←back to thread

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

(warontherocks.com)
183 points _tk_ | 7 comments | 26 Jun 25 10:11 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
ggm ◴[26 Jun 25 11:02 UTC] No.44386154[source]▶
You need to compare this to hit rate with mortars and attrition by counter battery fire on mortar teams. Not to detract from a sober assessment but it's hard to judge without the other parts of the story.

Thr tldr would be "temper expectations"

replies(4): >>44386170 #>>44386215 #>>44386250 #>>44386523 #
risyachka ◴[26 Jun 25 11:14 UTC] No.44386215[source]▶
This.

Mortar may be 5 times cheaper but 100x easier to destroy it and its crew.

Also half of the problems described are purely technical and can be easily solved with some budget. In Ukraine most drones are assembled by volunteers. So its not the reliability of drone that is an issue, its lack of proper assembly and QA.

replies(3): >>44386237 #>>44386546 #>>44387348 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[26 Jun 25 11:17 UTC] No.44386237[source]▶
>So its not the reliability of drone that is an issue, its lack of proper assembly and QA

Imagine what China can pull off here in case they're in a war.

replies(1): >>44386437 #
bboygravity ◴[26 Jun 25 11:45 UTC] No.44386437[source]▶
China's fertility rate is 1.

Even if they win the war, they still eventually will have lost.

replies(2): >>44386944 #>>44387173 #
1. FirmwareBurner ◴[26 Jun 25 13:22 UTC] No.44387173{3}[source]▶
Fertility rate is a problem for the future, that you can also solve via better polices and incentives if you want to, meanwhile dying or being enslaved in a war is a problem for right now that you can't escape via policies.

Which one you think is worse?

Also, most wealthy industrialized western nations have the same fertility issues, some are only compensating by huge legal and ilegal immigration which can be causing bigger domestic economic and societal issues than being involved in a war abroad. The west and its values, as we used to know it, is also dying.

replies(2): >>44388070 #>>44394643 #
2. bluGill ◴[26 Jun 25 14:55 UTC] No.44388070[source]▶
Fertility rate in China has been less than one for decades. They have a lot of people, but they are heavily weighted to old.
replies(1): >>44388633 #
3. pzo ◴[26 Jun 25 15:57 UTC] No.44388633[source]▶
in japan it was even for many decades and its a problem but not tragedy, japan today still doing strong. Even if population in china shrink by 50% they will still have more pole than europe or us. And lets face it shrinking 50% this will really take decades and unlikely to happen since this will correct itself eventually.
replies(1): >>44394582 #
4. bboygravity ◴[27 Jun 25 07:37 UTC] No.44394582{3}[source]▶
How is Japan still going strong? Have you been there? Real estate just sitting empty, villages deserted, (young) people with no hope for the future, (hidden) poverty, the government and central bank basically bankrupt long-term.

Japan is stuck in the 90's with no hope for the future and they will be even less relevant then they are now within 1 generation.

Japan is absolutely not "doing strong" for the next 50 years or so and the same will happen to China. If you have no people, you have no future. As simple as that.

And how does the fact that it "will still take decades" suddenly make it OK for the country? Also if you shrink a population by 50% within decades it will completely destroy the economy (and military and culture). You can't just half the population that fast and expect things to just carry on as normal or magically recover.

5. gspetr ◴[27 Jun 25 07:45 UTC] No.44394643[source]▶
>that you can also solve via better polices and incentives if you want to

Nobody can. And it's not like they don't want to. Neither the very traditional and religious Arabic countries like Saudi Arabia (2.14, barely above replacement, and trending down), nor a country like Norway, which can afford the best social program in the world. All have fertility troubles. Urban lifestyle just does fertility in.

replies(1): >>44395003 #
6. FirmwareBurner ◴[27 Jun 25 08:40 UTC] No.44395003[source]▶
>Nobody can.

Yeah you can, they just don't want to because it will be at the cost of short term corporate economic growth.

>And it's not like they don't want to.

They don't want to compromise short term corporate profits. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

>nor a country like Norway, which can afford the best social program in the world

Social programs don't mean shit if nobody can afford to buy urban real estate in the big cities where the jobs are. Norway has different issues than Japan. Every country has different issues.

replies(1): >>44395102 #
7. gspetr ◴[27 Jun 25 08:57 UTC] No.44395102{3}[source]▶
The Government Pension Fund Global (Statens pensjonsfond utland), also known as the Oil Fund (Oljefondet), was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. As of June 2025, it had over US$1.9 trillion in assets.

Price of a 3 bedroom house in Oslo: $1.5M

$1.9T / $1.5M = 1.266M houses

Population of Norway is 5.6M

Got a better argument than housing affordability?