111–120 of 650 posts
But yeah, drones will probably take most of the missions away.
I'm surprise the article didn't mention the US military history. The US Army has not had a evolution of its attack helicopter since the 1970s. I remember because one of my favorite childhood games was Comanche 3. [1] Control a helicopter, not crash, not get shot down, neutralize enemies, and achieve mission objectives -- it was cutting-edge for 1997. The Comanche program was scrapped after more than a decade of devel…
My understanding is that the latest versions of the Apache and Cobra are very different from their original incarnations, despite looking similar, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more complex than that. The US made Switchblade drones which cost tens of thousands of dollars were outperformed with lightly modified FPVs with grenades, which came in under a thousand.
We don't know if they underperfomed so much as weren't cost effective. If the switchblade costing $10k results in a kill 80% of the time, while the $1k drone is 30% of the time, you just get 3 times as many $1k drones, average about the same kill rate, and save 70% to boot. Or spend the same amount and get about 3x the kill rate.
A BS article if I ever saw one. Take for example this: > Moreover, the threat is not the organic air defences of battlegroups or a Soviet Motor-Rifle Regiment or Brigade, but dispersed and well-hidden infantry and special forces units equipped with modern MANPADS missile systems. Furthermore, because the enemy forces are operating over the defenders’ own ground, the defence can be cued and alerted to approaching heli…
Whoever can most cost effectively put explosives on target wins. The future will be annihilation at a distance with cheap standoff weapons followed by swarms of cheap drones loitering over battlefields to clean up.
I think most manned war vehicles are dead now. We are definitely entering into the era of drone-vs-human warfare. Drones are cheap and deadly and can be remotely operated, and soon probably operated by AI.
Yeah, well, the Ukrainian army is on record saying they'd rather have more artillery shells than more drones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think most manned war vehicles are dead now. IMO, submarines - especially nuclear subs probably have decades of life left at a minimum. But yeah - everything else is starting to look very vulnerable.
What’s to stop development of unmanned drone SSNs? Including ones that act as motherships for underwater drone swarms to boot.
Torpedoes are forced to use physical wires for remote guidance because nothing else works.
It would be pretty easy for someone to develop a quiet, long-range torpedo that can be launched undetected outside active sonar range. (Assuming this capability doesn’t already exist.)
Also, SSNs already carry long-range drones called cruise missiles.
Manned subs will take a long time to become obsolete.
Russia's Ka-52 were a significant problem for Ukraine in the summer 2023 offensive. When Ukraine's armour would meet massive mine fields and get stymied, it was Ka-52s arriving, popping up over tree lines and taking pot shots at them with ATGMs from a distance that outranged most of their MANPADs. Only a few were taken out by lucky hits near the front. The only reason they aren't seen as much anymore is because Russi…
Western militaries don't seem to have much capability for tactical/mobile medium range air defense. The Russian Air Force has been extremely unimpressive, but has cobbled together an effective tactic now of launching glide bombs at front line targets from relatively safe territory. I am surprised no one has figured out how to put one or two long-range air-air missiles on a loitering high altitude drone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, well, the Ukrainian army is on record saying they'd rather have more artillery shells than more drones.
I’d guess they can reuse the drones most of the time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more complex than that. The US made Switchblade drones which cost tens of thousands of dollars were outperformed with lightly modified FPVs with grenades, which came in under a thousand.
We don't know if they underperfomed so much as weren't cost effective. If the switchblade costing $10k results in a kill 80% of the time, while the $1k drone is 30% of the time, you just get 3 times as many $1k drones, average about the same kill rate, and save 70% to boot. Or spend the same amount and get about 3x the kill rate.
Much of the US focus on precision terminal guidance is derived from this calculus in a straightforward way. It may be more expensive in a unit cost sense but significantly cheaper in terms of net expected effect on the battlefield. This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine.