aren't drones just a low cost propeller powered cruise missiles
why did no one think of this before?

>>64013920 (OP)
Avionics used to be extremely expensive.

>>64013920 (OP)
My autistic brother who was 14 at the time, was talking literally about modern day drones, back in 2008. Surprised it took this long

The first "cruise missile", the flying bomb/torpedo was cheap, in fact for Germany the V-1 was cheaper than using bombers (in multiple missions)
The problem of slow cruise missiles and the V-1 was its little utility as weapon against military forces, they only can force to spend resources to defend civilians.

>>64013920 (OP)
Computers got smol.

>>64013920 (OP)
We literally just went full circle to the beginning.

>>64013920 (OP)
never heard of the V1?

I'm surprised no one has scaled them up a bit, wouldn't take much to make bigger ones using automotive or motorcycle engines and a 500kg payload. Most of the cost is in the electronics, scaling the size costs little.

they're [aeriel] torpedoes and i'm tired of pretending they're not

>>64013920 (OP)
They did, that specific drone design is around 50 years old (in the west)

>>64015455
Iran did it, thrice
The first drone: Dornier DAR, ~140 kg and a wingspan of 2.0 m
The South African Variant Kentron ADR-10: ~140kg and a wingspan of 2.10m (?)
The 131 has a take of weight of ~140 kg and a wingspan of 2.25m, Iranians removed any anti-rad function and vertical fins for the antennas.
The 136 is almost identical but scaled up to 2.5m and a weight of ~175 kg (it varies in newer versions), essentially maintaining the wing loading
The 236 is almost identical but scaled up even more to 3m and a weight of ~250 kg, and it also has the same wing loading

In 50 years that design remained almost unchanged in general but the size growth by 50%, ~3.4 times the internal volume or ~2 times the weight.

>>64015496
edit: the DAR weights ~110kg

This game had entire campaign chapter centered around shooting down drones like these used to bomb cities. It felt stupid at the time.

>>64013920 (OP)
>why did no one think of this before?
Precision guidance electronics used to be expensive so you'd put them on a high-performance missile rather than a flying lawnmower, as it would be a waste of resources otherwise.
Basic limiting factor analysis, pick up a fucking Econs textbook, people

Also this observation isn't new either; RUSI has been pushing to call them primitive cruise missiles rather than "one way attack drones".

>>64015518
>primitive cruise missiles
The only primitive part is the engine and "simplicity" of using preexisting components (COTS aren't simple) because the avionics is as good as any 1990s PGM with GPS guidance, including the jamming resistance.

>>64013921
Avionics continue to be extremely expensive, when they're part of a pentagon procurement deal

>>64015525
>muh mic pentagon hurr durr
Go back whence ye came, Sprey

>>64015455
The bigger you make it, the easier it is to detect and shoot down.

>>64015524
>The only primitive part is the engine and
Missing redundancies such as integral inertials and other stuff that makes the likes of Tomahawk Block IV way more accurate and jam-proof than Shaheeds

And that makes all the difference.
Similar to how the "only primitive part" of a Hawker Tempest vs a Super Sabre is, likewise, the propulsion system.

>the avionics is as good as any 1990s PGM with GPS guidance
Yes
>including the jamming resistance
No

Dozens if not hundreds of Gerans are jammed whenever the Russians attack. What we're seeing is the damage inflicted by those that got through. Gerans are also used to decoy for Kalibr cruise missiles.

>>64015524
>The only primitive part is the engine and
Missing redundancies such as integral inertials and other stuff that makes the likes of Tomahawk Block IV way more accurate and jam-proof than Shaheeds

And that makes all the difference.
Similar to how the "only primitive part" of a Hawker Tempest vs a Super Sabre is, likewise, the propulsion system.

>the avionics is as good as any 1990s PGM with GPS guidance
Yes
>including the jamming resistance
No

Dozens if not hundreds of Gerans are jammed whenever the Russians attack. What we're seeing is the damage inflicted by those that got through. Gerans are also used to decoy for Kalibr cruise missiles.

>>64015533
> Tomahawk Block IV
I'm talking about the 1990s, at least 5 years before that.
Before early 2000s the US wasn't using CRPA for most systems, only P+software (it has its own trade offs) to achieve ~50-60 dB of jamming resistance since the early 1990s (Block III).
For a unauthorized receiver achieving 40 - 60 dB (depending on the variant) is ok, the GLONASS version should be better for the simple fact they can use software to improve spoofing and jamming rejection for the simple fact being able to do the extra DSP for that.
So even under the worst situation the initial shahed was ~10 dB worse than a Block III. OF COURSE, we're in 2022+3 years and reality showed that the general improvement of EW means 40-50 dB isn't enough -but the same applies to a Block III-. Electronic is the area that improved fast...

>more accurate
Not really, in the worst case they're comparable because those shitty drones are using differential GNSS and RTK-GNSS, something that is common in current year, in the 1990s that was the high end of GNSS receivers. Same with the INS, that is enough for the RTK.

>No
Above.

>Dozens if not hundreds of Gerans are jammed whenever the Russians attack.
And the same jammers would jam tfo any Tomahawk of the 1990s. Counters and tech can become widespread, like RADARs.

>Gerans are also used to decoy for Kalibr cruise missiles.
Do you understand the concept of decoy? using shaheds to push Ukrainians into a dilemma isn't decoying, for them it's obvious what's a shahed or a kalibr.

In materials the Shahed literally uses some aerospace industry materials: nomex honeycomb and carbon fiber. Kinda wasteful but easier than machining blocks of alloy.

inb4 the shahed can't achieve a J/S of 40-50 dB you can find plenty of papers showing similar systems with that level of jamming rejection.

>>64015496
>>64015499
So in a way the drones that are used en masse today are variants of a 40 year old anti-radiation/SEAD drone, adapted and modified overe the years to a general strategic attack mission?

>>64013920 (OP)
The first V1 was technically a drone because it used a gyroscope to keep it on target and flew a certain amount before cutting power and landing in london

>>64015559
>Same with the INS, that is enough
There's no way at all that Gerans have anything like the inertial guidance gyros of NATO cruise missiles

>for them it's obvious what's a shahed or a kalibr
Not when the different waves of incoming merges together, as happens when a time on target attack is successful. Radar operators holding a continuous track will see the difference, but not all the short-ranged AA system and EW system operators who do the actual shootdowns will be able to tell the difference.

>>64015790
nta, but there's small ins that can fit drones with high levels of accuracy now.

>>64015790
>There's no way at all that Gerans have anything like the inertial guidance gyros of NATO cruise missiles
Not the same reliability or operational conditions than a Honeywell but they do have tactical grade IMUs.
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Analog-Devices/ADIS16488BMLZ (iran was using this some years ago)
You can compare it with https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/products-and-services/products/navigation-and-sensors/inertial-measurement-units/hg1700-inertial-measurement-unit (as reference for a "1990s" cruise missile)


The IMU is for RTK-GPS, that's how they achieved some resistance to spoofing. Their glide bombs don't rake a tactical grade IMU so they were more jammeable or spoofeable (apparently ukies used to fuck around with the altitude drift of those drones), at least initially.

>>64015790
>shootdowns will be able to tell the difference.
They're coordinating shootdowns with Delta since 2022, they known far more than the an average military force

>>64015790
>shootdowns will be able to tell the difference.
They're coordinating shootdowns with Delta since 2022, they know far more than the an average military force, that's why we get those nice maps with flight paths a few minutes after the wave ends.

>>64013920 (OP)
Cost. Plus those cheap drones only work when you can't counter them with any kind of AA this side of 1960.
All this has done is ensure that autocannon based AA has been given a new lease on life.

>>64013920 (OP)
no
the word drone is taken from bees, a drone bee is a low status male worker bee. in machine terms a drone is a remote controlled machine that takes commands and outputs telemetry over radio or a wire. they dont have to use any kind of propeller a drone can use legs,wheels,props..... to move around or have no means of moving around like a remote controlled arm.

>propeller powered cruise missiles
most cruise missiles are not drones, they do not take remote control input nor do they output telemetry (some new ones can be retargeted,can abort, can tell their location ... so there's some exceptions). most cruise missiles just take the target coordinates and go there to blow up with no further input/output so they are a robot not a drone, a robot implies autonomous function.

>>64013920 (OP)
>why did no one think of this before
Because when you're facing a competent opponent they are useless. What was Isreals intercept rate on Iranian drones? 99%? 98%?

>>64015455
I'm surprised no western planners or MIC attached faggots decided it would be a good idea to bring back SPAAG's in any and all forms
>semi-stationary
>modular wheeled
>Wheeled
>Tracked
Because the entire reason these shitty drones are a threat at all is because systems meant to counter low-flying aircraft were cut in favor of more high tech missile shit.

>>64016070
Why bring back spaags for the sole purpose of countering drones when lasers are coming in

>>64016087
Because the targetting systems are in all likelihood interchangeable which means that
>For now you can work on making the systems smaller
>You get to use existing regular small arms and autocannons
>You get to try out effective doctrines, dispersal, SOP on everything
>When the time comes you upgrade them with the lasers

>>64016099
When would a ballistic targeting system ever be interchangeable with a laser one?

>>64016070
>I'm surprised no western planners or MIC attached faggots decided it would be a good idea to bring back SPAAG's in any and all forms
What do you think a palletised Skynex is?

>>64015465
Yes, let's go back to the source!
https://youtu.be/2qXGxZb7ta8?si=l01n5QmB_gnkStSA

>>64013920 (OP)
Because the guidance systems used to cost more than the engines.

>>64014238
>1944
>the beginning

>>64014238
Though fun fact: the TDR was an "assault drone" a term which was replaced by 'cruise missile' in the 1950s.

>>64016070
>I'm surprised no western planners or MIC attached faggots decided it would be a good idea to bring back SPAAG's in any and all forms
?

>>64016215

>>64016222
>literally 80 million plus tip