←back to thread

183 points _tk_ | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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(10): >>44386890 #>>44386993 #>>44387435 #>>44387754 #>>44388143 #>>44388161 #>>44388299 #>>44391144 #>>44391947 #>>44394715 #
thebruce87m ◴[] No.44387754[source]
> Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx.

The drones now are using fibre optic cables with the reel mounted on the drone. Having the reel on the drone avoids snagging issues and the fibre itself avoids EW jamming and line of sight issues.

replies(1): >>44387843 #
abracadaniel ◴[] No.44387843[source]
I watched the video of one navigating a series of nets to weave its way inside and into the open hatch of a tank. It’s ridiculously impressive.
replies(1): >>44387920 #
dizhn ◴[] No.44387920[source]
I watched a video of one being destroyed by cutting the trailing fiber optic cable with a pair of scissors. Also impressive.
replies(5): >>44388021 #>>44388126 #>>44388156 #>>44389720 #>>44390101 #
Fokamul ◴[] No.44388021[source]
Yes, def. possible. But right now in UA's regions where drones are used the most, there are so many used fiber-optic cables laying on the fields, that you have basically zero chance to cut them all, because you would be cutting already discarded ones.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcMZWRJL_m4

replies(1): >>44393031 #
1. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44393031{3}[source]
I was wondering about that. At military-industrial scale, that's a lot of fiber optic cable.

And it's glass, no? So not going to environmentally degrade over time.

Considering the fighting is mostly over agricultural fields, what are the long term consequences of years of war?

replies(1): >>44393071 #
2. sentientslug ◴[] No.44393071[source]
Somehow I don’t think that’s their primary concern at the moment
replies(1): >>44393365 #
3. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44393365[source]
Granted. But it's going to be someone's concern after all this is over.

And unlike landmines, how do you detect and remove kilometers of cable?

replies(2): >>44394012 #>>44394953 #
4. plomme ◴[] No.44394012{3}[source]
Glass breaks down to sand so I wouldn’t worry too much about it
5. Mawr ◴[] No.44394953{3}[source]
I was about to respond to your comment above by saying landmines are 1000x worse, but you just said the opposite, which is completely incomprehensible to me. Are you perchance thinking of literally just the environment, not the fact that countless lives will be harmed and lost for decades to come because of the indiscriminate nature of landmines?