only reason drones are having success is because survivor bias, you don't get to see all the times they are jammed or shot down, and the few videos make it appear as a revolutionary weapon
>only reason infantry are having success is because survivor bias, you don't get to see all the times they are rapped or shot down, and the few videos make it appear as a revolutionary weapon
Idk why I thought this switch was funny
Given the versatility of drones to be useable for so many different roles, the defensive side here is "on the defense".
Drones having another degree of freedom compared to ground vehicles + the low radar signature makes their advantages disproportionally larger than their drawbacks.
We're still in the janky ww1 style early days of drone warfare.
One day drones will rule the skies.
>only reason infantry are having success is because survivor bias, you don't get to see all the times they are rapped or shot down, and the few videos make it appear as a revolutionary weapon
Idk why I thought this switch was funny
[...]
Please let this thing work and there be a video.
Drones are an incredibly cheap and effective weapon that even if you lost ten drones for every kill it ends up cheaper than an artillery barrage.
A 152mm artillery shell is $60. A hand grenade is $30. A large COTS drone is only $3000.
getting a kinetic precision low caliber projectile to hit would not be possible though - no matter how many algorithmic corrections you make, over "tens of kilometers" there are complex hard to predict and calculate local airflows usually.
Does anybody make/use small drones with purpose built guns in them? Seems they're mostly just using bombs, but surely given that you'd be looking down from a quadcopter you could get enough stability to point and click at individual targets
Drones are going to get bigger and better and so are the countermeasures, the development of technology on the battlefield is infinitely slow. Pic is from a ukranian company. I know it’s not a gun. The RAF jackal prototype also looks pretty neat.
I really do think the key to these smaller ones, the quadcopters, is large swarms with grenades or as kamikaze robots loaded with some kind of potent munition.
If it is a "self destrucrive" style of robotic weapon, then it can be loaded to max capacity with heavy eplosive munitions. C4 is natural for aerodynamics, plastered around the arms. But any munitions can be delivered by swarms. Hundreds or even thousands of drones launched and co-ordinated at once or in fast sequence.
Can deliver a very large amount of munitions ahead of infantry, it is a form of artiller or air support. Bomber planes can be considered as a form of artillery as well.
I think suicide drones are a dead end and we won't see any further development, when heavily loaded they have a pathetic 2-3km range, limiting their use to ambushes. The future of drone warfare would be fixed wing drone bombers with CCIP bomb drops or beam-riding ATGMs - they're more expensive at first but are reusable and can be used for proper recon and arty correction.
They seem to be a weapon of choice for Iran and Russia, and Ukraine has already used them to disable and destroy tanks. I wouldn't even call it a suicide drone as no one dies to use the weapon and actually is very safe to use from a distance. Can even be used over the internet.
They only use quadcopters out of desperation. If they had a choice, they'd prefer to destroy these tanks with drone-laser-guided artillery. If they had fixed-wing bombers, they'd prefer to use those from 15 km away, then reload them and send them back again, compared to single-use quadcopters that you have to use while sitting 3km away from the enemy.
Quadcopters are cheaper than missiles only because there are more hobbyist drone clubs than hobbyist rocket clubs. Solid rocket fuel is extremely cheap, and missile guidance is trivial with modern electronics, the only problem is that you can't buy missile guidance controllers on aliexpress, and model rocket fuel is expensive due to low demand and doesn't come in large enough blocks to push a decent warhead.
The real kicker is rocket artillery is the same cost as tube artillery because the artillery tubes are rather expensive and wear out quickly. Rocket launchers are cheaper than the rockets they launch.
Drone tech is only improving.
You're seeing the most primitive drones, the least accurate, the least deadly, the slowest and the noisiest and easiest to counter.
Already drones will kill you and jamming is barely effective. The machine-made horrors will be beyond your comprehension.
only reason drones are having success is because survivor bias, you don't get to see all the times they are jammed or shot down, and the few videos make it appear as a revolutionary weapon
>only reason infantry are having success is because survivor bias, you don't get to see all the times they are rapped or shot down, and the few videos make it appear as a revolutionary weapon
Idk why I thought this switch was funny
Please let this thing work and there be a video.
Raped*
Frick
nothing that has the potential to kill goes too far
what gun is that???
ar-47
MP-5 in an AK chassis
a glock
The unmistakable outline of an AK 47
Looks like a bazooka with the handguard removed.
Famas
Don't listen to this anon hes talking nonsense
This poster is a skeleton don't trust his lies.
the least used gun in counter strike
We're still in the janky ww1 style early days of drone warfare.
One day drones will rule the skies.
Given the versatility of drones to be useable for so many different roles, the defensive side here is "on the defense".
Drones having another degree of freedom compared to ground vehicles + the low radar signature makes their advantages disproportionally larger than their drawbacks.
Join the cool community on
: )
Drones are an incredibly cheap and effective weapon that even if you lost ten drones for every kill it ends up cheaper than an artillery barrage.
A 152mm artillery shell is $60. A hand grenade is $30. A large COTS drone is only $3000.
What we really need is for someone to attach a proper high powered precision rifle on a big ass drone.
Imagine having obstacle free view at everything for tens of kilometers in every direction.
getting a kinetic precision low caliber projectile to hit would not be possible though - no matter how many algorithmic corrections you make, over "tens of kilometers" there are complex hard to predict and calculate local airflows usually.
I didn't mean you'd have to shoot at things ten kilometers away. Regular sniper distances are fine.
Well actually...
Does anybody make/use small drones with purpose built guns in them? Seems they're mostly just using bombs, but surely given that you'd be looking down from a quadcopter you could get enough stability to point and click at individual targets
Not purpose build, but reminded me
Drones are going to get bigger and better and so are the countermeasures, the development of technology on the battlefield is infinitely slow. Pic is from a ukranian company. I know it’s not a gun. The RAF jackal prototype also looks pretty neat.
Is that an AUG?
Not far enough, drones will be much cooler in 10 years
I really do think the key to these smaller ones, the quadcopters, is large swarms with grenades or as kamikaze robots loaded with some kind of potent munition.
If it is a "self destrucrive" style of robotic weapon, then it can be loaded to max capacity with heavy eplosive munitions. C4 is natural for aerodynamics, plastered around the arms. But any munitions can be delivered by swarms. Hundreds or even thousands of drones launched and co-ordinated at once or in fast sequence.
Can deliver a very large amount of munitions ahead of infantry, it is a form of artiller or air support. Bomber planes can be considered as a form of artillery as well.
>it is a form of artillery* or air support
And a cheap one as well, any country can afford at least some of them
I think suicide drones are a dead end and we won't see any further development, when heavily loaded they have a pathetic 2-3km range, limiting their use to ambushes. The future of drone warfare would be fixed wing drone bombers with CCIP bomb drops or beam-riding ATGMs - they're more expensive at first but are reusable and can be used for proper recon and arty correction.
They seem to be a weapon of choice for Iran and Russia, and Ukraine has already used them to disable and destroy tanks. I wouldn't even call it a suicide drone as no one dies to use the weapon and actually is very safe to use from a distance. Can even be used over the internet.
They only use quadcopters out of desperation. If they had a choice, they'd prefer to destroy these tanks with drone-laser-guided artillery. If they had fixed-wing bombers, they'd prefer to use those from 15 km away, then reload them and send them back again, compared to single-use quadcopters that you have to use while sitting 3km away from the enemy.
The grenade quadcopters are equivalent in function to a light mortar. (Exception smoke barrage)
Drones are cheaper than missiles and can have comparable range.
Quadcopters are cheaper than missiles only because there are more hobbyist drone clubs than hobbyist rocket clubs. Solid rocket fuel is extremely cheap, and missile guidance is trivial with modern electronics, the only problem is that you can't buy missile guidance controllers on aliexpress, and model rocket fuel is expensive due to low demand and doesn't come in large enough blocks to push a decent warhead.
The real kicker is rocket artillery is the same cost as tube artillery because the artillery tubes are rather expensive and wear out quickly. Rocket launchers are cheaper than the rockets they launch.
Just beginning probably.
I also like Steven seagal movie OP
Drone tech is only improving.
You're seeing the most primitive drones, the least accurate, the least deadly, the slowest and the noisiest and easiest to counter.
Already drones will kill you and jamming is barely effective. The machine-made horrors will be beyond your comprehension.