Yes, the US seems to be fighting the last war - both strategically and tactically.

> Are you going to flatten everything a mile around every base, and shoot at head height with zero warning?

Yes. You've obviously never seen a C-RAM in action. They will put 20 mm rounds in any angle that isn't restricted. The rounds go far beyond a mile when fired into the air. Only a few hit the target, dozens/hundreds of rounds just sail off into the distance, and if it hits a village down the road, well that's just too bad. Shooting downward into the dirt is probably a better arrangement because ricochets won't go as far.

> How's that going to work when the drone doesn't show up on radar and has fiber-optic controls?

Tiny drones do show up on radar. Tiny birds show up on radar. Making a quadcopter or similar drone stealthy kills some of the value proposition on making them cheaply, and physically shrinking them lowers the amount of destructive payload they can carry. Fiber optics don't help against a directed energy weapon- the microwaves burn out the electronics; it's not a jammer, it's a heat ray. And if there was a fiber optic line, that means the attacker is close enough to be struck directly rather than some long-distance control or autonomous program.

Before you think you've solved warfare and that a modern military can't possibly defend against your brilliant tactics, learn about what warfare is actually like and how the systems work. A lot of your ideas have already been thought out. A loss of a single helicopter is not really an indictment of the US military's defense; the fact that there's only one of these stories vs. the many that have come out of Ukraine indicate that a US base isn't nearly as vulnerable as the Russians have been. While Ukraine is punching far above its weight, their adversary is hampered by (more) corrupt acquisition processes, poorly trained conscripts, and overall bad decision making.

That first paragraph is a good argument for using this defense in occupied land, less so for domestic bases per the hypothetical. It becomes laughably bad if the target is changed from military to civilian; the defense seems likely to cause as much or more damage.

This is partly why most military bases are not in a city- open space makes it easier to defend. (Another reason is that the dangerous chemicals and loud training make residents hate the base even in peacetime.)

And attacking civilian targets is a violation of the law of armed conflict. It would be a war crime if a country were to use drones (or any weapon) to intentionally attack civilians who are not participating in the fight.

I don't even know why people are still arguing. The US has been bombing Iran for nearly a month now. If drones and drone tactics were a particular weakness, why hasn't the US lost more equipment because of it? Out of 25 losses recorded for the US only one has been because of a drone. The US has lost more due to crashes and friendly fire than enemy drone action. Until drones are more effective than just someone not paying attention then it's hard to make an argument that there is a serious weakness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_an...