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

221–230 of 355 posts

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

#221

Post by wltr »

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…

However, they effectively bought the owner of Starlink.

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

#222

Post by tim333 »

They may kind of suck but even so they are still transforming the war in Ukraine. A month or so ago FPV drones took out much of Russia's nuclear bomber fleet (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44150789), something like 80% of battlefield casualties are due to drones, neither side pretty much can use tanks because they get taken out by drones. It's a huge change in war fighting.

One stat: "In May alone, Ukrainian drones destroyed over 89,000 Russian targets" https://www.newsweek.com/robert-brovdi-ukraine-russia-war-dr...

They've recently promoted the 'Birds of Madyar' guy to run the newly formed Unmanned Systems Forces and are moving to a unified drone line defence the whole way along the frontline. Update on that: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2073811/russia-army-ukr...

Also re drones not having the effect of artillery, fair enough but Ukraine has been using FPV drones to destroy Russia's artillery. Here's footage of one of it's most modern being taken out https://youtu.be/DMOjOJnAd8A?t=161 It's kind of asymmetric - the artillery can't similarly take out the drones because they are too small and replaceable.

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

#223

Post by inglor_cz »

wltr wrote: post #221
inglor_cz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

However, they effectively bought the owner of Starlink.

I don't believe they have enough money to buy Musk. They can influence him through propaganda and memes, but outright bribery is unlikely. That would have to be a vast, vast money transfer.

Trump looks more likely to be bribe-able than Musk. Very different personalities and net worths. Musk seemed to be genuinely angry with Trump's budget, for example.

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

#224

Post by radialstub »

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

Unfortunately money plays a big role. The US is different, with good paying jobs for engineers being common but believe it or not, that is not the norm everywhere in the world. Sometimes people need to follow the money. I think this plays a big role on the russian side of the war. Their economy isn't very diversified and the state owns the means to a large portion of the economy's production. If you need cash, a good way to get it is to do putin's bidding.

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

#225

Post by ashoeafoot »

vasac wrote: post #166
bluGill wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need 15 drones to do what a javelin can do though, and that is at best. If the tank armor is good a small drone cannot do any damage (that is why drones try to fly in open hatches - bypass the armor), while a javelin can go through modern armor.

Tank armor can be good as it gets, the problem is you can't have good armor everywhere on the tank otherwise it would weight hundreds of tons. So a small drone doesn't need to penetrate tank where it's best protected but to disable it (hit APU, tracks, engine...).

Obvious solution, make the tank amour a drone crawling around and building up in direction of danger?

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

#226

Post by moonshotideas »

I don’t agree with the conclusions he draws from his own analysis - almost all the issues and shortcomings he points out are related to technological shortcomings he admits - are already being addressed by the new systems - or are primarily issues with how drones are being used in the field - i.e. tactical combat decisions.

These are not inherently valid arguments regarding the effectiveness of drones as a new weapons platform - but with the current state of the technology and with the decisions on the battlefield

It’s early days, the technology will improve and the tactics will be standardized with time and drones will prove to be a dangerously effective tool - which has the additional scary bonus of being cheap and easy to mass produce and deploy

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

#227

Post by speeder »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #181
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…

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

Whenever I see this reasoning, I wonder how many people really believe not a single NATO country will ever elect a nutjob that might just decide to invade someone for a bullshit reason.

For example, hypothetically, what is the chance for a major NATO country will never have a president that might decide to bomb another country out of the blue, because that country according to said president, has weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact the same country intelligence said the target DOESN'T have such weapons? This will never happen right?

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

#228

Post by tguvot »

esseph wrote: post #215
tguvot wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are now laser/gps guided mortars. probably still more expensive than drone but easier to deploy

Yep, 120mms I think. You won't find them with light infantry, but you will with Cav / Mech units.

special forces and other unspecified units: https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/iron-sting-an-exclusive-...

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

#229

Post by throwawayffffas »

_joel wrote: post #116
throwawayffffas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they discovered something effective and it will change the way wars are fought in the future. They didn't really. TOW's are a thing from the 70s. They are essentially the same thing, but instead of electric rotors they are using a rocket motor. Switchblades existed before this conflict too, if loitering is the measure we are going with. It's a hacked together solution to a real problem they are having, lack of…

> TOW's are a thing from the 70s. They are essentially the same thing That's just not true. I've not seen a TOW chase around a guy in a field, well not on r/UkraineWarVideoReport at least.

Because tows are too fast. There is guidance, but the missiles fly at 200+ meters per second.

If you fire it at a guy or a vehicle, you either going to hit very fast or miss very fast.

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

#230

Post by rich_sasha »

smcameron wrote: post #196

> 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 casu…

The article claims it is 20-30% in quite limited circumstances, and less if you include "we know it will fail" sorties. And seemingly entirely disabled by jammers, where available.

I guess they must be working for Ukraine, or it wouldn't be buying them. But how well they scale against a competent opponent is less clear.

Post reply on HN