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

181–190 of 355 posts

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

#181

Post by kjkjadksj »

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…

Well if they didn’t bother their neighbors they wouldn’t have to worry about NATO. Seems like a self imposed wound there.

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

#182

Post by Ancapistani »

wkat4242 wrote: post #8
echoangle wrote: post #2

> They are controlled by an operator wearing virtual-reality goggles They aren't really using VR headsets, right? The FPV goggles I know are just a screen showing the camera image without any virtual reality.

Yeah I'd much rather use an xreal air or something. You can still see if someone (or an enemy drone) comes to kill you. AR is much better for this.

No, the latency is too high.

There are dedicated devices for this - much lighter, external battery (same as the drones use), etc. I use a Skyzone 04X.

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

#183

Post by originalvichy »

paganel wrote: post #110
originalvichy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m not saying it’s impossible to hit them, just that it’s more difficult than in the early days. Even fiber optics have cons like harder maneuverability, but the driveway attacks are probably in the category of ”loitering” drones that sit on the ground waiting for targets before taking flight again.

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

#184

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

daemontus wrote: post #130
pjc50 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"...

This is a Zerg vs Protoss debate.

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

#185

Post by UncleEntity »

Nicook wrote: post #169
aftbit wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did you not read the article? One of his major points is that a mortar is significantly cheaper and faster.

Assuming you have good gun bunnies (term of affection, I assure you) and a spotter on the ground or in the air.

The mortar guys in my old company could put a round into a trashcan with line-of-sight but when someone else is calling in fire then they are more of an area weapon. Assuming that a fire mission is going to involve more than one or two rounds to bracket the target now you're talking more dollars and the people on the ground probably aren't going to stand there and wonder how long it's going to take to hit them.

The way I (and most other people I've heard talk about it) see it is drones are an area denial weapon.

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

#186

Post by bluGill »

palata wrote: post #160
bluGill wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was trying to state you fly it manually to the hanger. Once it locks onto the hanger (that is not your own hanger) it can fly - even if cv messes up we are at a target so anything destroyd is okay even if not what you want.

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

#187

Post by literalAardvark »

fdye wrote: post #180

Interesting read. Curious how the author feels re: the attack on airbases using shipping containers/drones that was so successful? Seems to be a unique case that worked especially well for (higher end I'm sure) FPV drones. Getting artillery in on shipping containers would have a higher likelihood of detection. Similarly, the ability to 'guide' in the drones with munitions seemed to allow for greater flexibility durin…

That didn't use FPV drones, they're rather difficult to control at 6000km and they didn't have operators nearby.

Most likely it's the first major deployment of their semi autonomous drone tech, driven "declaratively". They've shown that stuff recently, they probably used it before showing it.

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

#188

Post by originalvichy »

dinfinity wrote: post #149
Reubachi wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Drone 1 (or any other means) destroys the canopy. Drones 2-10 are no longer hindered by said canopy and deliver their payload with extreme and dynamic precision. Remember that the argument was basically that drones can do nothing useful in (heavily) forested terrain. They can with a little bit of creativity.

I guess we live in different regions. Everything north of Estonia/Denmark is thick spruce and pine forest. I’ve seen what artillery does to these trees, but I’d be hesitant to say a drone could lift something heavy enough to serve like Vietnam war era ”daisy cutters”. Artillery explodes closer to the forest floor.

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

#189

Post by fennecbutt »

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…

Switchblade 2 is $80k usd per unit.

And the only reason for that is that as per usual private companies are making a killing.

You and I could build a similarly functioning device in 6 months with a small team. They're not that smart/advanced, imo.

I think most of the money for these things isn't paid for research/engineering but goes into MBA/investor pockets.

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

#190

Post by fennecbutt »

sensanaty wrote: post #171
pjc50 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Slightly unrelated, but reading the "product" page is crazy to me. So much about lethal radii, kill zones and stuff like that. Wild, couldn't ever picture myself working on something like this and sleeping well at night

I would. But I would be hesitant to if I got wind that it was being sold to a bad government, or that my government was a bad government/intended then for misuse.

As a quiet gay nerd I'd love for there to be no war, no bullies. But unfortunately we live in a world where our species evolved from monkeys and we still often act like it. If my usually peaceful tribe needs weapons to defend itself when attacked then I'm all for it. But using those weapons to attack another for any reason other than defense is a nono in my books.

Post reply on HN