←back to thread

183 points _tk_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.412s | 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 #
thatguy0900 ◴[] No.44389253[source]
I was under the impression that while there is a lot of grift, a lot of that was supply chain cost as well. You or I could build one but it would all be sourced in China without vetted supply chain parts or firmware. These Ukraine drones are all off the shelf parts and running who knows what firmware everywhere.
replies(3): >>44391619 #>>44392569 #>>44392586 #
1. fennecbutt ◴[] No.44392586[source]
I suppose that's true but not necessarily. Most of the control hardware would likely come from Taiwan. Structural components can be machined locally, brushless motors or whatever other mechanism can also be machined locally. Sensors etc are available from Japan/Taiwan as well. But tbf I think it would be possible to source reliable Chinese components from reputable companies as well - try do b2b already and they wouldn't get the sales if the product didn't work. Make purchases through a variety of disposable paper companies and the factories would have no idea that it's for defense.

Software for loitering etc would be so easy nowadays too. Hell I can tell a pi zero to track GPS + multiple cameras + loiter/engage target on whatever signatures are available from available sensors.

I say this while eyeing up the Carvera. I want to justify it so badly. Perhaps the Air...not for aforementioned purposes of course, unless some defense contractor wants to pay me ahaha.