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

281–290 of 355 posts

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

#281

Post by palata »

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.

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

If you can do what they do in 6 months, why don't you do it? You would get rich easily.

I worked in the drone industry. Everybody thinks everything is easy to do. Spoiler: it isn't.

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

#282

Post by rcxdude »

speeder wrote: post #227
kjkjadksj wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dest…

So? Nothing in NATO brings the rest of the alliance along for the ride in that case. The core agreement is defensive, not offensive, and historically NATO has not at all been unified on attacks on other countries.

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

#283

Post by paradox242 »

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…

This seems to contradict the article, which among other criticisms, specifically says that these drones are more expensive and less reliable than mortars.

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

#284

Post by ethbr1 »

Fokamul wrote: post #134
dizhn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, def. possible. But right now in UA's regions where drones are used the most, there are so many used fiber-optic cables laying on the fields, that you have basically zero chance to cut them all, because you would be cutting already discarded ones. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcMZWRJL_m4

I was wondering about that. At military-industrial scale, that's a lot of fiber optic cable.

And it's glass, no? So not going to environmentally degrade over time.

Considering the fighting is mostly over agricultural fields, what are the long term consequences of years of war?

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

#285

Post by sentientslug »

ethbr1 wrote: post #284
Fokamul wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, def. possible. But right now in UA's regions where drones are used the most, there are so many used fiber-optic cables laying on the fields, that you have basically zero chance to cut them all, because you would be cutting already discarded ones. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcMZWRJL_m4

I was wondering about that. At military-industrial scale, that's a lot of fiber optic cable. And it's glass, no? So not going to environmentally degrade over time. Considering the fighting is mostly over agricultural fields, what are the long term consequences of years of war?

Somehow I don’t think that’s their primary concern at the moment

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

#286

Post by ethbr1 »

sentientslug wrote: post #285
ethbr1 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering about that. At military-industrial scale, that's a lot of fiber optic cable. And it's glass, no? So not going to environmentally degrade over time. Considering the fighting is mostly over agricultural fields, what are the long term consequences of years of war?

Somehow I don’t think that’s their primary concern at the moment

Granted. But it's going to be someone's concern after all this is over.

And unlike landmines, how do you detect and remove kilometers of cable?

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

#287

Post by more_corn »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #265
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…

Great insight in this comment - in the 21st century wars are so unique that hi-tech weapons emerge specifically for certain battlefield applications. I.e. just one country over, just one slightly different conflict between different actors would require completely different looking-feeling weapon systems. It’s not something you think about, usually - so much of what we see used is made for asymmetrical warfare.

Yeah, so Taiwan. Drones or no drones? Just poking around at the news, seeing Chinese drone carrier ships. Drone carrier aircraft, landing craft being prepared, drone swarming being practiced. Pretty sure we’re going to see a lot of drone warfare in the coming years. I hate to put a timeline on it but the Chinese did announce one so we know what it’s going to look like and where it’s going to happen and when it’s going to happen.

And there gunna be lotsa drones.

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

#288

Post by more_corn »

originalvichy wrote: post #191
morkalork wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Taiwan

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

#289

Post by more_corn »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #184
daemontus wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a Zerg vs Protoss debate.

Best strategy is Protoss + Zerg. What if toss could field some zerglings along with the expensive OP weapons?

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

#290

Post by matthewdgreen »

tmnvix wrote: post #249
matthewdgreen wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invading eastern Ukraine isn’t going to do anything about that problem. Once Russia failed to take Kyiv in 2022 any strategic justification was gone.

There is the possibility of a peace settlement that includes a provision prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO. Personally, I would say this is a reasonably likely outcome.

I’m engaging with this as though Russia’s motivations are serious, despite the fact that they’re doing nothing to actually prepare for this hypothetical NATO invasion. But even if you engage with it seriously, the failure to secure and defend Western Ukraine makes Russia totally vulnerable, NATO commitments or not. And losing so much of your military reserves doing it should terrify anyone who is actually concerned about defending Russia. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is literally the only thing protecting them right now.
Post reply on HN