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

The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#71

Post by bpodgursky »

ch4s3 wrote: post #43
throw93232 wrote: post #25

This drones are almost useless against modern army with good anti air defense. Here is Indian article with some technical details. https://www.defenceview.in/why-did-the-turkish-tb2-uav-sudde...

This seems superficially reasonable, but it looks like the TB2 Bayraktar was used to bomb the fuel depot in Bryansk less than two weeks ago and that's 150km into Russia. They seemed to have used the TB2 the other day on Snake Island. As of a week ago there had been 6 internationally confirmed incidents where a Tb2 was shot down. They were known to have had at least 20 when the war started and have received more sense…

> So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone thought

I think a big risk here is thinking that only Russia is less competent than advertised. My guess is that 90% of professional militaries (at least those without a LOT of active recent combat) are Potemkin villages wholly incapable of operating as advertised.

Against any of those militaries, things which really should not work, frequently will work fine.

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#72

Post by stult »

ch4s3 wrote: post #43
throw93232 wrote: post #25

This drones are almost useless against modern army with good anti air defense. Here is Indian article with some technical details. https://www.defenceview.in/why-did-the-turkish-tb2-uav-sudde...

This seems superficially reasonable, but it looks like the TB2 Bayraktar was used to bomb the fuel depot in Bryansk less than two weeks ago and that's 150km into Russia. They seemed to have used the TB2 the other day on Snake Island. As of a week ago there had been 6 internationally confirmed incidents where a Tb2 was shot down. They were known to have had at least 20 when the war started and have received more sense…

It's a very solvable problem though. At least for countries other than Russia, which might not be technically nimble enough to adapt mid-conflict and under a strong sanctions regime. S-300s/S-400s/Buks and the somewhat rarer western equivalents like the Patriot system just aren't designed to target something flying that slow with that small of a radar cross section. That doesn't mean the drones aren't reasonably easy to detect and target, just that the targeting systems need to be fine-tuned a little.

I doubt NATO would have this problem, not only because Turkey is part of NATO but because US tactics would probably be more effective against similar drones. We rely on fighters to establish air superiority more than SAMs, while the Russians do the opposite. Worst case scenario, F-15s/16s/22s/35s can use cannons and pilots are more adaptable than radar systems. I also suspect that the F-35's sensors at least are far superior to whatever the Russians are relying on.

I am also somewhat suspicious of the reports we have heard about them striking deep within Russian territory. Not because I doubt their veracity, but because I am certain we are not getting all of the relevant information. I wouldn't be surprised to find out if there was some supplementary SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) going on that Ukraine and its western allies are remaining tight lipped about. It wouldn't shock me to find out that NATO has some clever trick for blinding Russian SAM radar in a way that the Russians haven't figured out yet. The Russians would never ever admit the existence of such a capability publicly because it would totally destroy demand for their military exports, and NATO wouldn't want to tip their hand in anyway that would give the Russians an opportunity to adapt.

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#73

Post by 01100011 »

outworlder wrote: post #62
01100011 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think supporting the government means working directly working with the government then, again, you don't know the game. Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred? There are many layers to that onion and it is obfuscated for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that I don't think many rock star engine…

> Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred? Are you saying they got off the shelf parts? Otherwise, they would be working with the government, even if the purpose of the components wasn't known.

Possibly. Structural, mechanical and propulsion parts were probably custom. Some electronics parts were probably "COTS" mil-spec parts which were procured for imaginary projects or diverted from existing ones.

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#74

Post by alkonaut »

Steltek wrote: post #70
robonerd wrote: post #2

> Several news sources have reported that a single TB2 drone can be purchased for a million dollars, but Bayraktar, while not giving a precise figure, told me that it costs more. In any event, single-unit figures are misleading; TB2s are sold as a “platform,” along with portable command stations and communications equipment. In 2019, Ukraine bought a fleet of at least six TB2s for a reported sixty-nine million dollar…

Wouldn't a COTS drone be relatively easy to jam or have early warning by detecting its control/video links? I get why Russia is having trouble adapting (logistics, sanctions, brain drain, paper tiger military) but outside of the Russia-Ukraine war, how effective would a COTS drone really be in a different state-vs-state direct conflict?

Some kind of middle ground platform with the largest commercial multicopters as a cost effective base but with some jamming resistant communications would be the sweet spot. Perhaps 5kg payload and a few km range and some autonomy such as being given permission to autonomously drop munitions on specific target signatures in specific areas.

If it can be entirely radio silent within the last mile radius (records video for later transmission, finds targets and attacks without intervention) then jamming would be extremely difficult.

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#76

Post by 01100011 »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #59
01100011 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think supporting the government means working directly working with the government then, again, you don't know the game. Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred? There are many layers to that onion and it is obfuscated for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that I don't think many rock star engine…

I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're discussing then. Is the point in your original comment that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technologies of all sorts for their work and that people who work at startups unknowingly contribute to this? I mean sure, but I can also tell you that the government struggles with buying products commercial off the shelf, this is again a reason you see the push for…

> "the murder machine"

Sorry this is my way of saying I think this is what many unsuspecting valley engineers, who in some cases lean quite leftish, would term it if they knew they were contributing to it. Case in point, I worked at a defense comm company and when a fellow engineer overheard a use case in drones they literally wept. That engineer left shortly thereafter for the valley. I use colorful language sometimes for my own amusement.

My point is that not every piece used by the military industrial complex(specifically agencies with 3-9 letters) comes from standard procurement channels. Sure, when you're building F-35s or whatever. But this assumes every big government project is a big government project. Some are one-offs. I'm intentionally obtuse here for a myriad of reasons and I've said about all I can.

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#77

Post by alkonaut »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #21
famil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artillery with spotters accomplished the same task.

Except you can't survey an area with a an artillery warhead. Sure, you can use your spotters to scout ahead, but why put them in danger of an ambush and have them get killed by a sniper or hidden machinegun, when you can survey that area from a safe distance, and take out the sniper/machine gun if you see one? This is not meant to replace artillery battalions and scouts, but to complement them.

You can survey with a drone. Merging the observation with the munition is what makes it a loitering munition, but drones for observation/targeting/correction + traditional corrected or guided artillery is very similar (especially guided shells like Excalibur etc which are also themselves similar to loitering munitions just that they loiter very briefly…)

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#78

Post by kelseyfrog »

ilamont wrote: post #69
throw93232 wrote: post #25

This drones are almost useless against modern army with good anti air defense. Here is Indian article with some technical details. https://www.defenceview.in/why-did-the-turkish-tb2-uav-sudde...

A Patriot missile - usually priced at about $3m (£2.5m) - was used to shoot down a small quadcopter drone, according to a US general. The strike was made by a US ally, Gen David Perkins told a military symposium. "That quadcopter that cost 200 bucks from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a Patriot," he said. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39277940 (2017)

Assuming 10,000 patriot missiles have been manufactured[1], it would cost only $2 million in quadcopters[2] to deplete the entire missile supply? What a bargain!

1. apologies for lacking a better source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

2. i.e. 2/3rds the cost of a single missile

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#79

Post by sitkack »

famil wrote: post #6
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #3

I wish more people would talk about the Switchblade loitering munitions (kamikaze) drones. We've already had western made drones on the battlefield for decades, this is nothing new, just much cheaper than what the west makes while doing the same job equally good. But the man portable kamikaze drones are the real game changer. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G9xLyNfPzQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv8Flu53…

Artillery with spotters accomplished the same task.

Same task, totally different logistics.

You can put the spotter and the artillery in your backpack? The task is only one part of the equation.

Re: The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare

#80

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

openasocket wrote: post #53
glogla wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these are pretty complementary. Switchblade 300 is a 10km range Javelin (same warhead in fact) with integrated surveillance capability that can go beyond range of sight. It is not there to replace mortars, artillery and MRLS, which are area weapons.

switchblade 600 has the Javelin-like warhead, switchblade 300 has something equivalent to a 40mm grenade for a warhead

The 300 is the low collateral assassination drone when you can't use sword bombs.
Post reply on HN