Most active commenters
  • esseph(5)
  • tguvot(4)

←back to thread

182 points _tk_ | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0.442s | source | bottom
Show context
originalvichy ◴[] 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(9): >>44386890 #>>44386993 #>>44387435 #>>44387754 #>>44388143 #>>44388161 #>>44388299 #>>44391144 #>>44391947 #
dinfinity ◴[] No.44386993[source]
> 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. Reubachi ◴[] No.44387175[source]
Your linked video is interesting, but I fail to see how this at all differentiates/promotes drone usage versus artillery, indirect fire.

Your video shows something that an artillery corps could accomplish just as easily and not at all be prone to EW.

Granted, moving indirect fire is probably more expensive than a single fpv drone dropping a thermite bomb, but at scale indirect fire is far cheaper, more effective, and critically not prone to EW.

replies(3): >>44387790 #>>44388172 #>>44391269 #
2. esseph ◴[] No.44387790[source]
Think of the fpv drone like a smol guided TOW missile at extremely low cost.

The artillery, while destructive, is not going to be nearly as accurate. If you want artillery to hit something on the move accurately you want something like a laser adjusted Excalibur round.

The drone is actually extremely efficient.

replies(1): >>44388034 #
3. CapricornNoble ◴[] No.44388034[source]
Laser-guided artillery rounds have been around a while. The Soviets were using laser-guided 240mm heavy mortar rounds in Afghanistan.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1351804050035499...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead

replies(1): >>44388367 #
4. dinfinity ◴[] No.44388172[source]
Drone 1 (or any other means) destroys the canopy. Drones 2-10 are no longer hindered by said canopy and deliver their payload with extreme and dynamic precision.

Remember that the argument was basically that drones can do nothing useful in (heavily) forested terrain. They can with a little bit of creativity.

replies(1): >>44389055 #
5. esseph ◴[] No.44388367{3}[source]
I was one of the first non special operations troops to use a modern infantry-company sized drone (small, low cost) to guide conventional and guided artillery in 2008-9 for the US.

Laser guided Excalibur rounds didn't come out until much later, same for the laser guided jdams. And the cost of those is much higher, plus logistical an deployment cost, than a FPV drone.

Edit: I also don't know anybody that ever fired a copperhead round in anger. That was very much a product of 80s and 90s doctrine to counter Russian armor.

replies(1): >>44388738 #
6. tguvot ◴[] No.44388738{4}[source]
there are now laser/gps guided mortars. probably still more expensive than drone but easier to deploy
replies(2): >>44389731 #>>44392407 #
7. originalvichy ◴[] No.44389055[source]
I guess we live in different regions. Everything north of Estonia/Denmark is thick spruce and pine forest. I’ve seen what artillery does to these trees, but I’d be hesitant to say a drone could lift something heavy enough to serve like Vietnam war era ”daisy cutters”. Artillery explodes closer to the forest floor.
replies(1): >>44389344 #
8. tguvot ◴[] No.44389344{3}[source]
russians really didnt like this last year https://youtu.be/SUe7SJgVMmo?t=110
9. esseph ◴[] No.44389731{5}[source]
Yep, 120mms I think.

You won't find them with light infantry, but you will with Cav / Mech units.

replies(1): >>44390474 #
10. tguvot ◴[] No.44390474{6}[source]
special forces and other unspecified units: https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/iron-sting-an-exclusive-...
replies(1): >>44390783 #
11. esseph ◴[] No.44390783{7}[source]
Sorry I'm talking US specifically.

To my knowledge there still isn't a laser guided mortar in the US inventory with dual mode laser terminal guidance. HEGM project was cancelled in 2018.

replies(1): >>44392032 #
12. neuralRiot ◴[] No.44391269[source]
Isn’t artillery easier to locate/ counter attack than a drone operator station?
replies(1): >>44391550 #
13. tobias3 ◴[] No.44391550[source]
RCH 155 which Ukraine has now can shoot while moving. That should make it harder to counter.
14. tguvot ◴[] No.44392032{8}[source]
well, if usa will get a bundle of iron dome, iron fist and iron sting, it will get a cool 30% discount
15. ponector ◴[] No.44392407{5}[source]
GPS guided munitions like Excalibur are useless against peer adversary. Costs as much as 100 regular rounds and as 200+ FPV drones but has zero accuracy thanks to EW and jamming.
replies(1): >>44392564 #
16. esseph ◴[] No.44392564{6}[source]
... Not quite.

Local airborne EW platforms can relay GPS signal.

Combined with Inertial Navigation System reduces the CEP.

Laser terminal guidance gets it on point.

The US has a lot of work to do in EW - it also has done a lot of work to prepare for some of these scenarios.