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

61–70 of 355 posts

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

#61

Post by varjag »

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.

$100 is a cost of a 60mm mortar shell. It is a hand grenade sized munition lobbed from a Pringles can sized weapon to the range of 1-2km. This is generally not the thing that comes to mind when you think of artillery strike.

A 155mm (dumb, unguided) shell would set you back 5-8K USD. That's before the propellant charge, fuse and amortization of the artillery piece and its 5 man crew.

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

#62

Post by throwawayffffas »

ggm wrote: post #3

You need to compare this to hit rate with mortars and attrition by counter battery fire on mortar teams. Not to detract from a sober assessment but it's hard to judge without the other parts of the story. Thr tldr would be "temper expectations"

I think you need to compare it to other man portable guided weapons like the FGM-148 Javelin. The Javelin is much much better in all respects, except perhaps range. But is about 100 - 200 times more expensive.

If you can afford* the Javelins and the TOW's of the world that's what you are going to use otherwise, you are stuck with FPVs.

Afford means not only fiscally, but production capacity wise as well.

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

#63

Post by palata »

oersted wrote: post #55

I don’t understand why the author has such a narrow definition of FPV drones. He talks as if reusable drones are a completely different category, that they are all toys designed for enthusiast racers… Generally he implies that a myriad arbitrary technical details are fundamental limitations of this paradigm, it’s a strange mindset. Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if i…

> Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if it’s 20%

That's the whole question, and that's kind of the point that the article raises: the success rate does not matter. What matters is the cost. At the same cost, can you do more damage with other weapons or not?

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

#65

Post by throwawayffffas »

risyachka wrote: post #10
ggm wrote: post #3

You need to compare this to hit rate with mortars and attrition by counter battery fire on mortar teams. Not to detract from a sober assessment but it's hard to judge without the other parts of the story. Thr tldr would be "temper expectations"

This. Mortar may be 5 times cheaper but 100x easier to destroy it and its crew. Also half of the problems described are purely technical and can be easily solved with some budget. In Ukraine most drones are assembled by volunteers. So its not the reliability of drone that is an issue, its lack of proper assembly and QA.

As noted if you have the budget the end product is a FGM Javelin or a Spike NLOS or as the article mentions a switchblade.

These things are pretty much the same thing (a thing that can be carried by a man that accurately puts a warhead on a target) just better and more expensive.

edit: Actually the NLOS might not be man portable, but there are other smaller Spike missiles that are.

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

#67

Post by avoutos »

Even if the technology improves and the economics of scale reduces the cost, I still don't buy the narrative that swarms of tiny kamikaze drones will radically change warfare.

Aside from radio jamming, I have not seen an actual defense against a strong EMP.

To defend against an EMP wiping out your drone swarm, you would have to invest in shielding etc which would remove them from the class of small cheap drones.

Idk if anyone can speak about this, but to me this doesn't seem like a problem that these types of drones can overcome.

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

#68

Post by oersted »

palata wrote: post #63
oersted wrote: post #55

I don’t understand why the author has such a narrow definition of FPV drones. He talks as if reusable drones are a completely different category, that they are all toys designed for enthusiast racers… Generally he implies that a myriad arbitrary technical details are fundamental limitations of this paradigm, it’s a strange mindset. Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if i…

> Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if it’s 20% That's the whole question, and that's kind of the point that the article raises: the success rate does not matter. What matters is the cost. At the same cost, can you do more damage with other weapons or not?

Indeed that’s what I meant, it’s a good question. It sounds like the author only saw the cases where mortars or reusable drones had been successful. But I cannot imagine a mortar being more efficient even if one shot is 5x cheaper. Perhaps they are more effective at suppression, but I would be surprised if they really hit anything meaningful more than 5% of the time, similar with most artillery or bombing, or just plain infantry.

What even comes close to the success rate of a drone to hit a particular moving target? And you can do it while hidden 10km away with a lightly trained operator. And manufactured cheaply, safely and quickly by unskilled labor, and easily transported to the front and hand-carried by troops.

Any kind of alternative, like precision bombing or sniping, or just getting close and shooting at it, must be much more costly, particularly when you also account for the cost of the equipment used, even if it is reusable, and the training, risk and human cost.

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

#69

Post by dfedbeef »

This is kind of a 'Muskets are cool but they take too long to reload' vibe.

Yeah Ukraine isn't working with the best tech; it's a doctrine of desperation rather than preparation. But they discovered something effective and it will change the way wars are fought in the future.

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

#70

Post by throwawayffffas »

palata wrote: post #63
oersted wrote: post #55

I don’t understand why the author has such a narrow definition of FPV drones. He talks as if reusable drones are a completely different category, that they are all toys designed for enthusiast racers… Generally he implies that a myriad arbitrary technical details are fundamental limitations of this paradigm, it’s a strange mindset. Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if i…

> Also, as others commenters state, isn’t a 43% success rate exceedingly high? Even if it’s 20% That's the whole question, and that's kind of the point that the article raises: the success rate does not matter. What matters is the cost. At the same cost, can you do more damage with other weapons or not?

A hit does not equal a kill. Killing a tank or an apc, takes a lot of hits from an FPV drone due to the small payload. I have heard quoted an average of 16 hits.

That's why you see videos trying to go in open hatches and the like. And that's why you are seeing cope cages. It doesnt matter how many chains or steel plates you weld on to your tank if you are hit by a TOW or a Javelin, it's still going to get you. They can penetrate more than a meter of steel.

But the FPV is carrying a DPCIM or a small RPG it's much less likely to penetrate a tanks or an apc armor.

> What matters is the cost.

Logistics matter too. How many FPVs can a company carry? How many fit in a pickup? Do you need a truck load to kill a tank? If you need like 10 to kill a tank, you need to do 10 attacks, either 10 people attacking the same target in quick succession or one guy 10 times.

A Javelin is pretty much one hit one kill, and the hit rate is supposedly at about 89%. So you need like one or two to kill a tank.

From what I have heard, bigger heavier reusable drones, that release their bigger payload are more effective than FPVs.

Post reply on HN