Live data from Hacker News

Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

seanobannon.substack.com

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#91
post #59
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Feels a bit like saying that subsidising personal cars is good for the tank business. Funny you should say that. The US had in 1938 a grand total of about 38 tanks. WWII started a few years later, and after converting prewar automobile factories to tank factories, the USA built more tanks than every other nation combined. Pretty much the same thing happened for airplanes, as mentioned in the article. US industrial…

Military vehicles had much more in common with their civilian counterparts in the WWII era. Technologies have almost entirely diverged since then. An M4 Sherman tank had a gasoline piston engine and steel armor. An M1 Abrams tank has a turbine engine, and uranium and ceramic composite armor. To convert a factory from one to the other you'll have to rip out almost everything and start over.

Yes, mil tech has diverged, and much of modern manufacturing requires highly specialized tooling that requires long lead times to get into production.

That is an excellent reason to subsidize maintaining convertible or dual-use tech in the civilian arena. e.g., make sure turbines are used in more civilian uses. Stockpile tech that is really civilian incompatible such as the depleted uranium armor.

Turbines are a good example of how a civilian tech could have gone differently. In the 1960s several turbine-powered cars were in development for street use and a turbine race car qualified and lead most of the 1967 Indianapolis 500 race. But then the USAC effectively disqualified it [0], and civilian development stopped for other reasons. But it arguably might have continued had turbine power been allowed to race and dominate.

Yet, turbines are used both for aircraft and for natural gas power, both stationary and portable, and there are many small turbines. So, of course, we would not go to an ICE engine builder but to the builders of aircraft and gas power plants. There are also manufacturers of small-scale turbines that might ramp up.

On the other hand, we can also look at how modern warfare has changed over the last three years. multi-million dollar tanks are being reliably destroyed by $800 drones. And drone tech is highly fungible. Many common computer chips and boards can be used to control it, many common lightweight motors will work, and composites or lightweight metals can make the bodies. All of these technologies are highly configurable, so it would be a short lead time to make new factories to turn out pretty much whatever shape drone we wanted, whether it is flying, rolling, or swimming.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STP-Paxton_Turbocar

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#92
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it I am confused. The US has massive fleets of military drones of every type and size that have been proven in combat environments. They literally pioneered the development of this type of military system and have been using them operationally decades before anyone else. Did everyone just fo…

Entire categories of drones are missing from the US arsenal, such as the ultra-cheap wire-guided ones that allow Ukrainians to fly 20 km into the enemy's rear, enter buildings, explore them from the inside, and leave behind presents or detonate immediately if they find any targets. Such drones can be seen at the start of this video, and at the very end too, when they are sneaking up to artillery and puncturing gun ba…

The US doesn’t try to build cheap One-Way Attack drones like Ukraine because the US has the most advanced air force in the world and utilizes that for surveillance and combat. They have advanced communications and battlefield coordination tools so that a small unit commander doesn’t need to carry/use drones. They can get surveillance from those Global Hawks and call in strikes from Reapers. The drones allow Ukraine to conduct asymmetric warfare against a larger force with more resources. The US is the larger force, and so those types of drones are a niche product, not a primary weapon.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#93
post #71
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that is simply because they don't have a better choice. Given the choice between a $200 DJI and a $100 homebuilt "killer" drone, you would probably want 2x of the killer drones. However, if your bottleneck is your manufacturing capabilities instead of your money, then you might be forced to use the DJI drones instead of the custom killers.

It is more complicated than that as the roles are very different and you need both. You just cannot substitute one for the other. DJIs with their high zoom ratios and quality stabilised cameras just allow for wide area monitoring which killer drones relies on. Video from surveillance drones are usually streamed to a teams of analytics far away from front lines for analysis of situation change. People analysing the vi…

tell me more about the video streaming and communication aspects of this. Just skype (haha), zoom, and text messaging/phone calls?

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#94
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember rightly, one of the successful attacks was a floating "drone" made of a small boat packed with explosives. Kind of a hybrid between the torpedo and the fireship, and quite hard to defend against at night. China has (checks wikipedia) three operational carriers, one very modern Fujian , the obsolete former training ship Liaoning , and Shandong , which appears to be halfway between the two, the first loca…

China doesn't need lots of aircraft carriers unless the want to invade US. What they need and they have is enough weapons to destroy any US aircraft carrier approaching their coast. Naval power doesn't mean just aircraft carriers and China has 100x shipbuilding capacity US has.

If China wants Taiwan back the only thing they need to do is make sure the US Navy and cargo ships can't reach the island.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#95
post #31

The problem I have with the idea of subsidising small drones as a proxy for defense is that they solve very different problems: Making a small quadcopter that flies is now entirely solved: you take an open source autopilot, put it on some open source autopilot board, and that's it. If you go further than that, successfully producing delivery drones means that they need to carry a payload safely to some destination, d…

For offensive drones in hot military situations I think one key area of study is swarming. To inflict real damage and evade defenses you need to throw a swarm of drones at the objective. If you that to be robust against jamming you may also want a level of autonomy.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#96
post #91
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military vehicles had much more in common with their civilian counterparts in the WWII era. Technologies have almost entirely diverged since then. An M4 Sherman tank had a gasoline piston engine and steel armor. An M1 Abrams tank has a turbine engine, and uranium and ceramic composite armor. To convert a factory from one to the other you'll have to rip out almost everything and start over.

Yes, mil tech has diverged, and much of modern manufacturing requires highly specialized tooling that requires long lead times to get into production. That is an excellent reason to subsidize maintaining convertible or dual-use tech in the civilian arena. e.g., make sure turbines are used in more civilian uses. Stockpile tech that is really civilian incompatible such as the depleted uranium armor. Turbines are a good…

There was never any possibility of turbine engines becoming widely used for civilian street autos. They are less fuel efficient and have slower throttle response compared to reciprocating internal combustion engines. This is inherent in the technology, not something that could have been fixed with further development.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#97
I'm surprised no one else noticed that this is a submarine article for Anduril and called it out. "Sean's Substack" was created 2 days ago (at the time of writing this comment) and has just this one article, no history to establish credibility either.

The main story is about Manna, an Irish company, but that doesn't help the US itself as they aren't made in the US. The article is advocating for a similar regulatory regime as Manna (and presumably others) have received in Ireland here in the US, and then name drops Anduril near the end.

Anduril's current business is to become part of the military industrial complex, but if regulations are changed they could shift their production towards commercial projects and expand their business.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#98
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The carriers aren't sailing around alone - they're escorted by a whole fleet (plus air patrol) that will intercept the drone launching vehicle at multiple dozen nautical miles range. Smaller quadcopter drones won't even get close to catching the carrier (which can travel over 40 kts while evading) before their batteries die. And even if a few hundred got through, how much damage can they really do? I'd imagine the fl…

Agreed. But there's going to be "happy medium" drones that can be delivered by a long-range mothership. Price is no object when you can take out a carrier.

That's just silly. For attacks against surface targets, the bombers or strike aircraft (possibly unmanned) are going to continue carrying large, fast cruise missiles just like they have been since the 1960's. There is zero reason to use quadcopter type drones for this mission.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#99
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the US had drones before Ukraine occurred. The US does invest in drones. Maybe they will more, but we're probably a little way away from them assuming the role of tanks any time soon.

"Drone" gets used to cover a lot of things; full aircraft sized Reaper/Predator drones down to toy-sized quadcopters. It's the latter which Ukraine has been developing, including a unique solution to ECM: the fiber-optic drone. Small drones do not assume the role of tanks. Drones assume the role of WW1 aircraft: artillery spotters and very light bombing capability. They have this role there because both sides have SA…

> very light bombing capability.

Define "light". Ukraine is fielding FPV drones with EFPs attached that can easily slice into anything armored.

Re: Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

#100
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But there's going to be "happy medium" drones that can be delivered by a long-range mothership. Price is no object when you can take out a carrier.

That's just silly. For attacks against surface targets, the bombers or strike aircraft (possibly unmanned) are going to continue carrying large, fast cruise missiles just like they have been since the 1960's. There is zero reason to use quadcopter type drones for this mission.

Maybe figure out what types of swarms China _can_ defend against, and then send a different type of swarm.
Post reply on HN