I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

(warontherocks.com)

Show context

originalvichy ◴[26 Jun 25 12:39 UTC] No.44386840[source]▶

FPV drones for combat are a hot flash in the pan. They have had a major effect for now, but naturally as these countermeasures evolve, so weakens their effect.

I keep telling people that the terrain and the strategies that Russians use is the primary reason for the effectiveness. Mortars and artillery already handle the same requirements as the author says. The reason they are effective in 2024-25 is that the drip-drip-drip of single soldiers running over vast fields / unarmoed vehicles driving over known routes is the only way Russians make progress. For a moving target they are great, but multiple moving targets would get shredded by competent artillery anyway.

Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx.

By far the best use of drones still is as battlefield recon/fire correction to adjust existing artillery/mortar capabilities.

Source: I’m one such drone hobbyist and I’ve watched way too much footage from the front. None of what i’m writing is in absolute terms. I just don’t see the same way as commenters in the public who think they are a checkmate for any combat situation. The incompetence of the Russian forces caught everyone by surprise, but they have learned. My country’s border with Russia is heavily forested and not as flat as Russia. The drones are not able to go through the canopy. Infrared recon is a way better choice than FPV suicide drones.

replies(10): >>44386890 #>>44386993 #>>44387435 #>>44387754 #>>44388143 #>>44388161 #>>44388299 #>>44391144 #>>44391947 #>>44394715 #

dinfinity ◴[26 Jun 25 12:58 UTC] No.44386993[source]▶

>>44386840 #

> I’ve watched way too much footage from the front.

Did you see the videos of a drone dropping a shitload of thermite on a forest canopy? [0]

> Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx.

Most nations have cellular networks that penetrate buildings and forests just fine. In fact, Ukraine used the Russian cellular network for their recent attack deep behind enemy lines.

I'm not saying this will always be possible, but it's not hard to see that line of sight communication is not the end of the line for military drone control. There are many routes for providing an ad hoc line of communication if you don't just use consumer-level tech.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00-ngEj5Q9k

replies(3): >>44387047 #>>44387175 #>>44387758 #

1. originalvichy ◴[26 Jun 25 13:06 UTC] No.44387047[source]▶

>>44386993 #

Did you miss the part about signals jamming in the article? The reason the attack on airfields worked is precisely because they operate inland and not on the frontline. Cellular networks not only can be jammed but towers are a priority target. That’s why Starlink is/was so crucial. Even GPS is jammed so independent flight can be impossible with cheap components.

The thermite drones do attack forested areas on the farmlands, but the forests I talk about are tens or hundreds of kilometers wide. You could just fire an artillery round and be done with it.

replies(3): >>44387807 #>>44388322 #>>44388396 #

2. general1726 ◴[26 Jun 25 14:30 UTC] No.44387807[source]▶

>>44387047 (TP) #

Since fiber optics being used signal jamming is stopping to be a thing. You can fly with a drone into basement and have 4k video.

3. fellowniusmonk ◴[26 Jun 25 15:25 UTC] No.44388322[source]▶

>>44387047 (TP) #

I wonder what the tech gap is to using circular polarized light from the sun as a point of reference for dead reckoning. If Bees use it why not camera systems?

replies(1): >>44389327 #

4. dinfinity ◴[26 Jun 25 15:33 UTC] No.44388396[source]▶

>>44387047 (TP) #

> Did you miss the part about signals jamming in the article?

"Drones also operate in a cluttered segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. First-person view drones use unencrypted analog radio signals, and in hot parts of the front, as many as a dozen drone teams may be competing for use of a handful of frequencies (a consequence of using cheaper components)."

The currently used FPV drones use consumer level ass communication methods. Do you also think that current military-grade communication methods can be easily jammed on the battlefield?

Using the consumer level stuff as a reference point and thinking it is somehow SOTA is not going to lead to good conclusions.

> Cellular networks not only can be jammed but towers are a priority target.

The point was that there are plenty of radio signals that work fine and with high bandwidth in the 'problematic' terrain types you mentioned. Having said that, you can't rely on the cellular towers of the enemies of course. You need relay drones to create your own ad hoc cellular network.

> You could just fire an artillery round and be done with it.

At what coordinate? The whole point of FPV drones is that the operator can fly close to the target area and only then decide what the best place to strike is. A shell that is 20m off target is just a waste.

The point of destroying the canopy is reducing the attenuation of the signal for other drones to go in and be able to be precise.

replies(1): >>44391901 #

5. LorenPechtel ◴[26 Jun 25 17:18 UTC] No.44389327[source]▶

>>44388322 #

That will give facing. Not range, nor actual bearing (your drone is moving relative to the local air, not to the ground.)

replies(1): >>44391284 #

6. fellowniusmonk ◴[26 Jun 25 20:57 UTC] No.44391284{3}[source]▶

>>44389327 #

I guess I mean in the sense of if you have the drones starting position, the end location (or approximate) and movement tracking based on terrain movement, like the cheap version of Tomahawk but instead of having a map you just use relative change from a stereo camera/lidar pointed at the ground to track relative movement? I guess the hardware to run that isn't available in mass production.

7. CamperBob2 ◴[26 Jun 25 21:59 UTC] No.44391901[source]▶

>>44388396 #

Dense forest scenarios aside, it seems to me that an FPV drone could perhaps serve best as an adjunct to mortar fire and other artillery, rather than as a replacement. If you knew exactly where your drone was, it could basically assume the role of a forward observer.

The article says that GPS is largely hopeless on their particular battlefield, though, so some other means of accurate positioning would probably be needed.

↑