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

Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#51

Post by hollerith »

alex43578 wrote: post #21
pas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the swarms that everyone gushes over aren't that effective when a 1000 pound gorilla like the US Army turns up to play ... maybe. maybe not. the same army lost against stubborn Afghan shepherds. and before that against Vietnamese farmers.

The US military didn't lose. They had overwhelming tactical and technological superiority, 20:1 kill ratios, and consistently inflicted heavy casualties whenever they engaged the enemy directly. Now that didn't translate into accomplishing the political war goals of nation-building, changing cultures, and counter-insurgency without massive troop presence; but that wasn't a failure of the armed forces. What's that lin…

By that logic, Britain never lost the American revolution.

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#52

Post by h4ck_th3_pl4n3t »

Mistletoe wrote: post #36
binarymax wrote: post #19

I think about where this is going to end up in 20 years and it terrifies me.

I just watched Oblivion again. Oddly prescient for 2013.

Good morning, mistletoe. How are you feeling today? Are you an effective team?

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#53

Post by rasz »

mrguyorama wrote: post #29

A reminder that both Ukraine and Russia in the war use drones because they do not have the actual tools they want to use for that job An artillery shell is like $800. THAT's the competition for an FPV drone. Drones have an advantage that they are cheap precision, which makes for great propaganda videos when you fly one into someone's face, but the cheap drones have limited effectiveness, and there's tons of downsides…

>An artillery shell is like $800. THAT's the competition for an FPV drone.

By the time it hits the ground target already moved, drone on the other hand will follow and allow you to aim at weak spots/soft targets of opportunity. That >mostly about harassment and both Ukraine and Russia know they are easy to jam and not particularly effective

30K dead russians every month is quite the harassment

>China and the USA do not intend to have "contested" airspace

everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. How many Reaper shot down by Houthis? 7? 9?

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#54

Post by walletdrainer »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #11
gonzo41 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint, the US has better other systems. Such as the 1st,2nd,3rd largest air forces in the world. Lots of Ukrainian commanders would happily trade FPV drones with grenades attached for mortar teams with lots of ammo and effective aircover. Modern militaries need drones, but the swarms that everyone gushes over aren't that effective when a 1000 pound gorilla like the US Army turns up to play.

Ultimately I think this is true, but you can't overlook any aspect, and it seems the US overlooked drone potential. Thus far it hasn't cost them. A disparate drone swarm taking out power distribution stations (I don't know what they're officially called) all over the country would be devastating. Lessons from https://cybersquirrel1.com/ . (I think there's an 'imagination' and/or 'perspective' limitation when you're a…

> A disparate drone swarm taking out power distribution stations (I don't know what they're officially called) all over the country would be devastating

I believe the military term of art for this would be a “nothingburger”.

This kind of stuff is not expected to have a meaningful impact on your ability to fight.

Yes, it’s inconvenient for civilians. Has next to nothing to do with winning wars, much of WW2 was fought in much worse circumstances than “the electricity doesn’t work”.

Focusing on things like this results in diverting resources from fighting wars, and results in losing them (or at least hinders your ability to win). The goal isn’t to preserve quality of life for civilians, but to at the very least preserve the integrity of the nation.

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#55

Post by kragen »

patricklorio wrote: post #33
kragen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not paywalled, though, which makes it far better than the NYT link!

IMO bad take. We want quality journalism to be sustainable, having AI launder stolen content and make it free with ads is not better.

Sure, I'd love for quality journalism to be sustainable, but that's no reason to keep ourselves ignorant while it isn't sustainable, a situation which may or may not end in our lifetimes.

Also, this is the NYT we're talking about here, the outfit that promoted the fiction about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and doxxed Scott Alexander while insinuating he was a Nazi. It's not a good choice for a poster child for "quality journalism".

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#56

Post by kragen »

gonzo41 wrote: post #35
kragen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mortars miss; suicide drones don't. And even the crappiest combat FPVs outrange mortars at 10+ km. The second drone gets through the net. And I wouldn't be surprised if US mortar rounds cost more than Ukrainian drones. But certainly they are synergistic, and tanks and IFVs are also widely fielded on both sides of the war. The obvious thing to do is to guide your mortar rounds with canards mounted slightly forward of…

Mortars have a 30m kill radius and you can hang rounds very quickly. There are guidable versions (expensive) but the regular rounds a cheap as chips (in military terms)

Mortars do not have a 30m kill radius against tanks and trenches.

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#57

Post by rcxdude »

alex43578 wrote: post #21
pas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the swarms that everyone gushes over aren't that effective when a 1000 pound gorilla like the US Army turns up to play ... maybe. maybe not. the same army lost against stubborn Afghan shepherds. and before that against Vietnamese farmers.

The US military didn't lose. They had overwhelming tactical and technological superiority, 20:1 kill ratios, and consistently inflicted heavy casualties whenever they engaged the enemy directly. Now that didn't translate into accomplishing the political war goals of nation-building, changing cultures, and counter-insurgency without massive troop presence; but that wasn't a failure of the armed forces. What's that lin…

What is the point of a war if not to achieve the political outcome of the war? No-one starts a war to get a high K/D ratio, so it's only relevant to the extent that it helps with the political outcome, and on that front the US failed to achieve its goals. And I don't think this was something the armed forces had no part in: the manner in which they went about trying to achieve this goal certainly has an affect on the outcome, even if it was a lot more difficult than just applying their sheer technological superiority and direct combat capability.

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#58

Post by meheleventyone »

kragen wrote: post #30
gonzo41 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about mortars more. If you can be close enough for a drone 1-2km, then mortars should be what you're thinking about. Mix a targeting drone with a vehicle mounted mortar team and they can have faster rounds on target and get of the X quicker than drone teams. And nets don't stop mortars. 200M will by a lot of that and can be fielded in a very flexible way.

Mortars miss; suicide drones don't. And even the crappiest combat FPVs outrange mortars at 10+ km. The second drone gets through the net. And I wouldn't be surprised if US mortar rounds cost more than Ukrainian drones. But certainly they are synergistic, and tanks and IFVs are also widely fielded on both sides of the war. The obvious thing to do is to guide your mortar rounds with canards mounted slightly forward of…

> Mortars miss; suicide drones don't.

TBF based on Ukraines own statistics drones miss a lot as well.

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#59

Post by gonzo41 »

kragen wrote: post #56
gonzo41 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mortars have a 30m kill radius and you can hang rounds very quickly. There are guidable versions (expensive) but the regular rounds a cheap as chips (in military terms)

Mortars do not have a 30m kill radius against tanks and trenches.

Yes, but you can suppress a trench with mortars and do a combined arms attack against it. As for Tanks, there's other munitions better suited, the only reason the UAF aren't use them is scarcity.

Re: Neros has raised $121M to build military drones

#60

Post by kragen »

gonzo41 wrote: post #59
kragen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mortars do not have a 30m kill radius against tanks and trenches.

Yes, but you can suppress a trench with mortars and do a combined arms attack against it. As for Tanks, there's other munitions better suited, the only reason the UAF aren't use them is scarcity.

Scarcity is not some kind of minor detail; it's damned near the whole story. Logistics win wars. Scarce weapons usually lose wars against abundant weapons. That doesn't always happen—the Zulus' abundant spears and arrows were no match for the Maxim gun's somewhat less abundant cartridges, and neither a pitchfork nor a handgun will do you much good against a tank—but it does usually happen.

When scarce weapons can defeat abundant weapons, and it's not because of range, it's usually because of precision. Drones are great at precision. 3 mortar rounds falling within 30 meters of your target trench are still ten times less deadly than a single FPV drone you can pilot straight into it.

Post reply on HN