I see them mainly used (eg Ukraine war) to annoy the other party with many military insignificant attacks on civilians. Very sad but not something that actually wins wars.
I'm pretty intrigued by companies like Anduril. I don't know much about them. But the idea that we apply more "tech startup" business models to defense doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
My sense is that the existing defense contractors are old, slow and expensive (and conditioned to take huge sums from the government for developing future tech.)
In fairness, I'm not at all knowledgable about the industry. Just my impression of things. But it is hard to not be happy to see new entrants to any important market.
The US is making a big mistake giving up on the EV chain. In doing so it is ceding drones and robots, which are key to future wars and economies.
The countries that it is currently waging economic war against should instead be engaged in creating an alternative to the Chinese supply chain. For example, it is currently disassembling the automotive supply chain that included Canada and low-cost Mexico, but it should be doubling down on that.
They aren’t giving up, they are outcompeted. Tho Musk is still doing well in all fronts - ev, ai, optimus, rockets, starlink - all the essentials minus drones.
Unless autonomous drones happen, Russia has proved fiber drones are the way to go.
Not saying jammers wouldn’t be needed, but Russia had a lot of success using fiber drones to retake Kursk.
China's last real war was the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. They don't really have any experience in modern wars. How will they perform when real bullets are flying? Will the internal corruption prove to make them ineffective as the Russian military? Remains to be seen.
Chinese manufacturing quality isn't great though. They make a lot of stuff incredibly cheap, but they don't hold up great in combat situations where they are exposed to mud, dirt, rain, get thrown around, etc.
US hardly makes anything. Ukraine desperately needs air defense missiles, perhaps they may get some next year. The same with munition, armored vehicles, jets...
Drones are massively key in a very unusual conflict between Russia and Ukraine. I wonder if other wars would find them useful.
For example, a recent article shared on HN highlighted that the cheap drones become useless once there is any signal jamming going on. Russia can't jam too aggressively as their own comms are not good enough to be useful in such an environment. But what about NATO? Would they just jam the EM spectrum to oblivion and render all these drones useless?
Not a great point of comparison, but Israel v Gaza seems to use next to no drones (certainly not the small cheap variety), and the little that is known of Israel v Iran also focused on big expensive manned and unmanned aircraft. Plus massive, enormous, eye-wateringly-expensive bombs. Not converted Mavic drones. To the extent that Iran used drones, reportedly they gave no tactical benefit, as they were all shot down long before they reached Israel.
We shouldn't arrive to conclusions on the future of warfare based on what we see in Ukraine. It works there the way it does only because neither side has a viable air force. If one of them had, it could win the war simply by theatre isolation and no drones could help. Manned aircraft are only things immune to drones because they fly higher and faster than cheap drones can. Thus, drone proliferation increases US dominance in future wars, because drones greatly diminish value of eveything else except manned aircraft - which is precisely the field in which US dominates by the highest margin of all.
Especially funny was to observe how both sides stopped using tanks because their survivability - even that of "tracked garden shed" or "tortoise" varieties - is now nil. Where are the active protection systems pioneered by Soviet Union and propagandised all the way until today? Trajectory of an FVP is linear in the final second or so, and it is twice slower and a lot more fragile than an RPG round which was what active protection systems were supposed to protect from. Now suddenly, no one remembers of them anymore. Sounds like they were a scam all the way.
How would manned aircraft help defend against swarms of drones deployed by decentralized enemy units? Drones are manufactured out of people’s garages, you can’t just take out the source like you can take out an airfield. On the other hand, Ukraine disabled a significant number of Russia’s manned aircraft with surreptitiously deployed drones (Operation Spider Web).
If you are from US / EU you should urgently advise your government. They seem to lack this wisdom and have integrated this active protection into some of their tanks.
idk, using such long and dragged out conflicts as proof of drones superiority seems to me like going to a U8 soccer tournament and deciding that the best way to win a soccer game is have your entire team form a death ball.
Drones are a low cost, low intensity projectile. Similar to a missile. It has utility. But as we can see, you don't win a war with just projectiles otherwise these conflicts would've been long over.
One aspect of drone wars that I have been observing also is the importance of naval drones. For example, Ukraine successfully used it to scare away the bulk of the Black Sea Fleet; now drug lords in Colombia are already using them to send drugs to Europe.[0]
A plausible next step would be, if not already done, to have a fleet of small but powerful naval drones that act as sea buoys to sweep the sea for submarines - this would have the potential to complete change submarine deployment strategy.
Especially for countries with massive borders, including maritime borders, a fleet of aerial and naval drones will seem indispensable if nothing else for deterrence.
The US makes small volumes of incredibly expensive drones because it suits how their suppliers want to guarantee contracts for big budgets.
What this conflict has shown is you need constantly supplies of basically garage-band single use drones that can be carried en-mass on the battlefield, which is a big change in the model.
Drones don’t make as much sense if you have air superiority. Somebody like the US can carve holes in any frontline at will and create space for maneuver warfare. Drones only became important in the Ukraine war because neither side is able to establish air supremacy.
Very big if. The US is unlikely to have air superiority against a neer peer adversary.
And even with air superiority, the US hasn’t been able to win a single war since WW2 except 1991 Gulf.
Currently the US and Israel are failing to oust the Houthis from Yemen and Hamas from Gaza even with a massive multi year sustained bombing campaign from the air.
True until the day that dispersed drones behind the frontlines can stop an armored cavalry breakthrough. (I don't know if that day will ever come, but it may.)
It will be combined wars for sure, planes, tanks, infantry and drones at the same time. With air superiority the enemy has little chance to move heavy equipment around such as artillery. For every video we see about drones in Ukraine I bet you artillery kills a much larger percentage of the combatants.
The Pentagon has recently recognized small drones as 'consumable commodities' like bullets and grenades so there is a role for them to play but U.S. military isn't about to pivot to a strategy of winning wars with swarms of cheap quadcopters. The core of American military power is firmly rooted in long-range kill chains, which is about finding a target to take out (often far in advance of the operation) and then precisely killing it from far away.
Even if we ignore the more controversial debate around Aircraft Carriers vs masses of Chinese road mobile antiship missile systems, doubling down in 2025 on high end cruise missiles that cost $2-4M each is probably the first thing that will look like a dumb choice when we look back in a decade.
And certainly doesn’t make the components. The moment China cuts off electronics shipments to the US we’re going to see a drastic hiccup in the supply chain for high tech weapons. It’s probably a good strategy to tear the bandaid off ourselves and see what stops.
I do not think they are a key and war hasn’t been won with them yet. More of a tool in a toolbox assortment of weapons in war.
They bring up Ukraine and Russia but that war is ongoing so merely battle wins.
There are plenty of gps denial areas the military uses for training from small to over multiple states worth of area.
“The Archer sells for about $2,000 each, making it one of the most affordable models. But Neros produces only about 1,500 Archers per month in a factory where 15 workers assemble them by hand.”
Delivering smart munitions at relevant scale is key to winning wars, news at 11. "Drones" are just that proliferated to squad level. I suppose it does represent completing the smart munitions onion, but ultimately it's about using better munitions at standoff distances, i.e. being on the outer layer to asymmetrically bleed your adversary. If you're fighting on the same layer, i.e. symmetrically, be prepared bleed.
33 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 68.3 ms ] threadI see them mainly used (eg Ukraine war) to annoy the other party with many military insignificant attacks on civilians. Very sad but not something that actually wins wars.
My sense is that the existing defense contractors are old, slow and expensive (and conditioned to take huge sums from the government for developing future tech.)
In fairness, I'm not at all knowledgable about the industry. Just my impression of things. But it is hard to not be happy to see new entrants to any important market.
The US is making a big mistake giving up on the EV chain. In doing so it is ceding drones and robots, which are key to future wars and economies.
The countries that it is currently waging economic war against should instead be engaged in creating an alternative to the Chinese supply chain. For example, it is currently disassembling the automotive supply chain that included Canada and low-cost Mexico, but it should be doubling down on that.
China will win this anytime.
For example, a recent article shared on HN highlighted that the cheap drones become useless once there is any signal jamming going on. Russia can't jam too aggressively as their own comms are not good enough to be useful in such an environment. But what about NATO? Would they just jam the EM spectrum to oblivion and render all these drones useless?
Not a great point of comparison, but Israel v Gaza seems to use next to no drones (certainly not the small cheap variety), and the little that is known of Israel v Iran also focused on big expensive manned and unmanned aircraft. Plus massive, enormous, eye-wateringly-expensive bombs. Not converted Mavic drones. To the extent that Iran used drones, reportedly they gave no tactical benefit, as they were all shot down long before they reached Israel.
Especially funny was to observe how both sides stopped using tanks because their survivability - even that of "tracked garden shed" or "tortoise" varieties - is now nil. Where are the active protection systems pioneered by Soviet Union and propagandised all the way until today? Trajectory of an FVP is linear in the final second or so, and it is twice slower and a lot more fragile than an RPG round which was what active protection systems were supposed to protect from. Now suddenly, no one remembers of them anymore. Sounds like they were a scam all the way.
If you are from US / EU you should urgently advise your government. They seem to lack this wisdom and have integrated this active protection into some of their tanks.
Drones are a low cost, low intensity projectile. Similar to a missile. It has utility. But as we can see, you don't win a war with just projectiles otherwise these conflicts would've been long over.
A plausible next step would be, if not already done, to have a fleet of small but powerful naval drones that act as sea buoys to sweep the sea for submarines - this would have the potential to complete change submarine deployment strategy.
Especially for countries with massive borders, including maritime borders, a fleet of aerial and naval drones will seem indispensable if nothing else for deterrence.
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-narco-sub-seized-first-ti...
What this conflict has shown is you need constantly supplies of basically garage-band single use drones that can be carried en-mass on the battlefield, which is a big change in the model.
And even with air superiority, the US hasn’t been able to win a single war since WW2 except 1991 Gulf.
Currently the US and Israel are failing to oust the Houthis from Yemen and Hamas from Gaza even with a massive multi year sustained bombing campaign from the air.
Planes have never won a war.
They bring up Ukraine and Russia but that war is ongoing so merely battle wins.
There are plenty of gps denial areas the military uses for training from small to over multiple states worth of area.
“The Archer sells for about $2,000 each, making it one of the most affordable models. But Neros produces only about 1,500 Archers per month in a factory where 15 workers assemble them by hand.”
https://kyivindependent.com/impeccable-results-new-skynex-vi...