https://warontherocks.com/2025/06/i-fought-in-ukraine-and-heres-why-fpv-drones-kind-of-suck/

Buy an ad Jakub

>>63899950 (OP)
Fuck ya
mudda

>>63899950 (OP)
>Clinging bitterly to doctrine
Combat proved the western professional military scholars were right and the slavic jank wasn't so great after all, huh. It must burn larpers hides.

This article is actually rather mild compared to the Ukrainian channels I read. A typical comparison is spending 40 minutes setting up and launching a stream of 5-6 FPVs until one finally takes out the incoming tank versus a BONUS artillery shell or Javelin which takes a minute to set up and instantly pops the turret on the first shot every time.

>>63900018
>cheap as fuck system you can launch over and over to use for recon AND attack
vs
>expensive as hell missile that is greatly effective but is one and done and you need someone else to spot your target first or be positioned just right to interdict them

No fucking shit these two different systems are used differently for different things

Recommends the Switchblade that got jammed almost immediately.

>>63900056
>cheap as fuck system you can launch over and over to use for recon AND attack
Time and tempo are severe considerations for military operations. If your system takes half a day to achieve what proper weapons take a couple minutes to do, then it's shit.

>>63900097
If it's shit, then don't use it.

>>63899950 (OP)
red the whole thing.

basically
>tech isn't there yet / doctrine problem / a few real problems

big deal fag, clickbait article
that said, with how incompetent and expensive militaries are these days, i'd actually wages a lot of these faults will remain in more expensive regual military issue drones.

>>63900206
also, he hasn't talked about recon or against tanks.
Both of them extremely valid and game changing.

>>63900056
>detonator is two bits of wire that will go off if brought together
No one is recovering FPV drones.

>>63900285
You can just not strap a bomb to it if you only want to recon

>>63900018
with the javelin you have to expose yourself and the tank you want to hit also has to come out of cover and it costs a fortune, which really sucks in a war of attrition.

>>63899950 (OP)
There's really nothing all that special about "fpv drones." TV guided UCAVs and PGMs are decades old. The concept probably predates WWII.

>>63900062

>>63900058
>aaaa its jammed cope from 2023
Get with the times grandpa, they fixed it at the start of 2024 and its been popping Buks ever since.

>>63900420
The point of weapons which Just Werk my slavic pal is accelerating tempo so you don't get in a war of attrition in the first place.

>Drones also operate in a cluttered segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. First-person view drones use unencrypted analog radio signals, and in hot parts of the front, as many as a dozen drone teams may be competing for use of a handful of frequencies (a consequence of using cheaper components).
as a radio guy I'm surprised they don't even use spread spectrum techniques like CDMA. on the video front, switching to lower resolution and lower fps when the signal is bad would also be a good idea. as might going digital and using modern compression, and putting more energy into each bit

>>63900432
Theres a dedicated group who push the idea of FPV drones destroyed the old paradigm of well funded military due to the wishful thinking that the American dominated world order will finally be toppled and allow the third world multi-polar order to rise.
tl;dr its thirdie cope.

>>63900581
and there's a whole lot of useful idiots who didn't know anything about guided weapons until fpv clips started showing up in their feeds, so they just go along with it

>>63900056
>cheap as fuck
yes, and also inferior as fuck. Ukraine's massive adoption of them is not because they're the best weapon. It's because they're cheap and easy to assemble and they're fighting a grinding war of attrition in a situation of numerical, technological and financial inferiority and desperation. They're not a munition for a shock and awe war of choice that the west typically fights. There's a reason these things first emerged with ISIS.

It's only a key technology if the war went very badly and you get stuck in this dogshit situation where you can't source better solutions and need something you can slap together in a backyard workshop from off the shelf components. If you have overwhelming firepower and can establish air supremacy, these things really aren't needed to the same degree. Like spiderweb was impressive but the USA would never have to bother with something so retarded on year 3 of a 3 day SMO.

FPVs are very much a 'bang for the buck' technology that is the first choice for a very narrow band of mission profiles. Recon drones are far more transformative but the west has been using those at scale for like 50 years now.

>>63900608
don't you understand anon? i just invalidated your post by using an fpv drone to blow up my screen.
your post can get destroyed by a drone therefore your posts are obsolete and should get replaced by FPV drones.

>>63899950 (OP)
>the success rate drops to 20 percent
>majority of our missions was to deliver the second tap in a double-tap strike against a target that had already been successfully prosecuted by a different weapon
>we successfully carried out a task that only a first-person view drone can fulfill...in the single-digit percent
>A solid quarter of all these drones have some sort of technical fault that prevents them from taking off
>they are finicky, unreliable, hard to use, and susceptible to electronic interference. Few first-person view drones have night-vision capability
> Wind, rain, snow, and fog all mean a drone cannot fly
>These drones were originally designed to be toys for rich people
>first-person view drones used by Ukrainian forces have no nav
>when first-person view drones get close to the ground, due to obstacles, they start to lose their radio connection
>First-person view drones use unencrypted analog radio
>de-confliction procedures that, quite simply, do not always work
>sometimes a team must wait as long as half an hour for a frequency to become available before takeoff
>drones are also highly susceptible to electronic-warfare jamming. That meant our drones simply could not take off
>once a drone is airborne batteries often die mid-flight
>In about 10 percent of sorties, the drone hits the target, but its warhead does not detonate

What a thirdie shitshow. No wonder Western companies like AV and Anduril charge 50k per kamikaze - theirs actually work!

>>63900581
>>63900608
honestly I don't know why this narrative still gains traction after the latest Israili-palestinian chimp out showed that, no, FPV drones will not upset the paradigm and western air power will continue to make mincemeat of you.
Like think about it for one second, FPV drones requires a constant source of cheap electronics and unmolested manufacturing capabilities.
If shit gets hot and threatens the US hegemony, guess who's manufacturing is getting molested? FPV drones dominate in ukraine due to static lines allowing drone pilots to set up in relative safety behind the lines, and both factions of the war have large borders with allies. that allow them to import all the war material they need.
Drones upset trench warfare, but the west does not fight trench warfare

>>63900097
>woodland camo
>hellscape
>soldier stands triumphantly atop eternal turret popper

kino image my dude

>>63900645
wire guided fpv drones solve all these issues.

>>63900759
Are you ignoring the part where they are way more restricted on where they fly, including an inability to circle back on themselves without tangling their cable and crashing? Or the part where some teams just outright refuse to use them because of how much more difficult to use they are?

>>63900649
fpv drones are GOAT for actual infantry combat. you can look and strike an enemy who is hiding behind cover without having to move out of cover yourself. thats a godsend for every infantry man. you can send them into buildings and engage the enemy there, a real game changer in close quarters combat.

>>63900766
they are still pretty maneuverable.

behead all headline writers. i legitimately believe the radicalization of EVERYONE on every spectrum of politics is partially due to these clickbaity headlines (followed by a paywall)

>>63900784
If you haven't flown a fpv drone you should. Very fun and very easy. If you can fly a helicopter in video games you already know how to fly a fpv drone.

>>63900926
this, its very intuitive.

>>63900784
If that a jammer system in the back of that pickup?

>>63900619
>in a situation of numerical, technological and financial inferiority and desperation
And in these dire straits the ukies still hold the line with these workshop solutions, keeping out tanks and APCs

>>63900926
My FPS game helos always survive, it's just the guys in my clan won't fly with me because they get sick.

>>63900649
>drones wont upset paradigm because iran strikes
Please god let every american think like you, it would be so funny to get another iraq where you do your air campaign and then get your shoelaces caught up in terrorist mountain warfare again. They'll 100% be using shasneeds for that war let me tell you

>>63900977
It is probably that they don't have much to do while riding and aren't getting kills.

>everyone sperging about drones
>army realizes the untapped potential small man-packable drones have for recon/one off strikes and orders 7 gorillion of them to distribute at a platoon level
>each company gets like... 4 drones total
>one dude just gets randomly designated as the drone guy per platoon
>no real training on them except for a 3 day crash course run by the sales rep--errr... contractor for the drone company
>any time soldiers want to fly them they have to do a whole fucking packet for the FAA and those almost never get approved so there goes any chance of hip pocket training or getting to use them at live fires lower than a company level
>drones treated as SI so there goes the idea of ever using them as cheap guided munitions for infantry conducting assaults because if you break one you're getting a FLIPL shoved straight up your cornhole
>outside of CTC rotations they become yet another piece of expensive annoying SI you have to lug around in the field and keep track of and never use

The Army has the tools but in typical Army fashion completely manages to fuck it up. I was marginally lucky in that we had a CO and 1SG who didn't give a fuck and let us just fly the drones around whenever we wanted in the field and at the COF just to get reps in but I know that it probably caught them some serious hell from higher.
When it comes to the FPV drone game, the US is so woefully fucking behind that it's not even funny. Unless some high speed unit starts to utilize them and make some serious noise about how you can properly implement them at a squad or platoon level, the drone program is dead in the fucking water and it's going to cost people their lives

>>63901021
we had drone guys since before ukraine

>>63901027
We did, but the problem is how the Army and it's subordinate commands treat the drones. Instead of looking at them as a cheap replaceable munition, they're treated like our radios and it severely hinders our ability to fully utilize them. Fort Campbell is just now building gigantic netted areas for soldiers to practice flying which is great, but until we get to the point where the Army can just order a pallet of them and categorize them in the same way as we categorize mortar rounds or something, we're badly behind the curve

>>63901040
imo i think cheap drones are going to be hard-countered quite soon by first-rate militaries

The retarded part is the guy is completely missing the positives of cheap, mass deployable systems, you use them WITH your high end high quality systems across all levels of combat, strategic to tactical so the cunts boots side have more than one asset to call in, have varying levels of lethality or capability to rely on or the ability to operate independently from higher level support with their own cheaper strike gear. Fpv drones are flawed and have issues, but even as they are now they can be exceedingly useful on really any battlefield alongside the more precise shit like switchblades or just calling a big missile in.

>>63900097
>its shit
Thats why they keep using them.

I bet drones have killed more than rifles in the ukraine war. You have a remote controlled (little to no risk for the operator), precision guided, cheap, instakill (against infantry, sometimes against armored vehicles), they are extremely flexible (can be used for anti-infantry, anti-tank, anti-equipment, anti-material, observation)

Seems like they're good weapons to me.

>>63900018
How the fuck are FPV setups taking 40minutes. These things should be charged and ready to go especially in defensive roles.

>>63901423
You could argue that they just unboxed them, but I am leaning more towards theyre retarded. Shouldnt be that hard to tape a bomb to it and rig a trigger

>>63901021
The US is looking further ahead than you. It's expecting the war to be most fought at 60-100km with everything in the middle as deadzone. A far more deadly long range war than is currently taking place in Ukraine.
FPVs are thus less useful in this style of war. But so are infantry.

>>63899950 (OP)
>Clinging bitterly to doctrine
what is with this weird notion that doctrine is always outdated?

FPV drones are mostly used as shittier artillery. The only thing they do unique is deep interdiction, and only specialized models and fiber optic models

>>63901431
Then in my opinion they're missing the forest for the trees, yet again. All this talk about having a larger standoff for engagement has been done to death with things like bows, muskets, rifles, artillery, tanks, planes, the NGSW, and now drones- and even today, men are meeting face to face and killing each other within 5-20 yards all the time.
It's going to royally suck when the army that's specc'd into maximum long range with zero thought about the last several millenia of warfare suddenly has to deal with an enemy that's managed to close the gap

But like you said, wtf do I know I'm just a grunt. My senior leaders have never made a colossal fuckup before ever

>>63900973
>keeping out tanks and APCs
Not qualifying that those are RUSSIAN tanks and APCs is borderline disingenuous, anon. Competent militaries the world over have been investing in increasingly effective anti-drone tech for decades now; those DJI specials that are the gold standard in the current war would be massively less effective against someone like China, or even fucking Poland/Finland/etc. The Russians are too poor and incompetent to advance and the Ukrainians are too poor and outnumbered to push them out so they both sit behind their thoroughly entrenched front lines and lob aliexpress quadcopters at each other. In many ways the war in Ukraine is almost like an incredibly large low-intensity war.

>>63901435
Officers don't want to make new PowerPoint slides.

>>63901412
It's not surprising they would kill more than small arms. Small arms fire has never killed many people.

I think his point is a good one. Drones are so effective in Ukraine because it is effectively a static war now with minimal combined arms presence. Back during the high intensity fighting drones wouldn't have been very useful even if they had the doctrine developed.

>>63900018
>versus a BONUS artillery shell or Javelin which takes a minute to set up
a. you've never used either of the systems if you think it takes a minute to setup Javelin or artillery;
b. good luck hitting a moving target with artillery randomly;
c. good luck hitting a tank with javelin at range that FPV drones operate.

>>63901423
He probably means arming them and such. Since it's a nigger-rigged system they aren't safe and have to be carefully armed by hand before launch. That takes time. Also fidgeting around with control shit sometimes takes time.

>>63900432
>There's really nothing all that special about "fpv drones." TV guided UCAVs and PGMs are decades old.
a. they could be launched from anywhere;
b. they couldn't turn on a dime;
c. most didn't have the range;
d. due to cost you could never have as many of them to used as FPVs are used;

>>63901021
The Army needs to revive their EOD disposal idea of having guys in an MRAP piloting remote controlled bomb defusal robots but replace the bomb defusal robots with FPV drones you launch out.

>>63900645
>theirs actually work
Never proven in battle. A lab demo isn't the battlefield. Simple as.

Also cost is a big factor. If you have 50x the drones then some of them not detonating or being suppressed isn't an issue.

So this thread is just guys going "they're shit and don't work except in all these situations in which they work"

Can people stop coping about these things already, they're here to stay and will be incorporated into most military doctrines one way or the other.

there are visual proofs that drones in ukraine:
>recon (thermal/nvg)
>lay mines
>detect mines
>can be used like fucking mines
>lay concertina wire
>lay repeater antennas
>lay ewar casters
>use flamethrowers and thermite
>are used in ambushes (staying on the ground until vehicle passes)
>overwhelm AD in cost-effective manner
>are used in long range attacks (> 2000 km)
>are used in surprise attacks deep in enemy territory
>can be guided via satellite link
>can use fiberoptics to just win vs ewar
>large drones can be used as motherships for smaller drones
>can be used totally autonomously via image recognition
>can fly INSIDE buildings, especially fiberoptic ones
and yes,
>are used as fpv flying munitions
but this motherfucker says they "suck?? whoa, nigga.

>>63902425
oh, forgot one:
>can be used as aerial supply route in a pinch

>>63902363
This is the dumbest shit. Why aren't manufacturer's just including a slot in trigger is beyond me, if its truly grunt work then it's not really a problem to do beforehand either or during downtime, idk why the dude is seething about it.

>>63901894
70% if all casualties in the Ukrainian war are various types of drones.
The artillery is king doctrines are false.

>>63900441
HAHAHAHA i remember that shit
I miss 2012

>>63902432
>This is the dumbest shit. Why aren't
Because private sector can easily work with drones, but cant' easily work with explosives. Laws and gay ass goyvernment shit. So the approach is "private sector gives drone, state gives RPG charge, soldier arms the device". Yes, it's gay as well.

>>63902438
Then they need to put up a mid route manufacturing sector that does it before it hits the frontline, or spare one guy from the squad to do it.
I understand the RPGs and shells they're adding aren't exactly the safest but it should be systematic work, and they should be made so they are able to be kept in safe manner even after setup.

This is basic logistics stop defending it, his unit failed.

>>63900759
Do they still work in winds?

>>63902445
I'm not defending it, I'm telling you how things are now. I also think this is retarded. For the very least because this limits the type of shit the local agile private industry can do.

>>63900645
pretty informative
>team must wait half an hour for a frequency to become available
Could this be solved by having portable routers closer to drones so they can use shorter-range frequencies? I'm imagining a mesh network with dynamic routing so if one router gets eliminated, data can still flow through.
The routers could be fibre-optic connected drones.
Not really an immediate solution though.

>>63902459
maybe that means "russians jam the frequency for half an hour before jumping to other frequency"?

>>63902434
The Ukrainians (and this article) are explicitly making the point that artillery is better; drones are only doing a high % of the casualties because they don't have much artillery left. 90% of the time drones are an inferior substitute.

>>63902459
It could be solved by not using homemade slavshit. The commercial FPVs Ukrainians use can only fit about 6-7 drone pilots in the same area of the front (before adding the russian fpvs!) before their frequencies overlap and jam each other. They also have to coordinate with their own jamming teams. It can take hours to unfuck this, like Americans unfucking bureaucracy for air strikes in Afghanistan.

>>63900018
>Cost of an FPV drone: 1000$
>Cost of a javelin meme missile: 200,000$
Retarded nigger kys

>>63902652
>because they don't have much artillery left
They don't have shells to use arty as much as they want.

>>63902408
They're paid MIC shills and useful idiots

>>63902654
>brown noises
In the west we measure probabilities on the kill chain and logistics throughput. FPVs tend to suck at those.

>>63902654
In fairness there is a lot of space there for the FPV drone to improve even if it costs more. The FPV drones and different types of drop drones that we see could cost five times more and still be worthwhile if they had stuff like thermals, more resistance to EW, maybe guided or airbursting munitions etc. This is like the whole thing about how you can actually make a tank for super cheap if we just take an unupgraded T-62 or similar but a tank that costs 30% -50% more but actually has even the jankiest of thermals is better than like three or four of those T-62's because it can actually hit something and there is a hard cutoff point below which economies of scale matter less than sheer performance. That said a lot of western shit does genuinely cost too much but there are loads of companies these days looking into affordable mass production of just about everything with varying degrees of success. Another thing to remember about FPV drones and similar of varying types is that the hitrate also equates to the actual cost of the weapon because if it takes six hits to affect a target the real cost is higher than the cost of just one drone and just like with artillery if you can't hit with the first shot the enemy will try to get to cover making follow up attempts significantly harder. If the percentage of accurate hits is low you also need to carry way more drones which is a hindrance to drone teams and logistics in general.

>>63900926
>If you can fly a helicopter in video games
In which video games?
In DCS?
In Arma?
In Battlefield?
In Vice City?

>>63902654
>Cost of a javelin meme missile: 200,000$
these too would be cheaper if they weren't limited to small production runs

>>63899950 (OP)
>bad reliability
Just like aviation in early WWI
>repurposed civilian technology
Just like aviation in early WWI
>the gratuates from the brand new "pilot" schools know nothing
Just like aviation in early WWI
>we are all self-thought
Just like aviation in early WWI
>command doesn't know how to use us
Just like aviation in early WWI
>artillery delivers more pounds of explosives per time unit
Just like aviation in early WWI
>our success is overblown
Just like aviation in early WWI

>>63900986
>iran not mentioned once
>brings up iran
also lmao a shitsneed is not going to last 2 seconds against a country with air dominance.

>>63901048
they already are. US jammers literally made mincemeat of isis drones in Syria.

>>63902408
>So this thread is just guys going "they're shit and don't work except in all these situations in which they work"
Are we reading the same thread? I just see thirdie shills calling drones a wunderwaffe and people going over why they actually suck ass

>>63900056
Being cheap isn't better if it's not comparable kit
You're not saving money when your system is less effective and it costs time and/or lives

>>63902727
It's both funny and sad how ignorant people are about shit that predated 2022
Most niggers probably don't even remember Syria or 2014, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan

>>63902727
The US jammed DJIs back in the Battle of Mosul too.

>>63900645
>sometimes a team must wait as long as half an hour for a frequency to become available before takeoff
This seems like a particularly critical limiting factor to me, a lot of the rest of the stuff like better optics, performance, EWAR hardening and warheads will come naturally with time as the tech improves and shit gets cheaper and more standardised but whoever cracks communication and control first will enjoy a potentially decisive advantage

>>63901021
>if you break one you're getting a FLIPL shoved straight up your cornhole
I swear you fuckers are just making up acronyms and daring people to call you out at this point

>>63901412
>I bet drones have killed more than rifles in the ukraine war.
100%, the actually impressive stat is that they have killed more people than heavy artillery
king of the battle no more

>>63899950 (OP)
>40% is a bad success rate
Seems pretty good to me.

>>63902711
Utterly irrelevant. Even if drone tech improves so could anti-drone technologies. We're already seeing laser based AA systems and pure physics prevents the use of overwhelming swarms.

>>63902541
possibly, i read it as other drone operators occupying that frequency band for their own mission

>>63902878
What do you expect from normies brought up with 1-shot-1-kill video game logic

>>63902822
It was done in the west 15 years ago and copied in China 5-8 years ago. MANET radios are mesh nets plugged into ATAK which have 512+ nodes apiece.

>>63900056
>cheap as fuck system you can launch over and over to use for recon AND attack
And thats why mobik meat waves reign supreme on battlefield

>>63902878
Compare to success rates for other weapons over 99.99 %.

The parasitic logistics load is no joke. For every 2 shots which work IOW you're packing out 3 more useless weights.

>>63902878
Actually, it's more like 20-30%
>This number does not include instances when our higher command requested a sortie but we had to decline because we knew that we could not strike the target for reasons such as weather, technical problems, or electronic interference. If this type of pre-aborted mission is included in the total, the success rate drops to between 20 and 30 percent. On the face of it, this success rate is bad, but that is not the whole story.

>>63902920
What kind of systems have a 99.99% success rate in your mind?

>>63902781
2014 was before their country got internet access.

>>63900018
>A typical comparison is spending 40 minutes setting up and launching a stream of 5-6 FPVs until one finally takes out the incoming tank versus a BONUS artillery shell or Javelin which takes a minute to set up and instantly pops the turret on the first shot every time.

(5-6)*$500 vs 1x$100 000 (disregarding the need for an 155 mm or a javelin launch unit). One technology is so cheap it can cover the entire front, the other is gucci that is only available in selected locations.

>>63900056
No one is denying that drones are exceptionally cost effective weapons for impoverished third world countries like Ukraine and Russia.

>>63903565
In the context of a military power that can afford to cover the entire front with weapons, having weapons that work is preferable to having ones that don't.

>>63901412
>marginally less risky than being artillery/mortar crew
>midwit retard construes this as "little to no risk"
top fucking kek

>>63903754
mortars have completely disappeared from the battle field, because they get spotted immediately and then artyed or droned.

>>63900441
>>63900062
He was based. If he had been elected we wouldn't be here in this shitshow. Too bad he was a mormon.

>oh nooooo like 5% of drones make it through
meanwhile, the success of other ordnance is similarly low

>>63900018
>>63902654
>>63903565
Terminal cases of economicistbrain. Neo-classical and libertarian economics has been a disaster for the internet nerd race.

>>63903785
No, they don't. Or else we wouldn't be having constant footage of mortars being used or casualties of mortars being destroyed reported.

>>63902432
>if its truly grunt work then it's not really a problem to do beforehand either or during downtime
It's still mostly made of shit and sticks. Here is a pic of me putting a detonator in it after getting the launch order and running for a few minutes to the drone

>>63899969
Is this ad thing some new tricknology?

>>63902887
>i read it as other drone operators occupying that frequency band for their own mission
Conceivably jamming enemy signals too since they'll share the spectrum and probably mostly use the standard retail commercial spectrum.

Many will miss the point here the soldier is pointing out that in typical scenarios FPVs are at best only 60-80% effective. Effective meaning the asset was scrambled and landed a successful detonation. This is ok for now butis incredibly wasteful of resources and munitions. It also represents the much more critical loss of opportunity. There are many optimizations already deployed that solve most of these issues , mil drones in particular having hardened control channels and the ability to widely deploy without stepping on another, and that's before considering the risk of having to manually arm munitions. Purpose built will always outperform because it's built for purpose. Using FPVs as flexible squad level assets is where they shine. The ability to quickly deploy an air asset is huge. But as the report points out, it's not a cure all and they are actively being countered.

>>63902831

>A Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) is the manner in
which the Army accounts for the circumstances surrounding the loss, damage or destruction
(LDD) of Government property.

You'd think the Army make a better acronym for documenting "you broke this shit" than "FLIPL," but it's the Army.

>>63902916
the mobik meat waves dont work, the FPV drones do

i am sure russia would manufacture more krasnopol but it doesnt really have the capability to make them or employ them in relevant manner

concept of this argument is retarded. poor man invents military technology to deal with problem is successful. rich man laughs in his face calls him poor and then goes to masturbate to the poor man killing someone brutally while the rich man is living in the eternal cuck shed

>>63903565
An infantry platoon's weapon squad is a "selected location" now?

>>63900056
>Stupid Germans using anti-tank guns! They should be using cheap, low cost anti-tank spears

didn't read. ill be practicing my acro skills.

>>63903833
you're an idiot
neoclassical economics is the only view rooted in microeconomic spending i.e. what the average joe actually does. Keynesianism is top-down theorycrafting by armchair fuckwits.

those anons are wrong in the specific case of how 200 thousand-dollar drones are somehow equivalent to one $200,000 Javelin ATGM, but ignoring cost entirely like you do is what lead to the Suez canal problem where millions of dollars were spent to shoot down Houthi drones costing a fraction of the price. suddenly cost becomes a factor and people scrambled to deploy cheaper alternatives.
tell them they're delusional lolberts then, shit for brains. or better yet, shut the fuck up since you've never even skimmed the contents page of a finance textbook.

>>63903565
previous estimates are more like a total of 40 FPVs to kill 1 tank, according to RUSI interviews with Ukrainians

before you start doing sums on your fingers about the cost of 40 FPVs, note that if cost were the only factor, then towed antitank guns are the cheapest antitank weapon. but you're not going to suggest we pull out the Flak 88s are you? the low price of FPV drones comes with a long list of caveats which have been discussed here, that ultimately make them less efficient and less attractive than more expensive weapons. and these operational factors are something which you know fuck-all about.

>>63899950 (OP)
>warontherocks
lol

>>63900018
yep
other than the loitering function which ought to be fulfilled in proper armies by dedicated recon drones, FPVs are ersatz ATGMs really

>>63900056
an FPV is basically a jack of these two trades, in addition to being cheap and nasty, but is markedly inferior at performing the individual roles compared to specialist versions

>>63900794
they contribute to the problem, yes. it's especially obvious in the cringe NYT headline format that goes:
>Just Listen To Me. Here's Why.
>I Am Right. Here's Why.
>They Are Wrong. Here's Why.

>>63905131
Should also be pointed out that China is the leading manufacturer and developer of top of the line consumer drones. DJI alone has something insane like 80% global marketshare.

If the US is serious about going all in on the “pIvOT tO thE pACifC” then it either needs to massively upscale its production of drones yesterday or focus its efforts instead on counter drone warfare.

>>63900097
time and tempo? the thing that the US couldn't show in Yemen?

>>63904266
>"It takes 10 rc helicopters 20x as long to do the job of the missiles you stopped giving us for free, home grown success of the mighty Cossack hetmanate!"
>This is the ghettoest shit I've ever seen
>(Screeching and cuckold fantasies)

With friends like these

>>63900645
All solvable problems. I'll have to give credit where it is due. Burgers do know logistics, and that's what's needed.

>>63903565
>counting dollars instead of pounds or gallons
Economists lost World War One. I agree with Ludendorff in his statement: "Tactics should have been placed above mere strategy. Without tactical success strategy could not be accomplished. Strategy which does not think of tactical success, is condemned in the very start to failure. Numerous examples for this were furnished by the attacks of the Entente in the first three years of the war."

>>63905224
Economists won both WW1 and WW2. Read The Deluge by Adam Tooze and the Phoney Victory by Peter Hitchens.

>>63905266
>lmao x2
I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I won't make that mistake with an economist again.

>>63903165
Basically everything. MTBF for a random gun is about 40k shots.

>>63903785
Completely backwards afaik. Mortars were prone to counterbattery at the start when arty was common, and maybe they've suddenly dried up in the last 3-4 months (i doubt it) but for the last ~18 months+ they've been frontline staples, especially with Western fpv+120mm mortar team combos.

>>63905278
I’m not the original anon but you’re pretty fucking retarded ton just dismiss two excellent reads offhandedly.

Britain and France practically bankrupted themselves to eek out a victory in WW1. That debt is still yet to be repaid since the British flat out defaulted on it in the interwar period. To convince the Americans to provide any sort of military aid during WW2 prior to pearl harbour the Brits had to - in secret - transfer their entire gold reserves to the US, most of which still sit in Fort Knox. Economics won both world wars.

>>63905266
Economics isn't even a science.

>>63905131
>then towed antitank guns are the cheapest antitank weapon
Lolwut m777 costs $3.8 millions
Towed 120mm AT gun would cost in that ballpark. Single 120mm sabot round costs $10000.
Now count how many FPV drones is that.

>>63900018
Anon Bonus is elaborate drone itself that costs $80000 dollaritos and produced like 2000 per year. Also i am not sure it will work against barn tanks well

Javelin is direct fire system, it can't compete.

>>63902434
I think that stat is skewed because of the lack of arty on the Ukranian side, plus you have footage of literally every drone strike. You will not have footage of every rifleman on rifleman engagement, you will not have footage of every successful splash with a GL, you will not have footage of every successful landmine or IED. OSINT'ers are great at gathering data, but apparently not good at understanding context of collected data.

>>63908130
They are making millions of drones per year. This is not as weird as you think.

>>63902781
Because /k/ is now occupied mostly by tourists since 2022.

>>63905266
>Peter Hitchens
It's like you want to fuck up your mind with propaganda.

>>63902727
The turn around for Russian and Ukrainian drones defeating the EW of the other is less than 3 weeks.
ISIS is retarded in comparison, using mostly off the shelf components.

>>63900794
I agree, it has contributed greatly to this ongoing trend of people being deeply irresponsible with information and how they present it, in this case by assuming authority/qualification without necessarily having it.
The social media algorithms did this, modern headlines are written to be engaging instead of being informative

>>63903825
So what you are saying is they aren't the uber game changer people like Musk keeps making them out to be? Woah.

>>63904607
Hey I finally have a chance to post this!

>>63903165

>>63902459
anon... how? how do you think mobile phones networks would work if frequency crowding was such an issue ?

>>63903818
buddy he was clinically retarded and had no charisma

>>63899950 (OP)
>>63900018

What no one has bothered to mention is that foreign volunteers in Ukraine fall into two categories; the first are mostly absolute dipshits and psychos who came over to get to kill people legally, or so they could be a War Hero™. Ukraine tends to use them as disposable cannon fodder because they are all loose cannons and are more useful dead as martyrs and symbols, rather than alive getting in fights and drunkenly stabbing each other.

The second category are guys like this Slovak officer, who are presumedly of above average intelligence and therefore actually useful in a non-infantry role.
Guys like this you don’t want to use as cannon fodder, so you give them some relatively ‘safer’ rear-echelon role like cleaning up hit targets so they can be of use, gain some experience, and hopefully not die, which would be a bad look for future volunteers.
Problem is, Jakub extrapolates his experience as indicative of ALL drone usage which I think is untrue.
If he had been rolling with one of the top drone units concentrating on primary strikes, he would not have this view.
He even mentions the constant shortage of the best drones, which are likely given to (based on the point system) the best pilots. I don’t think all his takeaways are bad, but he does even admit that most of his criticisms are solved by fiber-optic hardwired drones, so I’m going to take his critique with a big chunk of salt.

>>63908485
>which I think is untrue
on what basis?

>>63908568
I began to notice that the vast majority of our sorties were against targets that had already been struck successfully by a different weapons system, most commonly by a mortar or by a munition dropped by a reusable drone (in other words, not a first-person view drone). Put differently, the goal of the majority of our missions was to deliver the second tap in a double-tap strike against a target that had already been successfully prosecuted by a different weapons system. The proportion of missions when we successfully carried out a task that only a first-person view drone can fulfill — delivering a precision strike on a target that could not be hit by other means — was in the single-digit percent.


He says above that his unit was doing primarily ‘clean up’ strikes not primary, and that he never used fiber optic drones.
I’m saying that his experience is likely not indicative of first-echelon fpv warfare focusing on primary strikes and utilizing the best drones.

>>63908568
>>63908588

I can’t into formatting, let me try again:
> I began to notice that the vast majority of our sorties were against targets that had already been struck successfully by a different weapons system, most commonly by a mortar or by a munition dropped by a reusable drone (in other words, not a first-person view drone). Put differently, the goal of the majority of our missions was to deliver the second tap in a double-tap strike against a target that had already been successfully prosecuted by a different weapons system. The proportion of missions when we successfully carried out a task that only a first-person view drone can fulfill — delivering a precision strike on a target that could not be hit by other means — was in the single-digit percent.

>>63908588
>his experience is likely not indicative
and how would you know that?

what alternative are you suggesting - that some other drone unit is doing
>precision strike on a target that could not be hit by other means
in greater proportion?
on what basis do you think that?

>>63900206
This, in his own words they have a high success rate he just doesn't seem to understand that a single mortar round might be cheaper but the odds of getting a dirrect hit are low.

Most of the issues can be solved by designing a military verson instead of strapping a warhead to a hobby drone.

>>63908602
Considering the fact that he says the most common mission was doubletapping stuff, through inference we must conclude his unit was not focusing on primary strikes.
The existence of Ukrainian primary strike drone units is not a mystery, they have a different job is all.

>>63908625
right, so you don't have any other information other than
>I don't believe him, there just must be someone else who's doing "proper" long-range drone strikes

>>63908638
Okay, since you’ve decided to become rude I’ll spell it out for you buddy.
Ukraine by their own metrics now produces FPVs in the millions per year.
The Ukrainian army has hundreds of thousands of men in arms, and since Zaluhzny’s editorial two years ago after the counteroffensive, the Ukrainian military has massively committed to drone production and formed the world’s first unmanned systems branch.
With dozens if not hundreds of drone units using thousands upon thousands of drones, naturally there will be high-speed units using the best commericial drones, and lower speed units using what they can get, including stuff assembled by volunteers with lower quality control.
I’m saying that to extrapolate this Slovak officer’s experience as reflecting the entire nature of Ukrainian FPV operations
is overly reductive.
For example, his stat on primary strikes making up single digit percentages of overall kills is to me more indicative of what his unit specifically was tasked with than it is of FPV drone
warfare overall being unsuited for first strikes.
The guys doing the primary strikes are in a much higher risk/reward game where they are dodging FABs from their forward bunkers.

>>63908676
Nobody's being rude here
I'm just establishing the basis you have for what you say

>>63908682
You’re right, no one else has written anything else about FPV drone warfare in Ukraine, and I have no way of knowing anything contrary to this single circumstancial account.
Give me a fucking break.
Guy even says he got zero experience with fiber optic when most of his complaints are about problems resolved by a fiber optic hardline.

>>63899950 (OP)
>only down sides noted are costs
>forgets nato has an infinite money glitch

into the trash it goes

>>63908701
>no one else has written anything else about FPV drone warfare in Ukraine
NATO armies have talked about their weaknesses to advanced EW and are buying specialised recon drones and advanced loitering missiles

>most of his complaints are about problems resolved by a fiber optic hardline
other anons have posted why fibre optic control cables suck, picrel
the failure rate is alright because they're fighting a worn-out retard army, but it's not the modern face of war
he also said that proper NATO drones like Switchblade are better

>>63908614
Tanks were hot garbage when they first saw combat. They didn't have a large impact during WW1, kept having issues and had loads of vulnerabilities. There were probably many arguments over whether they even were the future, because the state of the weapon and the actual doctrine both weren't ready. We all know the rest.

Some faggots here are acting like FPV drones are limited to their exact current state, and entirely ignoring their potential for this reason. There are a few layers of cope as to why they aren't a threat or not needed by NATO, but that's already assuming NATO gets to choose exactly the war they want to fight. But there's absolutely no consideration for the weapon under a slightly different form. It's all just pointless resistance to change.

>>63908764
I fail to see how leaving a mess of optic cable is really a problem if the cable allows me to strike a target I otherwise could not have due to poor signal or EW.
War is full of these externalities.
Okay, switchblade drones and mortars might be ‘better,’ but if the economies of scale meant Ukraine could just churn out millions of mortars and train the equivalent mortar teams, I’m sure they would have done that instead.
I don’t understand bringing up switchblades again, they are on a different economy of scale altogether with their price tag.
To go back to my point, if you want to know when FPV drones began being used really strongly in a primary role, it was in early 2024 when the delayed western aid and artillery shell hunger forced Ukraine to use FPVs for primary strikes in a way they have not stopped doing since they got arty shells back.

>>63908716
Small countries like Slovakia or Montenegro decidedly do not, anon, and that is who this guy is writing for.
How many switchblades can Montenegro even procure with their entire mil budget, a few hundred tops?

>>63908485
>Using people who willingly come to help you as cannon fodder surely wont cause foreign volunteers to dry up!
Glad to know being an absolute fucking retard exists on both sides of the front.

>>63908676
>Okay, since you’ve decided to become rude I’ll spell it out for you buddy.
By disagreeing with you?

>>63908701
>You’re right, no one else has written anything else about FPV drone warfare in Ukraine, and I have no way of knowing anything contrary to this single circumstancial account
Post other sources then since you brought up the point.

>>63908814
I met some foreign volunteers and wanna-bes in Warsaw in 2022.
I also got to hear first accounts of how the foreign legion was run by a Polish criminal on the run from Interpol who would steal kit from guys he didn’t like to give to guys who he did, also would send dudes on unsustainable suicide missions and also withhold needed weapon systems he was supposed to issue out like Javelins.
I figured a lot of it was rumors and bullshit, but the Kyiv Indepedent did a multipart exposé summer of 2022 that corroborated essentially everything.

>>63908614
>just doesn't seem to understand that a single mortar round might be cheaper but the odds of getting a dirrect hit are low.
Heavy drone bomber like Baba Yaga can drop mortar round with 5m CEP from 300 meters (staying outside small arms counter range). To hit 5m radius circle with mortar you need to fire 20-50 mortars rounds (from 2+ km range). So classic mortar isn't cheaper than drones.

>>63908820
No, by spelling out why one foreign military officer’s experience is not a perfect 1:1 microcosm of the conflict.
This has somehow devolved into

>PROOFS PROOFS PROOFS

over my assertion that there are some Ukrainian drones units that focus on first striking tangos instead of cleaning them up. This is really common knowledge, Magyar’s Birds and the Azov 3rd brigade drone unit are two of them if you want specific units.

>>63908485
>most of his criticisms are solved by fiber-optic hardwired drones
he explained why they’re not great and operators don’t like them, in the article. They crash more often than radio drones, especially when doubling back and also they’re much more expensive.

>>63902459
>I'm imagining a mesh network
If you wanna volunteer for going out and placing the routers in no man’s land, be my guest but I call anti-dibbs.

>>63902727
Didn’t Russia as well?

>>63905278
You can also read “tragedy and hope” by carol quiqly, although he doesn’t get to that topic until one of the last chapters.

>>63908959
I know who would volunteer.

>>63908701
>You’re right, no one else has written anything else about FPV drone warfare in Ukraine, and I have no way of knowing anything contrary to this single circumstancial account.
Sarcasm is the weakest. This article isn't saying anything new. Ukrainians have been posting the same things for years. This article is only notable because it's in English on a major armchair-general site to enlighten ppl like you.

You thought you were attacking an exception. In reality you're claiming the norm doesn't exist.

War on the rocks more like queer on the cocks.

>>63908808
>I fail to see how leaving a mess of optic cable is really a problem if the cable allows me to strike a target I otherwise could not have
it's a problem because cable snags mean you DON'T, in fact, strike said target
>if the economies of scale meant Ukraine could just churn out millions of mortars and train the equivalent mortar teams, I’m sure they would have done that instead
they don't have the facilities and it takes time to build, FPV drones are an inferior stopgap which can be built quickly and secretly
>they are on a different economy of scale altogether
that's not what the word "economy of scale" means
>they have not stopped doing since they got arty shells back
they're not using artillery as much because they've lost a lot of artillery and once again it takes time to manufacture those too

and in fact, they need artillery and they are asking for artillery, picrel
they use lots of UAVs because their peculiar circumstances, lacking artillery and air superiority yet fighting an opponent which also lacks artillery and air superiority, created an environment suited for UAVs

so once again: this might not be the future of warfare. it's a product of unique circumstances.

>>63908778
>there's absolutely no consideration for the weapon under a slightly different form
ackshually it's the pro-FPV people who are doing that, by extolling the virtues of FPVs as they are now and pooh-poohing all the downsides

Switchblade or Akeron type loitering munitions are definitely going to be the next advancement in ATGMs. they have multispectral sensors, can easily add optical guidance, have better payloads, are more jam-resistant and are way more reliable
however as you can see in the above replies, when they're brought up they're dismissed as "too expensive", because FPV nuts suck off FPVs as they are right now
FPV nuts are the ones are
>acting like FPV drones are limited to their exact current state

>https://warontherocks.com
didn't read the rest

>>63900759
yeah imagine TOW but you get a video feed from the missile and you can stop the missile mid air and scout the target. FPV is actually ascended TOW. will you say no to such a TOW? no you would not. so you should not shit talk wire FPV then.

>>63902909
>MANET radios are mesh nets plugged into ATAK which have 512+ nodes apiece.
How locatable does it make you to enemy EW?

>>63909346
oh, and it's cheaper to the point you can justify it on single infantry!

>>63908485
you took all this shit from your ass based on 4chan posts. Congratulations, you're a midwit that can pepper your bullshit conclusions with self-indulgent swearing. You also didn't read the article because he talks about the meme-optic drones.

>>63908716
how did you read that fucking article and take the conclusion that the only down sides of FPV drones are cost??? You took the polar opposite of the article's conclusions.

>>63909346
>>63909354
have the /k/fags realized that the fiber optic drone fetishists are ESL zigger sympathizants yet

>>63910097
i'm ETL doe. also why did you call me "zigger sympathizants" (holy ESL)? i hate ziggers. is it because of fiberoptic drones? you realize both sides use them heavily now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR5XCW0BWdk

>>63909354
>>63909346
It's also much less deadly. A tow has a far larger warhead, a comparable fpv would have to be pretty dam big

MEANWHILE IN NARNIA

Chronicle from an exhausted front. Testimony of a fictional officer from a fictional brigade. Yet the pain is real. From "K" to "V." Then back to "K." Then "D." No respite, no rotation. In defense—without fortifications. In assault—without reserves. Officers no longer lead into battle—they drag those still standing. On a stretch over 5 km—10, maximum 12 fighters. The defense is held by drivers, artillerymen, cooks. But even they—are "used up." From the battalion's full strength, 25% remain, most of whom have already sacrificed their health earlier and now take on roles as bathhouse attendants, drivers, because they want to remain useful. When another battalion burns out, we don’t get reinforcements—we get “reallocation.” People don’t arrive—they’re smeared across holes too numerous to count. The enemy storms several times a day. Motorcycle waves, armored waves, assault groups of convicts. Meanwhile, our new arrivals get five days to adapt. On the sixth—into battle or into the ground. Orders from above sound like hysteria. “Retake the position!”—which gives nothing. “Conduct an assault!”—across a kilometer of open terrain, losing people on the approach. Orders come directly from the highest military official of the fictional army. Reconnaissance? No time. Fire support? Didn’t arrive in time. FPV? Not enough even for one company. Those who should understand the situation better than us—are afraid to look at it. They don’t acknowledge the obvious, because it’s easier to find scapegoats within the brigade than to speak the truth upward—though there’s only one person above. It’s easier to report “the situation is under control” or “the commander of the fictional brigade is deceiving and hiding people” than to admit that this control is an illusion, propped up by shattered knees and exhaustion so heavy that death seems like salvation from this theater of the absurd.

>>63910188
Fear of the top general paralyzes not only decisions but also conscience. And in this silence, where courage and truth should be, there’s only one sound—how to dodge, how to shift blame, how to say the right word at the right time. The situation feels as if someone above has already made peace with our death and is now only deciding who will lie in this ground first and in what order. We see how we’re being squeezed. We see what will happen if we fall. Behind us—other fictional brigades, already half-encircled. We hold on not for orders, not for a plan—for those to our left and right, for the brigade that’s still alive. The commander? He’s with us. But he’s a hostage to orders from another world, where PowerPoint matters more than evacuation. And now, hypothetical fictional questions: - How many more “fictional” brigades are needed before they start listening to the front instead of parquet generals? - How many more lives must be lost before those above admit: this isn’t a “partial shortage,” it’s a systemic catastrophe? - Why do we, who “on our knees” beg for a Mavic, have to follow the orders of those who have everything—except responsibility? - Why are there more generals afraid of losing their positions than those afraid of losing people? - Who will answer for those who won’t return? Or, as always—no one? - Does another tragedy have to happen for them to finally understand—this war isn’t won with reports, but with blood and truth? - And the main question: will the state ever be able to look us in the eye—if we somehow return?

@BohdanKrotevych
UA veteran of the russo-Ukrainian War, 2014-2025. Lieutenant Colonel , Chief of Staff of the Defense of Mariupol


While triumphalist online FPV-worshipping thirdies cheer, Ukrainians struggle on with traditional weapons in horrible scarcity.

>>63910053
> Today, some Ukrainian and Russian units are also using drones controlled by fiber-optic cable, rather than radio, though I had no personal experience with this type of drone in my unit.

Yes, he talks about fiber optic insofar as he says he has had no personal experience with them. Keep calling me names and telling me I didn’t read the article though.
Your weirdly aggressive attitude does nothing to reinforce your point.

>>63910188
>>63910196
Ukrainian officer corps still full of dipshit, soviet-brained fossils; more news at 11. Ukraine really needs to work on a program that will take combat-hardened NCOs and turn them into officers to get more new blood in and more relics out.

>>63900933
About 8 years ago, at a park I saw a guy laying down on the ground under some shade with VR goggles on, controlling a quadrotor gust flying around the park and trees at full speed. I thought at the time that's probably the closest thing to experiencing flying like we do in dreams.

>w-we still need artillery
No you don't

>>63913858
BUDANOOOOOOOOOOV

>>63913858
exactly as anons itt have been saying:

>>63900759
more expensive and as >>63900766
said they are less flexible than normal fpvs, they also have inherentyl less payload or range since they carry more dead weight. Its a good way to be able to use drones in a heavy jamming environments but its not a silver bullet like some people claim

>>63913919
> inherentyl less payload
they're just heavier and more expensive but they don't "have less payload" because they're designed from the start to carry that optic fiber. Nobody is adding or removing the FO spindle in the field.
>you need a 6kg drone to carry that PG-7VM instead a 1.5 kg drone

>>63913956
i guess i should have said less payload for equal cost

>>63900018
I wouldn't say it like that. I think the war has disproven most Western doctrine as well, and vindicated some Soviet stuff (mainly SAMs and arty).

Basically we know that stealth works, and so do air launched glide bombs, but other than that, anything big, low and slow has no place on the frontline

>>63916631
>war which saw no progress fought by slavs using slav doctrine and slav hardware has somehow
>disproven most Western doctrine

>>63908485
Does that mean ordinary Ukrainians are cannon fodder too?

>>63900767
Yeah, they're basically mortars (the #1 infantry killer over the last century) that go place a round through a window. That's a complete revolution in infantry tactics. As a nice side effect, a direct hit also tends to do bad things to AFVs at a price a fraction of an ATGM.

>>63919588
>they're basically mortars (the #1 infantry killer
They're the Remote Rockets from games like Star Wars Battlefront. Totally controllable but need to be piloted and best used on single infantry targets, or a bunched-up squad if you can find one. On this they've found great success in this particular war, because of its drawn-out and attritional nature - both sides have time to send FPVs out hunting for poor saps cooking their dinner to blow up.

Proper ATGMs are better weapons to be used against tanks, which usually advance under heavy EW coverage.

>>63913858
You need both, being able to put a heap of HE into a garrisoned building 30km away for cheap is useful enough tubes aren't going away.

>>63920183
>Proper ATGMs are better weapons to be used against tanks,
Name "proper" ATGMs. Because direct fire weapons cant compete with BLOS wepons.
There ate Spike ATGM family but they are fiber optic FPV drones 40 years ahead of the meta.

>>63913863
BONUS round is a drone. (you can drop them from Baba Yaga BTW)

>>63920215
False equivalence there is no "heap of HE" in this >>63913863 citation.

>>63920377
>direct fire weapons cant compete with BLOS wepons
jammable weapons can't compete with unjammable weapons

>>63920381
>BONUS round is a drone
then so is 155mm common HE

>>63920386
guided 155mm HE shells exist

>>63920386
>buildings and mobile tanks are the same

>>63920381
>you can drop them from Baba Yaga
>*jams your Baba Yaga*
oh no if only there was like some kind of device we could have used to launch the BONUS round from twenty miles away or something

>>63900056
Bean counters tried to win Vietnam and look what happened there.

>>63920526
non-bean-counters tried to fight the Houthis and look what happened there

The input of one infantryman should not determine doctrine. Strategy is what wins wars, not tactics. They quoted a success rate of 20-30% per attack with FPV drones. Even if that's true, it still means that drones are massively more cost effective than competing systems. All of the drawbacks that they pointed out are not deal breakers. FPV drones are the right weapon when you are fighting a massive full scale war instead of the low intensity sandbox counterinsurgency bullshit that western powers. FPV drones still account for the vast majority of vehicle and personnel losses in spite of all of the countermeasures against them.

>>63921084
>20-30%
and that's only counting attrition on the way to the target. it then takes a further 4-5 strikes to actually disable it.

and did you miss the part where it takes hours to set up an FPV attack even against the patchy Russian EW net, versus the mere minutes it would take a salvo of BONUS rounds? FPVs would be even less useful against better-equipped opponents.

>>63920546
No they didn't lol

>>63921357
yes, they did
for years now we've been saying that the cost of the interceptor is relevant
illiterate niggers such as on /k/ kept saying that it's "irrelevant" because "it doesn't matter, the target you're protecting costs more"

lo and behold, it took a goddamn real battle for every nigger to suddenly wake up and say "hey we actually can't afford to sling SM-6s at lawnmowers all day!"
LIKE WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG

and now suddenly they're scrambling to deploy budget interceptors such as anti-drone APKWS
WOW
"NOBODY" SAW THAT COMING HUH

>>63921389
>scrambling
Nope lol

>>63921399
Yes lol

>>63921403
Such a scramble theyve been developing laser systems since before 2020. Drone jammers before that. Drones aren't the new wunderwaffle, despite how much the third world wishes it were so.

>>63921410
>all according to keikaku
if so then why shoot off half a billion dollars' worth of SM missiles? just blat them all out of the sky with the jammers

>>63921425
Ship was there, didnt have lasers on it. Why didnt the chinese shoot down the asms that slammed into their cargo barges? Did they make the same calculation you made?

>>63899950 (OP)
>FPV
That is because human is still in the loop. Human needs to operate the FPV drone. The moment you get a factory going, a self driving car/truck that drives to location. A self flying drone that drives to a target and kills. A self strategizing drone network that can get real time intel on state of targets, movements, prioritize effective target neutralizing/disrupting strategy, and effectively deploy its own units by AI, thats where the real value is.

And the factory could be automated too.

>>63921431
did the chinks have a destroyer deployed there? besides, they're in a league with Houthis. blue on blues happen

>Ship was there, didnt have lasers
the lasers are still low-power at this moment and can't knock down OWA attack drones, though blinding their sensors will likely make them miss anyhow. operational lasers are also still at the stage where they take half a minute to acquire and zap the target.
the kind of jammer that can scramble entire waves of drones in one shot is still in prototype stage.
that's why suddenly you see F-15s mounting triple rail pods of APKWS to run anti-drone CAP with.
and all of these weapons simply underscore what we've been saying all along: COST PER SHOT COUNTS

and regarding Vietnam, beancounters didn't lose that one either. that's for average joe bloggs to lap up, together with the "disproportionate" nigger representation, and the Full Metal Jacket version of events. the real reason Vietnam was lost was lack of South Vietnamese backbone, and you ought to have known that.

>>63900986
>takes away the turdie's wifi
What now bozo?

>>63921084
Strategy can only deliver what tactics can achieve. "Strategy wins wars" is what caused the pointless mass death of WW1.

>>63905289
And how many shots do you need to hit something in combat? I remember seeing numbers in the high tens to low hundreds of thousands.

The rifle has a very low failure rate, but the rifle as a weapon system has an microscopic success rate. 30% of drones launched are successes, 0.0001% of bullets launched are.

>>63921563
Now do bombs, artillery or missiles. 1900s technology isn't the only thing which is orders of magnitude more reliable than your garbage Slav-slop.

>>63921545
>"Strategy wins wars" is what
stopped
>the pointless mass death of WW1.
Tactics is what to do under different circumstances. Strategy decides what tactics to employ.
It was a strategic decision to invest in the tank, the aeroplane, and adopt closely-coordinated infantry-artillery tactics.

>>63921574
>strategy decides what tactics to employ.

This is economist-brain talking. Tactics determine strategy too. It was not a strategic decision to use muskets in squares, concentrate or disperse Napoleonic artillery, or march in division columns; those were by definition tactics, and they determined the limits of what strategists could do.

>>63908968
You really want to compare Russia (and for that matter Ukraine) capabilities with US?
Ukkies have been punching way above their way but they still have had to deal with decades of Vatnigger Onion brainrot while russians are still stuck in the homo sovieticus legacy. Even not considering US a mid tier specialized army such as IDF has shown what happens to drones when you get a western military deploying proper EW against global southerners.
>but da joos, burgers are dying for Israel!
This cope does not invalidate my point, war must be waged in the most unfair and overwhelming way possible against an enemy, go play chess or something if you want fair fights.

>>63921588
>This is economist-brain talking
Partly, yes, because discussion of what constitutes tactics and strategy has been closely entwined in Anglo literature with military practice, probably due to American influence.

> It was not a strategic decision to use muskets in squares
It was.
Squares are a tactic to deal with cavalry; columns are a tactic to deal with infantry and artillery; the decision to use this set of tactics is a strategic decision, which is imposed by external limitations, most notably technological (the musket) and social (the average training and education of an infantryman.)

Different strategies could have been employed instead of square and column tactics. For example, choosing not to take a set-piece field engagement, and relying fully on guerilla tactics, which is what the Spanish Junta did. Or using a large number of open-order skirmishers, or conscription, which is what Napoleon did.

>they determined the limits of what strategists could do
the strategic decision to use a tactic has strategic implications on other strategic decisions which have impact on other tactics.
for example,
>concentrate or disperse Napoleonic artillery
It was Napoleon's strategic decision to use the grand batterie tactic as a battle-winner, and he invested heavily in artillery. This strategic decision forced the strategic decision to reduce investment in infantry training.

Conversely, the British made the strategic decision to use the close-range infantry platoon musketry tactic. Accordingly they reduced investment in the artillery branch, which closed off another set of tactics: they never replicated Napoleon's "grand battery" because they didn't have the training or equipment to output that volume of fire anyway.

They did make the strategic decision to invest in Shrapnel's shell, though. One of the differences between tactics and strategy is that strategic outcomes are usually more uncertain; R&D is therefore usually strategic.

>>63900056
>muh money
Literally of, at best, TERTIARY importance in war. Retard.

>>63921737
There is also the fact vatniggers, despite being the "Second Army in the World" have somehow managed to create the perfect scenario where their regular infantry and vehicles can be ack-ed by aliexpress drones, even within the third world you still see maneuver warfare, this concept has become alien to Monke's forces.

>>63921431
So why don't they have lasers on it? It's almost as though they're scrambling.

>>63921570
Artillery seems to be about 250 shells per casualty. Can't find stats on missiles or bombs, but I guarantee you it's a hell of a lot less than 99.99%.

>>63921607
>Even not considering US a mid tier specialized army such as IDF has shown what happens to drones when you get a western military deploying proper EW against global southerners.
You're retarded full stop. Don't compare a few thousand of alibaba drones used by hamas retards under constant bombardment, to Ukraine using a million drones per year+ with a mix of high and low.

Neither Israel nor any western army is special for being able to jam radio frequencies. Even the article in the OP says both sides are perfectly capable of just removing basic bitch drones from the sky like that. The problem is when the enemy is competent and your EW is constantly hunted by artillery and fiber drones, while your coverage is mapped to find holes in it and fuck up your logistics.

>>63922824
>The problem is when the enemy is competent and your EW is constantly hunted by artillery and fiber drones
Already gone due air bombardment you imbecile, again, you don't play fair in a war.

>>63923090
>Point out that being able to jam technically inferior enemy with limited resources isn't some mastery of EW
>Random screeching about muh air power motherfucker

>>63921704
>decision to use this set of tactics is a strategic decision
by definition incorrect. Since you need a cert telling you what to think get a military one instead of a shekel shaving one.

>>63923492
>no argument
I accept your concession

>>63916631
>I think the war has disproven most Western doctrine as well
Iran tells a very different story, I think.

>>63923548
>aaaaaa you must believe my categorical error!
pearls/swine

>>63920546
We stopped bombing the Houthis in exchange for them not attacking merchant shipping anymore then they loudly proclaimed they had defeated the infidels. Claiming that the status quo antebellum is a complete and total victory (in a war they initiated) is a recurring theme in Arab warfare.

>>63925039
we stopped bombing the Houthis because it was unsustainable to burn through a billion dollars of interceptor missiles for whatever drones and jank ballistic missiles they were lobbing

>>63902652
Turns out artillery is too expensive for a real war -> FPV's

>>63920526
>and look what happened there.
They won?

>>63923471
You're probably talking to a coping and sneeding planefag.

>>63899950 (OP)
>list of anti-drone copes
>...ACK!

>Report from russian military hospital.
>5% small arms
>20% explosives
>75% drones

>>63902652
>because they don't have much artillery left.
No shit. 155m shell costs $2000 and with its accuracy would be happy hit ground with it.
FPV drone costs $500 and has 1m CEP

So many reformer cocksuckers itt

>>63927348
McNamara himself would disagree with you. Having a higher kill count, and publishing data about the efficiency of your campaign, does in fact not win a war.

>>63928519
So apparently drone attacks are very survivable, being much more likely to wound rather than kill.

>>63921348
Ukrainians are chronically short on arty and have nowhere near enough shells, let alone guided shells.
Where are they supposed to generate this massive amount of guided artillery munitions from?
Even if you are correct that only 20% of drones reach their target, and it take five FPVs to destroy a target, I think 25 FPVs are cheaper than a BONUS round, not to mention the cost of the artillery system; additionally, every fire mission with arty exposes the crew, gun and tractor (if towed) to the risks of counterbattery fires.

>>63927348
did they accomplish their political aims?
no, therefore it was a loss.

>>63900097
>let them use sticks
and rocks they can throw rocks

>>63929080
>Ukrainians are chronically short on arty and have nowhere near enough shells, let alone guided shells
yes, and the incident I'm citing is them highlighting this, and requesting for more artillery
>I think
the Ukes themselves say they want more 155mm artillery; howitzers, spare tubes, and guided and unguided shells, not FPVs
FPVs are essentially cope-BONUS
>every fire mission with arty exposes the crew, gun and tractor (if towed) to the risks of counterbattery fires
the risk is much lower because of the longer range of howitzers and fewer long-range Russian counterbattery assets
>cheaper
did you miss the part where it takes hours to set up an FPV attack even against the patchy Russian EW net, versus the mere minutes it would take a salvo of BONUS rounds?

ever been real hungry and ordered a pizza? would it be of much use to you if the pizza was cheaper but came five hours later?

>>63928519
>>63928988
All it says is that drone strikes are far more likely to happen behind the front lines. On the actual front where the guns and artillery are, ziggers are far more likely to either be abandoned or mercy-killed and looted.

>>63902425
/k/ really has gone down hill lmao. Drones are the new god of war. And the ukraine shills whine while their side is still alive only because of said drones.

>>63905169
>ground invasion = insurgent haji splatting
See the thing about paramilitary units is that until they at least gather assets for an attack you don't know if they are hostile, nominally allied, or uninvolved. So you linger around with 15 year old UAVs and wait until something pops up to shoot. While preferably protecting whatever assess they took a potshot at. That's true whether they are using PTRD to shoot at tanks of diesel or missiles to damage tankers of diesel.

>starts out noting that official estimates are that 60-70% of damaged/destroyed and killed Russian systems/casualties are by drones/UAVs
https://static.rusi.org/tactical-developments-third-year-russo-ukrainian-war-february-2205.pdf
>leaves out Op Spiderwebb, which inflicted billions in dollars of damages on Russian strategic bombers for a fraction of a fraction of the cost by FPV drones
>complains about radio-signal issues and jamming and limitations of fiber optics
>ignores that semi-autonomous attack capabilities have already been fielded
>fully autonomous slaughter bots slated to be fielded by Ukraine by EOY
https://www.twz.com/news-features/automated-terminal-attack-capability-appears-to-be-making-its-way-into-ukraines-fpv-drones
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ukraine-killer-drones

I wasted too much time on this

>>63902753
>less effective and it costs time and/or lives
A drone is 1/100,000th the cost of conventional guided munitions. Meaning you can either spam 100,000 drones for the same price or don't care if the drones get destroyed. Time is irrelevant in Ukraine's situation, or rather, time is on their side. Every day the 3 day special needs ops gets longer is a victory for Ukraine. Lives? When a drone gets shot down, will the drone wives and kids have to attend a funeral and press F? You are either a HIVan trying to downplay drones (despite it is causing 75% of Russian injuries) or you're a MIC fanboi buttblasted your Cold War toys got deprecated. Drones are here to stay. Stop sounding like cavalry officers when tanks were invented.

>>63931263
Except that you can't operate 100,000 drones in an area at a time and if you send 20,000 waves of 5 they'll just get picked off like those zigger "assaults" of three guys on bicycles.

>>63931130
>muh old /k/ was super Russian
Ok pal

>>63900432
Guided flying drones where entering field testing in 1918

I mean, they had problems with the macaroni gear, but they where going to be used in the Great War during the next spring.

>>63899950 (OP)

>>63908151
They really didn't. Ukraine still runs into cases where they have to call off drone attacks because there's too much jamming. Fiber optic cables run into issues with tangling, snagging, and snapping making them a softer counter than everyone thinks.

All 13 goblin sets get.
Undermine rares is 100% the way to do it.
Less server lag, easier to tag all three goblins and WAY more spawns, every couple minutes instead of hourly. Took me ~4 hours of farming, dual boxing two accounts to get ~520 shards needed

>>63931263
>A drone is 1/100,000th the cost of conventional guided munitions
I'd like to see your arithmetic.

>>63934268
> tangling, snagging
What the fuck is this retard talking about
Do you think they're pulling the cable with the drone?

>>63899950 (OP)
>Clinging basically to doctrine

>Modern 'western' approach to war is to have static infantry, mobile mechanized fire-brigade armor, tactical offense after fire-support/air-force degrade Op.For's locally, where fire-support (artillery, FPV's) and a conventional air force is a war winner if for some reason its "in vogue" to do big state-on-state warfare...

>>63931110
>All it says is that drone strikes are far more likely to happen behind the front lines
Most used drones dont ahve range (its 10km) or so to strike beyond front-lines. Current situation on teh front is that it has 10km "gray zone" nobody enters for a long time because of the drones proliferation, its too dangerous to be there. Never been in teh history of warfare before.
Also front-line dont have targets for artillery everything is too dispersed you are not calling arty on squad of bikers or single vehicle. Targets fro arty are deep beyond front-lines.

>>63935507
For fiber optic control? How else would you have the cable connected to it?

>>63928598
McNamara wasn't fighting the same war as ukraine by any means