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

151–160 of 355 posts

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

#151

Post by inglor_cz »

speeder wrote: post #125
alphabettsy wrote: post #82

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. 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…

I would say that the events of Russo-Ukrainian war have shown that even a lot of tanks (and NATO does not have anywhere near as many as Russia did, the former Soviet stockpile was absolutely massive) aren't the crushing force that they used to be in Manstein's and Guderian's time. Of course Putin is a bit old and may think in old patterns...

On the other hand, I believe Russia made itself very vulnerable by letting its cosmic sector drown in corruption. Nowadays they have fallen so behind the US in launch capabilities that it isn't even funny. Try hiding anything from the fleet of satellites that the US has, or can have if it wishes to.

Starlink may be the single most dangerous technologic development of the 21st century to Russia.

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

#152

Post by [deleted] »

speeder wrote: post #125
alphabettsy wrote: post #82

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. 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…

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by codedokode »

aftbit wrote: post #147
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…

The big thing that FPV drones have going for them is that they're ludicrously cheap and easily constructed from relatively basic parts by moderately skilled people. It's literally cheaper to strap a grenade to an FPV drone and fly it into a tank hatch than it is to fire a single non-precision artillery round, let alone tens or hundreds of them. Plus, you can deploy your drones remotely from the top of a trunk deep be…

Artillery carries more explosive and is good for destroying buildings and fortifications though.

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

#154

Post by palata »

bluGill wrote: post #118
palata wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of the issues sound like issues coming from using improvised civilian hobbyist tech I don't think it's improvised civilian hobbyist tech. They run autopilots that also fly professional drones and can fly planes. I think it's mostly that it has to be super cheap, otherwise it doesn't bring value (because other weapons are more efficient if you have more money). If your one-way drone costs 10k dollars, maybe it'…

$10,000 can be cheap for a one way drone. Bombs often cost for more than that. The real question is value, if hitting the target is worth more than the cost of what you hit it with then you have a good value. Taking out a $1000 drone with a $100,000 missile is a good value if that drone is headed for a $1,000,000 building, but if the drone is headed for a cow probably not worth it.

Sure. But isn't that the point of the article? That the author is not sure if they bring as much value as advertised?

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

inglor_cz wrote: post #151
speeder wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would say that the events of Russo-Ukrainian war have shown that even a lot of tanks (and NATO does not have anywhere near as many as Russia did, the former Soviet stockpile was absolutely massive) aren't the crushing force that they used to be in Manstein's and Guderian's time. Of course Putin is a bit old and may think in old patterns... On the other hand, I believe Russia made itself very vulnerable by letting i…

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by palata »

dinfinity wrote: post #140
palata wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

You based your doubt for whether the technology would improve on consumer shit thrown together for a few years as opposed to military technology purposely designed and built over a long period. That is bad reasoning. There is nothing more to it and it is thus far more likely that the technology will improve than not.

> That is bad reasoning.

From where I stand, you're calling "consumer shit thrown together" something you apparently don't really know, and then you make predictions from it.

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

#157

Post by morkalork »

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…

Isn't the drip-drip-drip of single soldiers running around the response to artillery in the first place? Any concentration of manpower attracts artillery and if it's significant, HIMARS gets called in. Naturally, the response is to disperse men and make artillery less effective. The response to that is FPVs chasing down the individuals instead. They're a counter to a counter and can't be judged in isolation.

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

#158

Post by fellowniusmonk »

originalvichy wrote: post #100
dinfinity wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Did you miss the part about signals jamming in the article? The reason the attack on airfields worked is precisely because they operate inland and not on the frontline. Cellular networks not only can be jammed but towers are a priority target. That’s why Starlink is/was so crucial. Even GPS is jammed so independent flight can be impossible with cheap components. The thermite drones do attack forested areas on the far…

I wonder what the tech gap is to using circular polarized light from the sun as a point of reference for dead reckoning. If Bees use it why not camera systems?

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

#159

Post by codedokode »

bjourne wrote: post #120
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…

Ofc but javelin launchers and missiles cost $250k a piece. You get a lot of drones for that price.

And you need to be in a line of sight close to the target and not get hit by an enemy drone. And it requires some time to boot if I am not mistaken.

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

#160

Post by palata »

bluGill wrote: post #139
palata wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still want someone to get the drone to a place where it can see the target, and someone to select this target. Only then can CV do the last part ("terminal engagement"). But that also means it won't go inside a hangar and find the target there.

IF you tell it go into the hanger and find a target CV can do that. It might not be the best target in the hanger, but that doesn't matter too much if you can get in.

If you add enough "if's", then surely everything is possible :-).

I don't think we're anywhere near having drones that happily fly above a war zone, detect an interesting hangar, find a way to get inside and select a target inside.

Currently they mostly fly FPV drones manually. The next basic step is to have "terminal engagement", where at some point they can select a target and the drone will fly autonomously to it using CV. But in order to do that, the drone will need processing power, and therefore it won't cost 500$ anymore.

Would you rather go for a drone that costs 5k and can use CV for terminal engagement, or 10 drones that cost 500 and simply stay on their latest vector if no command arrives?

Post reply on HN