←back to thread

182 points _tk_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
varjag ◴[] No.44386284[source]
This tracks with the earlier ~12% drone kill efficiency estimates. However drone is a mass deployment weapon. Ukraine did about 2 million frontline sorties in 2024 and aims for 5 million this year. This 1 out of 9 ratio translates into absolutely devastating damage, that artillery and airstrikes (which are also hardly "easy to use") can only dream of.
replies(1): >>44386456 #
Neil44 ◴[] No.44386456[source]
This is true, but the author also talks about cost e.g. $500 for a drone vs $100 for an artillery shell with far more effect. Surely at the point where the drone has visual on the target you can fire 5 x shells over for massively greater effect on target, and keep the drone flying for the next target, and the next.
replies(2): >>44386520 #>>44389163 #
varjag ◴[] No.44386520[source]
$100 is a cost of a 60mm mortar shell. It is a hand grenade sized munition lobbed from a Pringles can sized weapon to the range of 1-2km. This is generally not the thing that comes to mind when you think of artillery strike.

A 155mm (dumb, unguided) shell would set you back 5-8K USD. That's before the propellant charge, fuse and amortization of the artillery piece and its 5 man crew.

replies(3): >>44386849 #>>44387861 #>>44387967 #
hnaccount_rng ◴[] No.44387861[source]
Then again the payload of an FPV is much more comparable to the mortar round than to the 155mm one
replies(2): >>44388044 #>>44388642 #
1. varjag ◴[] No.44388642[source]
An FPV drone can take out a tank, missile erector-launcher or a dugout. Kinda hard with 60mm mortar.