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

121–130 of 355 posts

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

#121

Post by hnaccount_rng »

varjag wrote: post #61
Neil44 wrote: post #53

Earlier 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.

Then again the payload of an FPV is much more comparable to the mortar round than to the 155mm one

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

#122

Post by lawn »

palata wrote: post #56
time0ut wrote: post #44

I 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".

Allegedly there's lots of field tests of these swarms in the war already.

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

#123

Post by bluGill »

oersted wrote: post #72
throwawayffffas wrote: post #70

Earlier 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.

ROI also depends on availability. Ukraine knows everything about the article and likely agrees (though they will dispute some details) - Ukraine was trained on the old Soviet Artillery doctrine and knows it well. However Ukraine cannot get nearly enough of the supposedly cheaper mortar rounds at any price while they can make drones quickly. In theory I could make 155mm rounds for Ukraine in my garage, but my metal lathe (most people don't have one but I do) isn't the right tool for the job and so I'd be making dozens a month at best, what Ukraine really needs is a modern factory than can make thousands or even millions per month - it would take me years to create that factory.

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

#124

Post by dizhn »

abracadaniel wrote: post #119
thebruce87m wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

I watched a video of one being destroyed by cutting the trailing fiber optic cable with a pair of scissors. Also impressive.

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

#125

Post by speeder »

alphabettsy wrote: post #82
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…

> Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx. Citation needed.

I saw some fascinating videos explaining that the terrain caused the war in first place.

The huge border between Russia and Ukraine is completely flat grassland. This means that to Russia, Ukraine joining NATO is an unacceptable risk because that border is impossible to defend against NATO tank invasion, and the flatness go all the way to Moscow.

A lot of people on internet keep poking fun at Russia inadequate tanks as "proof" Russia is stupid for invading with such crappy gear. Russia is very well aware of this, and is why they invaded in first place, they know of Ukraine joins NATO any military exchange with NATO (like what happened between Iran and Israel) would need to immediately become nuclear because their existing army can't defend the huge open flat terrain against NATO equipment.

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

#126

Post by randomNumber7 »

It is only a matter of time until those drones fly into their target fully autonomously with machine learning.

Heck, I could build that with hugginface (I will never do that) in a few evenings if you are ok to blow up the wrong target with a single digit percentage.

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

#127

Post by dizhn »

matusp wrote: post #46
rich_sasha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are... I think they aren't unproblematic - the fibre can get caught on things etc. Also I read of instances where the opposition can follow the fibre back to find the drone operators.

Tracing the fiber back is possible only in extremely favorable conditions. The light must hit the cable just right and there cannot be too many cables from previous runs on the battlefield.

It's not too bad when they see the drone passing by. I have no idea how often this can happen without being seen though.

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

#128

Post by dingaling »

time0ut wrote: post #44

I 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.

Likewise, ysterday I was reading about Chuck Yeager's first jet flight, in a P-80, and how most of his time was spent manually juggling the fuel flow to prevent the engine either overheating or flaming out. He barely had time to think about actually achieving anything.

A decade later, automated fuel flow was standardised and aircraft were flying twice as fast and high.

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

#129

Post by bluGill »

varjag wrote: post #61
Neil44 wrote: post #53

Earlier 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.

A M107 155mm round weights 95lbs when launched. Assuming that is pure lead (this is false, but lead is very cheap and it gives us numbers to work with) I can buy lead ignots for $2.89/lbs. Which puts us at $293 per rounds in just materials. Since we assume the other materials cost money too, plus there is the energy used to turn ignots into a round, it seems unlikely you can get the cost to much under $1000 no matter how good your mass production is.

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

#130

Post by daemontus »

pjc50 wrote: post #106
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 als…

Ah, the age old question of "1 horse-sized duck vs. 100 duck-sized horses"...
Post reply on HN