←back to thread

182 points _tk_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
oersted ◴[] No.44386475[source]
I don’t understand why the author has such a narrow definition of FPV drones.

He talks as if reusable drones are a completely different category, that they are all toys designed for enthusiast racers… Generally he implies that a myriad arbitrary technical details are fundamental limitations of this paradigm, it’s a strange mindset.

Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if it’s 20% accounting for environmental factors and faults in manufacturing. How likely is it that a mortar does anything? Or a soldier with a rifle? Or anything else?

> When I joined the team, I was excited to work with a cutting-edge tool.

It sounds like he was imagining some kind of scifi adventure, but it’s always been clear that they are using cheap drones with tech that has been commonplace for a decade. And that’s completely fine, it’s intentional.

replies(1): >>44386531 #
palata ◴[] No.44386531[source]
> Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if it’s 20%

That's the whole question, and that's kind of the point that the article raises: the success rate does not matter. What matters is the cost. At the same cost, can you do more damage with other weapons or not?

replies(3): >>44386601 #>>44386658 #>>44388169 #
1. inglor_cz ◴[] No.44388169[source]
I think we should not discount the psychological effect.

From what I have read from Ukraine vets, ubiquitous drones make you crazy in a way that tank attacks don't. The difference is in their ubiquity. You are likely to encounter a tank relatively infrequently, and have enough time to recuperate between those encounters. But with a sky full of drones 24/7, or close to that, your nerves will give way sooner or later.

This alone may cripple the forward units.