←back to thread

183 points _tk_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
aqsalose ◴[] No.44386241[source]
Many of the issues sound like issues coming from using improvised civilian hobbyist tech and doctrine being in its infancy.

If current FPV drones are bit lackluster, it doesn't preclude 'next generation' that are purposefully developed for military use won't be useful. Also it sounds like the designation of "FPV drone" is specific to particular family of drones specific in current day and time, which may be something quite else next year. Like, obviously the next stage is a FPV drone with some capabilities of "reusable" drone or loitering munition author complains of (capability to hover easily)? Or "reusable" drone with FPV camera?

replies(4): >>44386458 #>>44387365 #>>44389744 #>>44391108 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.44387365[source]
Western militaries have things like this: https://greydynamics.com/switchblade-drone-small-spring-load...

More autonomy, but MUCH more expensive. Thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per use. The issue is indeed using mass-produced consumer drones. It's a bit like the widespread use of "technicals" in some conflicts: yes, a pickup truck with a .50cal in the back is inferior to tanks or armored cars, but it's also much, much cheaper.

There's a bit of a "Sherman vs. Tiger" thing that's been going on since the dawn of industrialised warfare. Is it better to have a more effective weapon that you can only afford a few of, or lots of cheaper ones?

The US doctrine approach to the problem would simply be a set of B2 bunker buster decapitation strikes on Russian military HQs, but of course that option is not available to Ukraine. They can't even manage Iraq-war-style wave of SEAD strikes followed by unit level CAS. The air war has kind of stalemated with neither side having conventional air superiority and both being vulnerable to the other's anti-air.

replies(3): >>44387983 #>>44388580 #>>44389058 #
fennecbutt ◴[] No.44389058[source]
Switchblade 2 is $80k usd per unit.

And the only reason for that is that as per usual private companies are making a killing.

You and I could build a similarly functioning device in 6 months with a small team. They're not that smart/advanced, imo.

I think most of the money for these things isn't paid for research/engineering but goes into MBA/investor pockets.

replies(3): >>44389253 #>>44389466 #>>44392624 #
1. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.44389466[source]
There is also the problem that the military tends to go for the best. In some cases that's a good idea (the cost of getting that laser-guided bomb to the release point is well above the cost of the bomb), but when dealing with unmanned units the zerg approach is very often the winner.

Look at Iron Dome. By comparison to other modern SAMs it's abysmal. But that's by design, Israel wasn't looking for a good SAM. They were looking for the cheapest SAM that could hit a sitting duck. But that's what it's facing--ballistic inbounds that have no countermeasures and no ability to evade.