Thread 64003110

Kind of tired of people who think drones have destroyed warfare, making everything obsolete. Every comment section is filled with ;

>TANKS ARE GONE NOW! FPV CAN BLOW IT UP!!!!
>INFANTRY IS OBSOLETE, DRONEE LMAO?????
>ARTILLERY? HAHAHAA DRONE WILL BLOW IT UP
>JETS? WHY JUST GET 200 DOLLAR DRONE HEHEHE
>*New technology* LMAO DRONE WILL JUST BLOW IT UP

Drones are just a new step in warfare, counter measures will come. AT weapons didn't make tanks obsolete

>>64003110 (OP)
Drones deliver a disproportionately high level of cost effectiveness and are accessible and affordable to turd worlders, especially those who have historically been stomped by superior air power, technology, and training.
In contrast, counter-UAV systems and other integral parts of the kill chain are often prohibitively expensive for said people on top of requiring a triple digit IQ to manufacture and operate, making it hard for them to wrap their heads around.
Even if things like DEWs completely crush drones in economics, or air power completely bypasses short range drone weapons, It's only natural that thirdies and self-loathing western contrarians will latch on to drones for eternity.

drones didnt save iran

>>64003110 (OP)
>Drones are just a new step in warfare, counter measures will come
If you miss your shots or fumble your pump action shooting them down, you can always melee them.

>>64005726
Forgot source.
https://t.me/noel_reports/31667
ffmpeg kind of fucked the resolution so grab the original if you appreciate the kino.

>>64005726
fuck

>>64003110 (OP)
>Drones are just a new step in warfare, counter measures will come
When countermeasures are costlier and heavier than the stuff they're supposed to counter by more than an order of magnitude, it's a headache.

50k can give you a drone swarm of 100 units. You'll never be able to counter that with a 50k solution.

>>64003136
It's not the older thirdies; they remember American jammers making wireless weapons obsolete in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. It's Americans upset about the West's cultural decline who are going overboard and projecting onto thirdies hoping the brown tide will liberate America. Ironic, since the same brown tide is both causing the decline through peaceful infiltration and incapable of winning against even the most decayed Western units.

>>64005746
A ukie fending off a Russian fibre drone btw
Looks like a supply pickup making a delivery.

>>64005755
You can only fit 5-6 Ukrainian or Russian FPVs at a time within a few kilometer front because they step on each others bandwidth. They aren't high tech 50k a pop radios like American ones which can swarm 500 strong under one pilot.
>b-b-but fiber optics!
So you're now using 100 pilots each launching a drone?
The wages lost from killing one of your flood of men will more than reverse your equation.

Have self propelled AA guns, lasers or SHORAD missile launchers accompanying your armored vehicles being cued by recon vehicles screening for drones and your own UAVs providing sigint and looking for operators (the cheap fpv quadracopters being used in Ukraine have low range and need a person controlling them manually, a swarm attack would have a large footprint). Hard kill systems like trophy and iron fist would work as a last resort.

>>64003136
>Even if things like DEWs completely crush drones in economics, or air power completely bypasses short range drone weapons, It's only natural that thirdies and self-loathing western contrarians will latch on to drones for eternity.

>>64005861
you can tell he was right because a thirdie like you got REALLY angry at that post, it hurts, doesn't it?
keep spamming BBC porn, it only confirms how angry and helpless you are.

>>64005746
>fuck
Drones are not legally allowed to detonate near you.
If they get in your face, just slap them out of the way. The law will be on your side.

>>64005755
>When countermeasures are costlier and heavier than the stuff they're supposed to counter by more than an order of magnitude
Isn't that's the default state of things? An AA battery costs way more than a cruise missile or even the whole jet.

>>64005806
A software update is what it takes to make drones autonomous.

>>64006056
A tomahawk, a subsonic cruise missile is $2 million.
An interceptor missile is way less.

>>64003110 (OP)
Kind of tired of people who think tanks have destroyed warfare, making everything obsolete. Every comment section is filled with ;

>HORSE CAVALRY ARE GONE NOW! TANKS CAN BLOW IT UP!!!!
>LINE INFANTRY IS OBSOLETE, TANKEE LMAO?????
>ARTILLERY? HAHAHAA TANK WILL BLOW IT UP
>BALOONS? WHY JUST GET 5000 POUNDS TANK HEHEHE
>*New technology* LMAO TANK WILL JUST BLOW IT UP

Tanks are just a new step in warfare, counter measures will come. Muskets didn't make horse cavalry obsolete

>>64003110 (OP)
It's pretty annoying, yes.
They're a flashy new weapon, basically a small and cheap short distance cruise missile, which is radical, but it's really not invulnerable, every weapon has a counter.

>>64006523
They're more like a very long range and smart grenade.
>hand grenade
>rocket propelled grenade
>(consumer) quadcopter propelled grenade

The distinction matters in the same was as cruise missiles, suicide drones, flying bombs/torpedo aren't the same even if they converged.

>>64006538
I guess that's a better way of putting it, but it's more the part where you actively steer the thing in flight to guide it to the target part which I was getting at.

>>64006346
>An interceptor missile is way less.
Only if you're fortunate enough to shoot it down with a basic bitch interceptor, otherwise you'd be using something like PAC-2 or PAC-3

>>64003110 (OP)
Thing is Chinks can end drone wars overnight with simple export ban.

>>64005755
>50k can give you a drone swarm of 100 units. You'll never be able to counter that with a 50k solution.
Buy 100 anti-drone drones.

>>64006461
>NOOOOOOOO IT'S TOTALLY THE SAME PARADIGM AS ARMORED VEHICLES
nope, you can kick and scream as much as you want, retarded dronenigger, not going to change reality.

If you cannot accept that at a minimum tanks are not anywhere near as important as they were 30 years ago (and 30 years ago they were not as important as they were 30 years ago back in 1965) then you're a tankophile who isn't interested in reality, just in the autistic love of big armored complex machinery like some ungodly mix of train-autist and military autist.

Pic related feels like whatever happens when tankophiles explain away the tanks increasing inefficiencies as the technology to combat them has grown in leaps and bounds and their protection has stagnated and not kept pace.

>>64007319
they are infact just as important as they were, and are critical for breaching operations and direct fire support where the extra survivability is necessary.
>tankophiles
you're trying to offload responsibility for your retarded delusions onto others, dronenigger, i'm perfectly aware tanks are just part of a puzzle, you assume they're obsolete because you have seen ONE slav slapfight where neither side has very modern tanks nor any of the things already out of development that can help counter drones, as well as bad EW.

>>64003110 (OP)
Kind of tired of people who think gunpowder has destroyed warfare, making everything obsolete. Every comment section is filled with ;

>GENDARMES ARE GONE NOW! MUSKETS CAN BLOW THEM UP!!!!
>SHIELDWALL IS OBSOLETE, GUNPOWDERE LMAO?????
>TREBUCHETS? HAHAHAA GUNPOWDER WILL BLOW IT UP
>WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE? WHY JUST GET 200 THALER GUNPOWDER HEHEHE
>*New technology* LMAO GUNPOWDER WILL JUST BLOW IT UP

Gunpowder is just a new step in warfare, counter measures will come. Pikemen formations didn't make knights obsolete

>>64006343
>A software update is what it takes to make drones autonomous.
You've never built a drone and it's obvious.

>>64003110 (OP)
>TANKS ARE GONE NOW! FPV CAN BLOW IT UP!!!!
Unironically true.
>INFANTRY IS OBSOLETE, DRONEE LMAO?????
Infantry can and will operate, with changes in how they move overland and reinforce static positions. Tree cover and brush have become 100x more important.
>ARTILLERY? HAHAHAA DRONE WILL BLOW IT UP
No.
>JETS? WHY JUST GET 200 DOLLAR DRONE HEHEHE
Different roles. If you paid attention to the Iran-Israel war, you'd see that drones on both sides were largely ineffective due in part to the distances involved.

The tank REALLY got fucked, and a lot of drones truly excel at killing tanks and APCs. The rest will survive.

>>64003110 (OP)
this happens with absolutely every new wave tech breakthrough.
>remember crypto and how it was going to turn every fiat currency into worthless paper?
>remember NFT monkey pics that were supposed to be the equivalent of holding original mona lisa as a asset art collector?
>remember "AI", aka glorified algorithms for chatbots and stock footage generators, that are supposed to take over everything and then start all out nuclear war?

For various reasons both bots and herd mentality individuals always like to frenzy each other up by overhyping shit

drones, like all of the previous crap, has their place but are not replacement. Specially for situational awareness in war as birds eye view gives unprecedented accuracy in fire control especially. Direct attack drones like FPVs are at their highest right now as there is no effective hard kill counter for lowest level military units. Like mounted hard point turrets on armored vehicles. At least something that is cheap and cost effective enough unlike existing APS prototypes

Only EW and cutting the fiber optic link cables with occasional pellet shots from shotties

>>64007392
> Direct attack drones like FPVs are at their highest right now as there is no effective hard kill counter for lowest level military units
Right now the WORST place to be in Ukraine, on both sides of the war, is inside a tank or APC. Make of that what you will.

>>64007395
k. so what? that is exactly what that post is addressing. No good (cheap) enough APS. Yet.

what a weird owning attempt

>>64007395
>the WORST place to be in Ukraine, on both sides of the war, is inside a tank or APC
oh yes, I'm sure Russian soldiers walking to Ukrainian trenches are much safer despite having lowest survival chances on battlefield

>>64007395
>driving APC and tank is not safe
>you know what's safe? Driving thin-skinned vehicle at 20km/h(because road is filled with all previous guys like you)
>that's safe

>>64007450
>Driving thin-skinned vehicle at 20km/h(because road is filled with all previous guys like you)
It's ok, those other vehicles didn't have a safety rail to hold on to.

People seem eager to forger operation spider web used image recognition to drone those bomber.
We have videos of tanks with jammers getting droned(took 26 for a abram but it still got droned).
We have seen jets and ships getting droned by sea drones.
We have seen shaeds destroying six jets
Multiple helicopters got droned.
Artillery, IFVS, Bunkers, Infantry,...
And the fact all major western and Brics are testing drones, loitering munitions, etc and countermeasures should tell you as much that we have entered a new era of warfare.
You can stop a military convoy like the one russia did using simple drones, thats going to gut aj invasion at the start very heavily.

>>64007602
>We have seen shaeds destroying six jets
when?

>>64007324
Ok point out which of these you disagree with
>All the countermeasures against tanks from cold war like ATGMs are still effective or even more effective than before
>Artillery has gotten more accurate and fields anti tank measures now
>Drone recon increased the surveillance of front lines and kilometers beyond drastically
>Tanks can get hit kilometers before reaching their target
>Ability to hit and disable tanks beyond LOS has propagated to common systems and doesn't even require artillery nowadays
Now tell me why you're expecting tanks to be just as effective as before when most of their protection onion is torn down.

>>64005755
>You'll never be able to counter that with a 50k solution.
GPMG with an ELCAN.

>>64007386
Literally just uparmor the top of tanks a bit and then give them a tiny CIWS for shooting at incoming drones, they had already been working on this for shooting down incoming rockets and shells before drones made everyone shit their pants.

Isn't gonna make tanks invulnerable, but it'll increase their chances more than enough, just like other countermeasures for other things. That's how warfare goes.

>>64008614
> a bit
are you typically this retarded?

>>64008618
The vast majority of fire a tank is going to face is still going to be from the front and sides.

>>64005755
It's actually not difficult(for a national military)
here's a few solutions going from most difficult to easiest
1.fixed electronic defenses. not just jamming. lasers. masers etc. expensive to install but low cost per shot since there is no ammo
2..You just simplify MLRS rockets to have them airburst. Anti personnel rounds cost 100k. Honestly if you take out the US's M/I complex corruption the actual cost of them is probably already round 50k. But either way you can cut the cost way down but cutting range and guidance.
3.and the easiest way to kill a swarm of drones for less money? a swarm of smaller drones the thing with a drone is it's always vulnerable to a smaller less expensive drone, it's the nature of them.

>>64009587
Not against drones or top attack missiles Dumberian.
You aren't uparmoring an area 3 times larger than the frontal arc to stop a modern warhead.

Countermeasures might come or it might just be a shift in the basics of warfare. It's not even in the same ballpark in terms of impact but on the extreme end of the scale we have something like smokeless powder that made almost literally everything before it completely and utterly obsolete and if you didn't have it you got hyperfucked. People don't talk about it a lot for some reason but network centric warfare and the humble JDAM among other PGM's obliterated the concept of war as it existed in WW2.

>>64003110 (OP)
drones mog and rape hard like how hypersonic rape america every day

Can a wire be wrapped around a shotgun shell and have something on the back like two small thin plastic wings (shaped like a comma or fin)? It's a strange concept but I feel like it's possible to try and create a shotgun-like system or shell launch method in which a small keyring on a thing chain is inside the shell and upon the shell releasing the back fins are launched out when the round exits the barrel (similar to an RPG with wings) and it would create a BOA-like trajectile that can wrap or entangle the wing or lift-mechanism on a drone. This could be possible to try and sling the round out depending on the barrel and how it is maneuvered by the soldier.
I was curious how lift works on the drones and their signals or electronics their attached to. I was wondering if inside the shotgun shell could be substance similar to candle gel beads. I would also drop with a medicine dropper a few drops of something luminescent like a glow stick.
Finally, the other method I thought of is inside the shell is aluminum bits, like a coke can chopped up to the size of glitter or slightly bigger, in order to try to compromise the electronics, signal, or whatever you can on the drone in order to disable it. For example: The method of the drone's flight could be operating under one power "wing". So, if the electronics or mechanical failure of the control or power "arm" is disabled then one or more the propellers will fly off possible.

>check the sky
>no drone as far as the eye can see
>take a breather next to a nice river
>this fucker jumps out of the water and explodes in your face
How do you respond without sounding mad?

>>64003110 (OP)
All of this is true though. Drones are king, cope and seethe

>>64004194
If the other side has stealth planes and infinite missiles paid for by U.S. taxdollars you won't win no matter WHAT you have. We are assuming it is a real war where both sides have comparable capabilities so it devolves into a ground war instead of sniping from the space/air

>>64011014
1. You're describing something similar to a bolo round
2. That won't work. Gel beads don't have enough density to maintain velocity for long.
3. Very small pieces of aluminum don't have enough density to maintain velocity for long.

>>64011610
So does this shit actually work? Does the string (I assume it is metal) actually stay attached under high stress or is it a meme? If it does bolo rounds would be the perfect solution

>>64011615
It works, but it's also a meme. Terminal effects and stopping power are poor.

>>64007319
Yep, it turns out that as optimized against shaped charges and LRPs tanks are, a direct hit with a modest amount of HE will disable them - and FPVs have dropped that cost considerably.

>>64011610
So, what else could be adjusting the velocity? The barrel rifling, a barrel attachment, or maybe a different chemical compound to launch the trajectile other than gunpowder? What we used a compressed gas system like nitrogen tanks similar to paint ball. Bonus for cold weather

>>64005726
Just waiting for someone to catch a drone. They're strictly contact triggers with no manual detonation options. In theory, you could grab a FPV drone by the rotors, hit the power switch, and cut the detonator wires.

>>64011586
The rivers are already unsafe for ziggers.
vidrel

>>64012043
>They're strictly contact triggers with no manual detonation options
That's not reliable, some do have command detonation. It's especially common on the a2a interceptor FPVs, those have both contacts and command detonation and are usually manually detonated at close range because contact is too hard.

>>64012043
>Just waiting for someone to catch a drone
That's already happened a few times though, sometimes the drones just don't explode and other times they get luck and catch it.
The operator can usually just rev the props and make the enemy lose their grip though, they have enough thrust that if the enemy doesn't match the direction quickly enough, they can easily slip out of their grip and probably crash and explode.

>>64007858
>>Artillery has gotten more accurate and fields anti tank measures now
It's also worth pointing out that artillery was better against tanks than previously believed. The proximity at which 152-155mm shells disable tanks was larger than the US thought, and closer to Russian models.

>>64007395
No it isn't you fucking nimrod

>>64009839
>You aren't uparmoring an area 3 times larger than the frontal arc to stop a modern warhead.
You are uparmoring an area 3 times larger than the frontal arc to stop 26 modern warheads.
FTFY
3 times more armor (lol), againts 28 drones

>>64003110 (OP)
Tank can become UGCS. See self propelled armor/artillery remote controlled/autonomous.
Half te volume to protect

>>64003110 (OP)
The US Army just dropped their first live grenade from a quadcopter drone: https://x.com/USArmy/status/1947265395733188705?
Are they wasting their time?

>>64012680
>maaaa he posted it again

>>64012680
>it's another PR-HR combo sloppa from the twitter dependas
US soldiers were using droppers in 2020 so idk why they're calling this a first; no wait we all know why: they didn't know. They're doing a dog and pony for Hegseth.

/k/ is full slop now. It can't even talk about China without devolving into waves of malding redditors shouting down real discussion.

>>64012680
Right now the US is experimenting with quadrotor warfare. Figuring out the strengths and weaknesses firsthand rather than relying only on fragmentary reports from Ukraine.

>>64012685
>plwease stop posting the absolute state of the USArmy
>he complained again award

>>64012680
yes, easily key-dangled retard, even in the place where drones are meta due to specific circumstances (ukraine) grenade drops have basically been dropped out of favour for FPV drones almost entirely.

>>64012746
>it can't even talk about china
you can blame chinkshill activity for that, kinda difficult to have an organic discussion when demoralized, do-it-for-free pro-china schizo's and literal paid shills shit up every single discussion with manipulation, childish "gotcha" nonsense and posting in bad faith.

>>64012300
>Tank can become UGCS. See self propelled armor/artillery remote controlled/autonomous.
I see a low-pressure 90-120mm cannon on a lighter chassis, potentially unmanned replacing the MBT as a direct fire HE lobber

>>64005806
>You can only fit 5-6 Ukrainian or Russian FPVs at a time within a few kilometer front because they step on each others bandwidth.
I didn't think they actually used up so much bandwidth to the point where you can feasibly only deploy like a dozen at most within that range.

>They aren't high tech 50k a pop radios like American ones which can swarm 500 strong under one pilot.
>>b-b-but fiber optics!
>So you're now using 100 pilots each launching a drone?
>The wages lost from killing one of your flood of men will more than reverse your equation.
I don't get it, aren't drones piloted by one individual at a time regardless or whether they're wired/wireless, or am I just reading that wrong? Also what do you mean by "The wages lost from killing one of your flood of men will more than reverse your equation."?

>>64005943
It's even funnier when you understand they only identify with the black due to inferiority complex and impotence. Pornography is the only way they can 'get back' at the white man living rent free in their minds

>>64007319
>>64007324
Isn't the predominant upstream issue here lack of air superiority? Sure countermeasures against armoured vehicles exist, but how well could one deploy them in the open field or settlements when there's the constant threat of CAS?

>>64012746
>It can't even talk about China without devolving into waves of malding redditors shouting down real discussion
On both sides, to be fair.

>>64007386
Why wouldn't the drone blow up artillery if it could nail tanks?

>>64012853
>grenade drops have basically been dropped out of favour for FPV drones almost entirely
There's still plenty of droppers, they're good for lots of uses include attacking static equipment and squirts.

>>64012866
>kinda difficult to have an organic discussion when demoralized, do-it-for-free pro-china schizo's and literal paid shills
That's only half the problem.
The other half is that the jingoists on our side have become hyper-sensitive to anything that isn't "lol chinkshill 天安门屠杀" and respond as if they're dealing with a psyop to a post that just says "what are the Chinese up to with this? will it work?".
I hate to be le both sides but that's kind of what we're down to because of paranoia and hypersensitivity on "our" side.

A serious discussion of Chinese military technology would be valuable but as you say, it has significant challenges.

>>64007392
>>remember crypto and how it was going to turn every fiat currency into worthless paper?
The paper is already worthless so that's a moot point, and the physical is slowly transitioning to full digital regardless.

>>64013016
>I didn't think they actually used up so much bandwidth to the point where you can feasibly only deploy like a dozen at most within that range.
For insight into this, look into FPV racing events in western countries, stepping on each-other's frequencies is a problem and it takes coordination to avoid it.
Now imagine it in a military context.

>>64013095
Even saying “X Chinese equipment is no where near as capable as x western one but let’s discuss countermeasures anyways” and you’ll get spammed with people yelling implessive and be mass reported

>>64005806
>The wages lost from killing one of your flood of men will more than reverse your equation.
This is incomprehensible.
I have built FPVs and programmed autonomous robots and I have no idea what you're saying there.

The future is going to be an AI learning big titted anthro woman on my optic chipboard telling me where to aim my .308 to take down your drones

>>64013110
>you’ll get spammed with people yelling implessive
I don't think the reports are a big deal but yeah, implessive posters are our version of chinkshill-do-it-for-free posters and it would be nice if we could calibrate their chinkdar a little better.

We don’t need AI to shoot down drone swarms we have osu! players

>>64013095
>what are the people up to with this, will it work?
it's almost as if there's a very passive-aggressive person making these threads and then immediately replying with pro-china metodichka in his own thread.
i can count on 3 hands the amount of threads i've seen that are just
>picture if chinese jet aircraft that the OP insists and believes is 6th gen
>text: w-what is the best 6th gen design
then, after like twenty posts, the fag OP that has been samefagging the entire time, admits in broad daylight that he is the OP and that he makes threads because he is angry people didn't buy his metodichka the first time.
then the guy's posts get deleted (because he was likely ban evading) and the thread goes with it right after.

not every single thread about china is made by a bad actor, but you've gotta be 5 pints of naive to think that no all those posts written and worded in the EXACT same passive-aggressive way are totally made by completely independent people.

>>64013114
>The future is going to be an AI learning big titted anthro woman on my optic chipboard telling me where to aim my .308 to take down your drones
Did you see the US issuing smart scopes at the squad level?
See >>64007344

>>64013138
Give it 2-5 years and there's going to be civilian versions or Holosun will get a stolen one and clone it.

>>64013138
If it's the NGSW optic, then soldiers have already been complaining that it's unhelpful and frequently breaks.

>>64013147
The concept is solid regardless of how disappointing the first generation of it is. We're talking ballistic computers for your gun and if they make it a proper holographic optic we'll get some sick ballistic trajectory prediction stuff too for all sorts of crazy fun.

>>64013065
With air superiority, they're even deader.

>>64013135
>not every single thread about china is made by a bad actor
To be clear, I don't disagree with a single specific fact that you just posted.
However, that's not the problem.
The problem is that we *want* to talk about Chinese technology, not because we can help the US MIC counter it but just as military enthusiasts who want to understand the technology of a rival* nation.

>>64013144
>Holosun will get a stolen one
It's a US MIC build isn't it?

>>64013147
>If it's the NGSW optic
I think it doesn't matter which one it is, smart scopes have arrived, one or another will work ok and persist. I have no loyalty to a fucking brand, the tech is here.


*rival to the west, the US is just the biggest, loudest member of the west and euros and anglos are all in the same camp

>>64013169
The one the US military is using yeah, I know for a fact that if you get sticky fingers on anything the US military considers high tech, they get super worked up over it, for this reason especially because the moment a LAM or optic goes missing some Chinese company 6-12 months later has some clone of it that may or may not work justasgood.

>>64013164
>With air superiority, they're even deader.
I think anon was saying that if you have air superiority then the threat is diminished* because enemy positions that can launch FPVs are likely to be detected and bombed.

Hence, this is a problem for thirdies, not firsties.
There's a recipe for hubris related humiliation in there but somehow the USA just keeps dodging that outcome and all we can do is shrug and accept that apparently they operate under different rules.

*not eliminated, that's war.

>>64013182
>if you get sticky fingers on anything the US military considers high tech, they get super worked up over it
I can't imagine why.

>>64013194
>>64013182
ok, I apologise.
I assumed that Holosun was US MIC or at least US NRA or something.

>Holosun is an American and Chinese manufacturer of small arms accessories and related goods based in California.
Now I don't know what to think and I may have wildly misinterpreted your post.

>>64013201
Holosun is 100% Chinese MIC with shell companies that act as local customer service and other duties in western countries. Its like buying fans from Honeywell.

>>64003110 (OP)
>AT weapons didn't make tanks obsolete
Anon I...

>>64013216
Got it.
So a copy showing up, shipped from China, makes sense.

>>64013065
They cant, people are just fucking stupid
This shit will not fly when the fronts can and will be extended further by aerial dominance and with proper EW in place
Drone nigger retards spamming this shit are learning the wrong lessons because their petri dish is fundamentally flawed with regards to what they're comparing it to

>>64003110 (OP)
DJI makes 7000+ drones PER day. 3+ million annually. Just fyi. Their standard $500 drone can fly for ~1 hr around a 5km perimeter. Thats their non-war time production. They can easily extend that range to 10-30km while increasing costs to 5K-10K or so with capacity to carry some loads for bombing runs.

Imagine 10,000 smart cruise missiles PER DAY. Thats what these drones are effectively. You aint seen real drone warfare. Russia/Ukraine are fighting using cheap toy drones used as FPV scouts and carrying out light bombing runs. They dont have the tech/software to make/operate swarm drones, let alone in scale that dwarves the entire Ukraine/Russia war.

>>64006461
>cavalry
tanks didn't make them obsolete, the ICE did. Horses were used to move men and materiel faster than they could otherwise be moved. When motorized vehicles became better at that, they used motorized vehicles. Tanks, armored cars, motorcycles, trucks, and aircraft all at least partially fill roles cavalry would have been used for previously.
>line infantry
Kind of stupid because the underlying "system", that being infantry, didn't change. All that changed was their role and the tactics they employed, and even then that change happened before tanks became a thing.
>artillery
artillery is, of course, famously obsolete.
>balloons
were expensive, but the reason for them becoming obsolete was because of improvements to heavier than air aircraft.

There's a claim on the Russian side that they're using fibre-optic drones to lay temporary fibre for comms/internet.
Fly the drone to a new position, land it and the guys there unplug the fibre and plug it into a modem and have internet/comms to the source position.

>>64003110 (OP)
It destroyed lossless high tech vs monkey warfare

>but muh fordo

If you want to win a war from air, you 1) cant 2) arent fighting in a war

>>64013632
Ah yes, famously, factories have never been targeted during any conflict in the last 100 years.

>>64013912
All you gotta do is invent a technology that can teleport inside Chinese factory and destroy their thousands of factories, all the while not getting teleborted yourself in response. The magic technology you seek doesnt exist.

>>64013929
>there is no way to blow up a chinese factory without standing inside a chinese factory
the brilliant mind of the dronenigger, everyone, bask in his elated self-importance.

>>64013156
>We're talking ballistic computers for your gun and if they make it a proper holographic optic we'll get some sick ballistic trajectory prediction stuff too for all sorts of crazy fun.
How are they hoping to deal with the short battery life?

>>64013938
>just launch 10,000 icbm and destroy 10000 factories overnight bro
>its that easy

>>64011604
We are assuming it is a real war where both sides have comparable capabilities
How often is this remotely the case in history
Only reason a super power in any war struggles is because it sets up rules of engagement for itself
At the end of the day a country can go full Russia on the local populace but even if proxy supporters level the playing field there's usually no "comparable" strength

>>64013188
>I think anon was saying that if you have air superiority then the threat is diminished* because enemy positions that can launch FPVs are likely to be detected and bombed.
Yeah that's what I meant, and additionally just bombing everything else besides, whether it's opposing armour, infantry atgm, so on and so forth. Trenches are nice until coming to face against combined arms attacks where the enemy's air force is virtually unopposed.

>Hence, this is a problem for thirdies, not firsties.
Something I read a while ago was the USSR's approach to aerial warfare leaned too heavily in the direction of surface countermeasures, as opposed to meeting jet-to-jet & decisively imposing one's presence in the air, and today's Russian Federation inherited the results of that.
Recently I also came across someone's post here mentioning that Russia pilots don't really train for SEAD missions. Idk to what extent either of these are true, I'm inclined to believe it seeing how the conflict has developed.

Will I be called a chinkshill for bringing up how China having 3 SPAAG batteries and a HQ-17 battery in every brigade would probably be a good counter to drones? Genuinely curious how it compares to how Ukraine and Russia handle short range air defense.

>>64013960
>Only reason a super power in any war struggles is because it sets up rules of engagement for itself
I think Russia suffers from this insofar as their 'ROE' seems to demand staffing military leadership with self-serving retards, and never replacing them after brazen corruption is uncovered and otherwise/thence blundering.

>>64013953
It is if you are competent.

>>64014045
You must be the most competent person on earth. Why are you posting on /k/?

>>64013953
>you have to destroy every single factory for my retarded argument to be destroyed
No i don’t lol.

>>64013929
>>64013953
You live in this bizarre world, a fantasy really, where all factories are exactly the same and that what you imagine as a factory these days aren't mainly locations where you assemble the final product. Because that's what they are. DJI literally cannot operate, cannot build drones, if you destroy any singular link in this chain of procurement. That's how procurement works, my man. This isn't aluminum and steel go in, and airplanes come out like WW2. This is a centralization of hundreds (thousands, really) of parts in a very long line of assembly where the final product is finalized at those "factories". You really should look up how procurement works. In fact, ask yourself this. Can a facility that produces washers (not washing machines), produce internal combustion engines without basically just making a new factory? You should know the answer to this question, and because you do know the answer to this question then you are aware (already) that the destruction of key factories would utterly freeze the construction of drones.

>>64014075
>war is won by destroying one factory 20,000 miles away with ICBM against a nuclear power with ICBM
Retards dont know how much of a retard they are

>>64014084
Shocking how much you're doubling down on being a midwit, but feel free to continue operating in Lala Land, I can't stop you.

https://warontherocks.com/2025/07/factories-first-winning-the-drone-war-before-it-starts/

Billion drones per year from China in times of war.

>>64005755
>50k can give you a drone swarm of 100 units. You'll never be able to counter that with a 50k solution.

You're right, but I can counter a thousand of them with a DEW system + 100 bucks of diesel, which is why the US is already beta testing M-SHORAD DEW Strykers in 2023 and is looking to slap them onto everything bigger then a JLTV

>>64005755
Me and the lads with some semi-automatic shotguns with tungsten birdshot could defend against $50000 of drones for a fraction of that cost.

>>64014533
against a spotter drone 3 km away?

>>64014539
No, against cheap ones coming in with grenades and rocket warheads.

>>64004194
Iran had a shit economy.

>destroy internet connection
>oh no the drone is gone

>>64014084
>with ICBM
You’re still retarded enough to assume we’d need ICBM’s to do that, and that the specific cope factory you clamor over is somehow never close to shore

>>64006461
Nigga the US Army is still using balloons alongside drones.

>t. trained on giant ass balloons