Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 365 posts

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#81

Post by swiftcoder »

alex43578 wrote: post #56
swiftcoder wrote: post #25

> The Defense Innovation Unit notice called for drones capable of carrying many different sensor and weapons payloads up to 2,800 pounds and flying with a combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles—or 8,000 nautical miles on a one-way strike mission—while executing the same missions that the MQ-9A Reaper drone currently performs for the US military I feel like they might be taking the wrong lesson from this. The…

While it's clear the US is working on those types of drones too (cloning Shaheds, basically), the likely mission profile of the US requires we have that capability. Pick your potential future US conflict and it won't look like us flinging disposable drones over the border at Canada, but rather needing to project power from an aircraft carrier or forward base against an adversary, where range, payload, sensors, and mo…

Right, I can see the need for both, but that suggests to me that they could differentiate the sensor package + loiter drone significantly from the shahed clone (which, given that it is a one-way trip, has a very similar operational radius)

Does one really need to bring along 2,500 kg of ordinance, when we can launch another $50,000 shahed-equivalent at whatever hard targets the loitering drone locates?

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#82

Post by legitster »

freedomben wrote: post #2

I worked on the control systems for Predators and Reapers back in the mid and late 00s, and the inefficiencies around process were enormous. Safety is extremely important, so you expect some slowness as a result, but it got pretty extreme. I remember one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact. Yet because it changed the…

This is one of the reasons weapons and technology development overall explodes during wartime. Desperation is the cure for risk aversion.

It's also a reason to be skeptical of a military spending a bunch of money developing technology during peacetime. In reality the expensive stuff they went into the war with is always going to be less effective than the cheap stuff they came out with.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#83

Post by graemep »

peyton wrote: post #47
tehjoker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand how any of this contributes to "defense". Sounds like "offense" to me. Just patrolling the skies over non-white countries and launching missiles at weddings. The reason the Pentagon invests so heavily in this kind of technology is our wars are so indefensible, they can't convince Americans to sacrifice blood in any quantity for other people's natural resources.

They are white [1]. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21211671-1997-revisi...

They certainly look white to me.

Are Spanish people white or Hispanic according to those definitions?

'Original peoples' is an interesting phrase. Neanderthals? Beaker people?

A single category for everyone from Pakistanis to Japanese is weird.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#84

Post by graemep »

Jblx2 wrote: post #66
mrtksn wrote: post #28

I’m no military expert by any means but US appears to be obsessed with destroying some super important target to win, like they did with killing Iran leaders only to find out that new leader replace the perished. The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses. Iran on the other hand, just like with their super…

Don't overlook the "the people of this foreign land are yearning to be free of their current rulers, and just need a little help from their neighborly U.S. armed forces" trope. I think there are plenty of people who actually believe it.

Are you sure the claim is false?

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#85

Post by littlecranky67 »

While I am critical of Ukraine being in talks to join the EU (which IMHO it shouldn't), I am quite happy that we in EU kind of have built good relationships with Ukraine - military drone construction knowledge and expierience will become a key technology field, as cooperations between Ukraine and Europe after the war (however that will look like) will probably strengthen europes defense capabilities.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#86

Post by runako »

jmyeet wrote: post #50

In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of establishing the military-industrial complex [1]. We are seeing the fruits of that now that despite an annual budget over $1T the US has been militarily defeated by Iran (and Afghanistan). We build $13B aircraft carriers that don't work [2]. Defense contracting is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the government to the wealthy. This is…

> And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase

Yeah, this is mind-boggling. The requested increase is roughly the size of the entire 2004 military budget. 2004, when we were fighting two separate ground wars.

There were close to 200k US troops on the ground in combat theaters in 2004. We're proposing to add a "2004 US military" to our military. The unnecessary wars we will start with this capacity[1] will cause havoc in unpredictable places.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#87

Post by ivell »

tehjoker wrote: post #9
freedomben wrote: post #2

I worked on the control systems for Predators and Reapers back in the mid and late 00s, and the inefficiencies around process were enormous. Safety is extremely important, so you expect some slowness as a result, but it got pretty extreme. I remember one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact. Yet because it changed the…

I don't really understand how any of this contributes to "defense". Sounds like "offense" to me. Just patrolling the skies over non-white countries and launching missiles at weddings. The reason the Pentagon invests so heavily in this kind of technology is our wars are so indefensible, they can't convince Americans to sacrifice blood in any quantity for other people's natural resources.

Drones can be used for both offense and defense. For example the usage of drones in Ukraine can be classified as defense.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#88

Post by Supermancho »

gherkinnn wrote: post #71
ck2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guess what, Iran will hold the gulf hostage regardless if US is there or not exactly like the nightmare Afghanistan is for women there now left to the Taliban regardless if US was there or not it would have happened world is an absolutely horrible place filled with monsters you can't say all these countries should be saved by US and then end USAID to let a million people die with food and medication already paid for…

> regardless if US was there or not it would have happened Sources please. The war initiated by US and Israel motivated Iran put pressure on the US by closing the strait and attacking the regional US allies.

Google: straight of hormuz 2026 closure timeline

Graciously, "if the US was there or not" is a reference to the US navy being near/in the straight of hormuz.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#89

Post by legitster »

mrtksn wrote: post #28

I’m no military expert by any means but US appears to be obsessed with destroying some super important target to win, like they did with killing Iran leaders only to find out that new leader replace the perished. The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses. Iran on the other hand, just like with their super…

The truth is that bombing campaigns alone have never been an effective way to end a conflict. All they do is strengthen resolve.

Even the most extreme case of the nuclear bombs in Japan - had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered (and even then it was after a multi-year bombing campaign that eviscerated every other city).

The only realistic scenario for regime change is boots on the ground. The Iran "experts" who suggested a bombing campaign were never serious people.

Re: US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

#90

Post by mmooss »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #26

There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for. What boggles my mind is that I make coffee at home because I'm frugal. I guess it is good the government and DoD are seeking cheap…

> When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.

(Your share of overall defense spending is ~1,000x higher, of course.)

I wish political leaders would express it that way. And you need to include the time factor: $10/year for 10 years differs from $20 for a one-time event. And somehow figure in capital accumulation (as opposed to e.g., consumables) and depreciation. But there are clear, effective ways to communicate it: 'I propose each American spend an average of $80/year for 50 years on this fighter jet program'. 'This moon mission will cost everyone $5/year for 2 years.'

To nitpick a little, I think your math is off: There are 350 million Americans, but we need to exclude most children, elderly, etc.

Post reply on HN