Ummm, bombers have no desire to be around things that explode. They want to drop their bombs/missiles, and then get out of Dodge as quick as possible. The munitions on the ground are (at least on Western air bases) housed in very well protected vaults.
Airplanes are so relatively fragile, that it's common for airbases and aircraft carriers to conduct FOD walks to make sure their runways are free of small pieces of metal debris that could be ingested by their engines. It doesn't take a lot to put an airplane out of commission.
These aren't A-10s with titanium bathtubs protecting their pilots. They're large, slow, aluminum skinned craft that have limited maneuverability, and are the quintessential "bomb trucks" for Russia.
My argument is that countering this threat is non-trivial, there are no existing systems in the US that address this threat, and that simplistic solutions should be evaluated on their merits. It's far too easy to hand wave away the complexities of the drone threat.
For example, say we deploy an Arena/Trophy type system around an airbase? What are the ROE for its use? Do we keep it operating 24/7 or only when the threat level seems high enough? Most airbases in the US have small security detachments, and they have ROE that tell them not to blow up semi trucks that might have stalled on a road near the fence. So how do they counter an attack like Ukraine just pulled off?
Airplanes are so relatively fragile, that it's common for airbases and aircraft carriers to conduct FOD walks to make sure their runways are free of small pieces of metal debris that could be ingested by their engines. It doesn't take a lot to put an airplane out of commission.
These aren't A-10s with titanium bathtubs protecting their pilots. They're large, slow, aluminum skinned craft that have limited maneuverability, and are the quintessential "bomb trucks" for Russia.