Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

warontherocks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 355 posts

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#101

Post by dinfinity »

palata wrote: post #48

I see a lot of comments saying that "but the technology will improve". Sure, maybe. Or maybe it will be like Musk announcing what Teslas will be capable of in 6 months. We don't know, and the author doesn't pretend that they do. Don't forget that drones have been used in this war for years, and the vast majority of the drone industry has already pivoted to the military because it's easier to make money there. So it's…

> Don't forget that drones have been used in this war for years

3 years of usage is brand new. Neither Ukraine nor Russia have been designing and producing purpose-built FPV drones since the beginning (I assume things are well underway now). It's a bunch of consumer shit thrown together, which makes it kind of incredible that they work as well as they do.

An equivalent would be something like taping an assault rifle to a small Cessna and dominating with that. And then you saying that "maybe the technology will not improve".

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#102

Post by FirmwareBurner »

bboygravity wrote: post #50
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So its not the reliability of drone that is an issue, its lack of proper assembly and QA Imagine what China can pull off here in case they're in a war.

China's fertility rate is 1. Even if they win the war, they still eventually will have lost.

Fertility rate is a problem for the future, that you can also solve via better polices and incentives if you want to, meanwhile dying or being enslaved in a war is a problem for right now that you can't escape via policies.

Which one you think is worse?

Also, most wealthy industrialized western nations have the same fertility issues, some are only compensating by huge legal and ilegal immigration which can be causing bigger domestic economic and societal issues than being involved in a war abroad. The west and its values, as we used to know it, is also dying.

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#103

Post by Reubachi »

dinfinity wrote: post #95
originalvichy wrote: post #77

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-dr…

> I’ve watched way too much footage from the front. Did you see the videos of a drone dropping a shitload of thermite on a forest canopy? [0] > Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx. Most nations have cellular networks that penetrate buildings and forests just fine. In fact, Ukraine used the Russian cellular network for their recent attac…

Your linked video is interesting, but I fail to see how this at all differentiates/promotes drone usage versus artillery, indirect fire.

Your video shows something that an artillery corps could accomplish just as easily and not at all be prone to EW.

Granted, moving indirect fire is probably more expensive than a single fpv drone dropping a thermite bomb, but at scale indirect fire is far cheaper, more effective, and critically not prone to EW.

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#104

Post by gadders »

originalvichy wrote: post #84
gadders wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure I've seen some that fall under Rule 47.

There’s regularly uploaded footage of clearly surrendering soldiers directed towards a safe zone to give up. Propaganda is propaganda, but it happens more often than we might think.

Glad to hear it.

I wonder if some "Surrendering to a Drone" protocol couldn't be codified under the Geneva Convention EG "Visibly disassemble your gun, throw the bits in several directions" etc.

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#105

Post by artem247 »

risyachka wrote: post #10
ggm wrote: post #3

You need to compare this to hit rate with mortars and attrition by counter battery fire on mortar teams. Not to detract from a sober assessment but it's hard to judge without the other parts of the story. Thr tldr would be "temper expectations"

This. Mortar may be 5 times cheaper but 100x easier to destroy it and its crew. Also half of the problems described are purely technical and can be easily solved with some budget. In Ukraine most drones are assembled by volunteers. So its not the reliability of drone that is an issue, its lack of proper assembly and QA.

[dead]

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#106

Post by pjc50 »

aqsalose wrote: post #20

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…

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.

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#107

Post by palata »

dinfinity wrote: post #101
palata wrote: post #48

I see a lot of comments saying that "but the technology will improve". Sure, maybe. Or maybe it will be like Musk announcing what Teslas will be capable of in 6 months. We don't know, and the author doesn't pretend that they do. Don't forget that drones have been used in this war for years, and the vast majority of the drone industry has already pivoted to the military because it's easier to make money there. So it's…

> Don't forget that drones have been used in this war for years 3 years of usage is brand new. Neither Ukraine nor Russia have been designing and producing purpose-built FPV drones since the beginning (I assume things are well underway now). It's a bunch of consumer shit thrown together, which makes it kind of incredible that they work as well as they do. An equivalent would be something like taping an assault rifle…

> 3 years of usage is brand new.

Usage, sure. But the technology is not. Those drones are flying smartphones. We have already had mass-produced consumer drones for more than a decade. We don't use them because they are new, we use them because they are cheap and accessible.

I am not sure what you call "consumer shit" here. They go for cheap FPV drones precisely because they are cheap. But the autopilot running in them can fly a Cessna. We can make them fly longer (they will be bigger), we can use better radios, we can add thermal cameras and bigger payloads. We can add GPUs and AI capabilities. All that we have, but then it doesn't cost 500$ anymore.

> An equivalent would be something like taping an assault rifle to a small Cessna and dominating with that.

Or maybe you see an assault rifle and say "Look at this rifle; it's only the beginning! In a couple years it will have wings and it will drop heavy bombs before returning to base, because it will be reusable". And I'm saying: we already have fighter jets; they are just more expensive.

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#108

Post by aaron695 »

originalvichy wrote: post #77

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-dr…

[dead]

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#109

Post by TiredOfLife »

gadders wrote: post #25

I've seen some of these FPV videos of kills of unarmed Russian soldiers. I honestly don't know why the pilots are not prosecuted for war crimes. (and I'm sure Russia does the same to Ukraine, I just haven't seen those videos).

Russia literally executes prisoners of war - those who have already surrendered. Russia castrates, tortures and cuts off heads of live prisoners of war. Russia targets and executes civilians.

Re: I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

#110

Post by paganel »

originalvichy wrote: post #83
paganel wrote: post #32

> I would, first of all, recommend ensuring that troops in the field have well-trained organic mortar support with an ample supply of ammunition. That would not be possible because it has become basically impossible to bring in vehicles close to 5-10 kms of the front-lines because of the, well, drones. And you need to carry ammunition to those mortars with something, preferably not how the Vietnamese did it in the ju…

The author writes that he was not there for the fiber optic evolution. They have changed the game when it comes to these flat open terrains with heavy jamming. The quality control and cheap components issues won’t go away unless they are improved, which brings costs to a ”cheap” alternative. As I wrote in my comment above, walking/driving moving targets are still on the table, just not as feasible as in the early day…

> As I wrote in my comment above, walking/driving moving targets are still on the table

This seems to directly contradict this direct quote from the recent FT article I linked to:

> At this point, you’re a lucky man if you drive 5km from the front line and your car is still operational

Post reply on HN