[flagged]
Unhappy that rapists and baby killers are stopped before they can commit more war crimes?
[flagged]
I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
71–80 of 355 posts
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if it’s 20% That's the whole question, and that's kind of the point that the article raises: the success rate does not matter. What matters is the cost. At the same cost, can you do more damage with other weapons or not?
A hit does not equal a kill. Killing a tank or an apc, takes a lot of hits from an FPV drone due to the small payload. I have heard quoted an average of 16 hits. That's why you see videos trying to go in open hatches and the like. And that's why you are seeing cope cages. It doesnt matter how many chains or steel plates you weld on to your tank if you are hit by a TOW or a Javelin, it's still going to get you. They c…
It's a good point, I'm wondering though what the ROI of a Javelin is throughout its lifetime, including training costs. It's not obvious that you end up better off, perhaps.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#73> During my time in [...], I collected statistics on the success of our drone operations. I found that [...] Assuming the writer and their allegiances are what they say, is any of the info valuable to any of their adversaries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships
None of what he is saying is that valuable. All of these problems are something a hobbyist fpv drone pilot can share. Add to that, it’s quite old info. If the author didn’t get a chance to see fiber optic drones, they left the fray a long time ago in terms of advancement.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
More challenging than what?
More challenging than counter-battery fire against artillery, which is basically a solved problem in warfare.
But not more challenging than counter battery against teams firing Javelins or other portable anti tank weapons.Or teams using Switchblades.
FPVs are man portable guided munitions, not artillery. Pretty much all existing man portable guided anti tank weapons are better than FPVs at their job.
And artillery is better than any of them at it's job. While FPVs can score kills they have minimal suppression effects, when an FPV hits a friendly, everyone else is going to keep moving, because stopping will offer them no benefit from the next one, and the next one might be minutes out. When an artillery round lands everyone hits the deck.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#75Even if the technology improves and the economics of scale reduces the cost, I still don't buy the narrative that swarms of tiny kamikaze drones will radically change warfare. Aside from radio jamming, I have not seen an actual defense against a strong EMP. To defend against an EMP wiping out your drone swarm, you would have to invest in shielding etc which would remove them from the class of small cheap drones. Idk…
Maybe you should watch the countless videos DAILY, where soldiers are crippled for life.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hit does not equal a kill. Killing a tank or an apc, takes a lot of hits from an FPV drone due to the small payload. I have heard quoted an average of 16 hits. That's why you see videos trying to go in open hatches and the like. And that's why you are seeing cope cages. It doesnt matter how many chains or steel plates you weld on to your tank if you are hit by a TOW or a Javelin, it's still going to get you. They c…
It's a good point, I'm wondering though what the ROI of a Javelin is throughout its lifetime, including training costs. It's not obvious that you end up better off, perhaps.
The way I see it, it's probably worth it. You probably want a layered approach, you have a few high end, very expensive very effective weapons for maximum effect at the beginning of a conflict to take out the enemies high end, tip of the spear forces. And then you want to have a deep reserve of cheaper, legacy stuff to deal with volume and attrition.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#77FPV 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.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#78I assume this is like a pilot in WW1 reporting how finicky and hard to use bi-planes were. No doubt a bunch of weapons manufacturers have seen this and the special operations Ukraine did in Russia and Israel did in Iran and the wheels of progress are turning and the result will be terrifying.
What terrifies me is that the next step may be AI swarms, where one side sends thousands of drones at the same time and let each of them autonomously choose what they want to target. It's all technically feasible up to "choosing wisely".
In a sense it's already happening with the Shahed drones. Maybe not smart AI, but the end result is still the same: you have no clue where they will end up.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
$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.
That's interesting thankyou. It's a good google rabbit hole. Apparently we're in surge pricing right now because of Ukraine, and Russian shells are only costing them $1000. It seems they caught us sleeping, manufacturing wise.
Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck
#80I guess I'm missing something, but why isn't the problem of finicky steering solved by adding auto-stabilizing software? Would that take away too much of the maneuverability?
My first reaction was the same. I have a small indoor quadcopter with 2 main modes: freestyle (like a helicopter), and an easier mode that keeps the drone hovering.
My first thought was, why not use the easier mode (press forward to go forward, back to go back, etc.)? But looking at those war videos, these drones always come at an angle towards the target. And in that sense, it's easier to use the more difficult helicopter mode. What I mean is, once you know the helicopter mode, it's easier to do this kind of maneuver than using the "easy mode".