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

191–200 of 355 posts

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

#191

Post by originalvichy »

morkalork wrote: post #157
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.

My point is that it is difficult to imagine another peer conflict in a similar geographical type reaching such a level that budgets should be diverted in a major way to develop these devices in the hope that they are some miracle weapon. Layperson politicians read headlines and think they are a first-level counter and not a counter-to-a-counter as you said :)

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

#192

Post by originalvichy »

inglor_cz wrote: post #144
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." This is true, but flat open fields are precisely the places where major mechanized battles usually took place. For the very reason that manoeuvering other equipment in complicated terrain is hard. Ofc there are significant exceptions, like the Alpine front in WWI, where Austrians and Italians faced…

I made the error of emphasizing that I was thinking in a generalized manner of major nations with military tensions with shared borders. A lot of thought should be put towards if simple geography could make this cheap dispenable warfare more expensive than initially due to requirements for repeaters, shielded high-end comms chips or other assistive tech.

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

#193

Post by potato3732842 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #144
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." This is true, but flat open fields are precisely the places where major mechanized battles usually took place. For the very reason that manoeuvering other equipment in complicated terrain is hard. Ofc there are significant exceptions, like the Alpine front in WWI, where Austrians and Italians faced…

>Ofc there are significant exceptions, like the Alpine front in WWI, where Austrians and Italians faced each other in mountainous terrain for years, or the Hürtgen Forest in WWII. But a remarkable share of all major mechanized battles of history took place in flat open fields, or something at least resembling that sort of terrain (gently sloping hills with good visibility etc. etc.)

Fighting through some portion of the Ardennes has been a fairly recurrent theme in central European land warfare since vikings did it in the 800s.

I'm sure if one digs they can find a reference to a roman general doing it too.

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

#194

Post by glitchc »

Neil44 wrote: post #53
varjag wrote: post #27

This tracks with the earlier ~12% drone kill efficiency estimates. However drone is a mass deployment weapon. Ukraine did about 2 million frontline sorties in 2024 and aims for 5 million this year. This 1 out of 9 ratio translates into absolutely devastating damage, that artillery and airstrikes (which are also hardly "easy to use") can only dream of.

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.

Mortar is notoriously inaccurate, while a drone is a precision guided weapon. To compare apples to apples, a drone needs to be compared to other precision guided weapons. Think Stinger or other TOW missiles instead. Those are at least two orders more expensive.

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

#195

Post by thatguy0900 »

fennecbutt wrote: post #189
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…

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.

I was under the impression that while there is a lot of grift, a lot of that was supply chain cost as well. You or I could build one but it would all be sourced in China without vetted supply chain parts or firmware. These Ukraine drones are all off the shelf parts and running who knows what firmware everywhere.

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

#196

Post by smcameron »

> If this type of pre-aborted mission is included in the total, the success rate drops to between 20 and 30 percent. On the face of it, this success rate is bad ...

I disagree with this premise. I suspect that 20 to 30% success rate is not at all bad, but rather excellent. Compare to artillery with shells costing a few thousand each on the low end, to $100k+ for more advanced rounds, with 100s or 1000s fired per casualty.

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

#197

Post by Nicook »

tclancy wrote: post #136
hnaccount_rng wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But theoretically much better aimed. Don’t know if there’s enough data here to do the math. Plus that it’s a bit gauche to do math about human lives, but here we are.

don't need to aim a large shell as accurately though.

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

#198

Post by LorenPechtel »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #158
originalvichy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That will give facing. Not range, nor actual bearing (your drone is moving relative to the local air, not to the ground.)

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

#199

Post by FridayoLeary »

The author offers no major new insights on the effectiveness of drones. His counter argument is against the maximalists who claim quadcopters are revolutionising warfare and render armour and artillery obsolete. But nobody serious ever suggested that. The same way tanks are relevant despite rpgs. They simply represent a new element in the battlefield, and a useful one as well. The fact that they are not ideally suited for dropping bombs doesn't matter. They are great for surveillance and giving units situational awareness, and the fact that they can occasionally be used to attack targets that otherwise would be impossible simply augments their usefulness. The article is interesting, but it's attacking a straw man. I have a great respect for the ukrainian armed forces but to be perfectly honest their combat effectiveness is not exactly world beating. The suggestion that NATO should be taking lessons from how Ukraine is fighting Russia is odd.

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

#200

Post by tguvot »

originalvichy wrote: post #188
dinfinity wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

russians really didnt like this last year https://youtu.be/SUe7SJgVMmo?t=110
Post reply on HN