[Goose]

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

My mind tends to quickly flow to doomsday scenarios.  Are these drone based systems more likely to "leak" to domestic terrorists than older systems (say shoulder mounted MANPADS)?

Absolutely. Right this minute they can buy a DJI drone, mount an explosive on it, and they are in business. It must however be said that the vast majority of drones do not hit their targets even when used by experienced and well-trained operators. The statistics are pretty clear on that point. Thus a terrorist may have say a one in four chance of hitting his target using a single drone. This is already assuming said terrorist has lots of practice operating a drone.

Launching and guiding a drone is lots less "attention getting" than firing a MANPADS. MANPADS leave a significant backblast. Even having a MANPADS is illegal. Having a drone is not. Of course, if you are don't care if you get caught it doesn't matter. Against airliners that are not expecting to evade attack, MANPADS are undoubtedly much more effective. Probability of kill in that case has to be near to 100%. MANPADS also have warheads that are much better suited to the task than something "home brew". That said, a drone without a warhead can do great damage to an airliner that runs into it. An inert drone probably won't bring the airliner down, but it could if it got lucky.

[Goose]

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

My mind tends to quickly flow to doomsday scenarios.  Are these drone based systems more likely to "leak" to domestic terrorists than older systems (say shoulder mounted MANPADS)?

Absolutely. Right this minute they can buy a DJI drone, mount an explosive on it, and they are in business. It must however be said that the vast majority of drones do not hit their targets even when used by experienced and well-trained operators. The statistics are pretty clear on that point. Thus a terrorist may have say a one in four chance of hitting his target using a single drone. This is already assuming said terrorist has lots of practice operating a drone.

Launching and guiding a drone is lots less "attention getting" than firing a MANPADS. MANPADS leave a significant backblast. Even having a MANPADS is illegal. Having a drone is not. Of course, if you are don't care if you get caught it doesn't matter. Against airliners that are not expecting to evade attack, MANPADS are undoubtedly much more effective. Probability of kill in that case has to be near to 100%. MANPADS also have warheads that are much better suited to the task than something "home brew". That said, a drone without a warhead can do great damage to an airliner that runs into it. An inert drone probably won't bring the airliner down, but it could if it got lucky.