, capable of hitting from untraceable distances, is there even a chance to secure an area? Is the only future for defense strategies, the idea of counter attack (or preemptive attack)?
I am sooo puzzled. How do you defend against something that you can't detect where it comes from before fired, and is as fast as a rocket? (Such as the payloads of attack drones?)
Humans can't be relied on to do it, no. However computer systems have been developed to fill that role. Anti-ballistic missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile Phalanx systems in place on US Aircraft Carriers: [ame="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/333517/phalanx_anti_missile_system/"]Phalanx Anti-Missile System - Video[/ame] Stinger countermeasures: http://science.howstuffworks.com/guardian.htm As has already been stated, its an effective balance between offense and defense that ends up being superior.
You are aware of course that the V-1 of WWII would essentially be called a "drone" today. And Allied pilots became quite adept at shooting them down, in an era of machine guns and no computers at all. And the vast majority of conventional Air Defense systems are either unable to lock onto a modern drone, or have a real hard time hitting them. Direct fire by a conventional weapon (.50 cal, 20mm, STINGER) is much more likely to take one down then anything as sophisticated as Phalanx or Patriot.
This is bad news. This means that anyone with a few drones (and this includes people like HAMAS or HEZBULLAH(?)) can attack us without even entering US air space, they just get close enough above international waters with the drones and launch anything from there.
A few drones can only typically carry a few missiles. While these could cause damage, I doubt on a cost benefit analysis basis it would really be worth it. You'd also have to sneak the ship in close enough (warships usually get tracked). Once you shoot the chances of the ship making it out alive are about zero. Then you factor in the retaliation strikes and it seems even less likely.
And that is exactly why we do not worry about that much. Like many attacks (9-11, Pearl Harbor), such an attack could really only work once. Drones are most often dificult to track because radar systems are configured to ignore them. Anything flying that does not match a required speed, size, or altitude is generally ignored, and not reported. This is why radar operators are not reporting every bird, balloon, piece of high-flying trash, or other such things as "enemy targets". Since drones are generally small, slow, and fly low to the ground, if they are detected the system would simply consider them to be birds and ignore them. And even if it was on an attack path with missiles or explosives, they can not carry very much. For example, the Predator can only carry 2 Hellfire missiles (a total of 40 lbs of explosives). That is not going to do very much damage. Compare this to your average car bomb, which will have 400+ pounds of explosives (plus shrapnel and fuel). And as IB says, the launching ship would quickly be discovered. Remember, just because the radar "ignores" the drone, that does not mean it does not see it. The software may ignore it, and there may not be enough of a return to shoot a missile at it, but it still records and tracks it from where it first saw the track until it leaves it's area of coverage. Looking at the data they would quickly discover where it came from and track it back to it's source.
