Why are we making a distinction between cruise missiles and "suicide drones"? This seems like something that started in non English speaking media.
Why are we making a distinction between cruise missiles and "suicide drones"?
Why are we making a distinction between cruise missiles and "suicide drones"? This seems like something that started in non English speaking media.
Geran-1 is a cruise missile.
>This seems like something that started in non English speaking media.
Absolutely not.
You see in the anglo safe speaks a good weapon is a precision guided ammunition/chirurgical strike.
An evil weapon is a suicide drone.
It's a """""journalist""""" thing.
>It's a """""journalist""""" thing.
mostly this^. But also there is the distinction between a loitering drone/munition and a cruise missile. Deliliah is the obvious one that comes to mind that has been around a long time. They actively pick targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile)
>The Delilah missile is a cruise missile or loitering munition[1] developed in Israel by Israel Military Industries (IMI). It is designed to target moving and re-locatable targets with a circular error probable (CEP) of 1 metre (3 ft 3 in). Unlike a typical cruise missile, which is locked onto a pre-programmed target prior to launch, the Delilah missile's unique feature, as claimed by the manufacturer, is being able to loiter and surveil an area before a remote weapon systems officer, usually from the launching fighter aircraft, identifies the specific target of the attack.[2][3]
This, it's the same reason general purpose bombs are fine but barrel bombs are a war crime.
Yeah that's something I've been trying to figure out. Why not cut out the middle man and have missiles ready to fire when someone calls in for a strike? Is it the loitering ability? If so, just how slow are modern missiles and wouldn't loitering shit be in danger of being countered more easily by AAA hidden in a shrub or something?
For a time during the Iraq war suicide bombers were called "homicide bombers." Its all newspeak.
I am not prepared to called a Lancet a cruise missile.
I'm pretty sure when someone says "suicide drone" they actually mean "loitering munition", which is a much better description.
Loitering sound like something unhoused Americans get cited for. Its insensitive and should be dropped.
>dropping hobos on your enemies.
based
why does pork taste so good bros
why so they also have to be so cute
>unhoused Americans
Not britbong bums? Goes well with loicense
I doubt loitering is a real crime anywhere in Europe. It's one of those uniquely American laws like jaywalking which either don't exist or aren't enforced outside of America.
It's a more of a common law thing and was/is mostly used to breakup illegal activity before it happens or harrass undesirable minorities.
Behold, a cruise missile!
elevated reply
They aren't really "suicide drones" as it is just a machine, there is no suicide. It destroys itself, but so does a missile. It's more like a projectile, a low tech guided missile really. Cost efficiency.
Loading one with advanced munitions, such as coated in plastic explosives, or balanced with a TNT load, or even just a large powder charge.
Then the whole drone is the munition, and it can crash, drop from the sky, destroy tanks, fortifications, large groups of infantry. You could just weaponize the entire drone, like the glider winged drones, but a quadcopter, and many have done this.
Plastic explosives would be easy to wrap around a commercial drone, or to load with many grenades as sub-munitions.
The absolute cheapest jankiest would be a cheap quadcopter loaded to max weight capacity with improvised black powder explosives Syrian style. Then launched on a one way trip with full strength. Like 50 of these with a few pilots launching one after the other. That's immense firepower delivered accurately, at low cost, efficiently. The drone pilots can use the internet or command from fortified positions for safety. No need to take needless risks, if drone pilots can deliver immense firepower and survive securely. Even from across the planet using the internet and satellites, as well as cellular data connections.
The internet and networking makes it possible to command drones virtually anywhere from virtually anywhere, with satellite connections making remote connections possible.
Really, drone piloting software should be efficient and able to be transported. Durable laptops and pilot command centers are useful for this. But if it does not exist, there should be software to manage large amounts of drones at once, from a single place. This would enable a single pilot to launch a large number of drones at a specified target at once automatically.
Networking, computer software, and robotics, have made it possible for individual soldiers to command complex weapon systems that deliver large amounts of firepower remotely.
We saw this in the Middle East with the UAV missile drones. That must have inspired the quadcopter drones in part. But these have been commanded like aircraft, one pilot per drone.
Interactive software can manage multiple drones, no artificial intelligence is needed. Protocol requires human input for kill commands, and this can done by the confirmed by the drone manager in combat. This allows a single drone pilot to command many drones at once. A team of these drone managers can be managed under a single commanding officer, to efficiently command a very large fleet of drones in a single room.
>
Interactive software can manage multiple drones, no artificial intelligence is needed. Protocol requires human input for kill commands, and this can done by the confirmed by the drone manager in combat. This allows a single drone pilot to command many drones at once. A team of these drone managers can be managed under a single commanding officer, to efficiently command a very large fleet of drones in a single room.
gee, look at the CEO of Idea Guys Inc. over here, writing shit that *noone* has ever thought of before
We are still using one pilot per done right now.
yes, and none of what you said is new, innovative or in any way or shape related to the topic of the thread. which is distinction between loitering munitions (or SUICIDE-KAMIKAZE-DEATH-SHREDDER-DRONES for journo-scum) and cruise missiles
in fact there's a navelgaze thread about killdrone technology up right now
>Protocol requires human input for kill commands, and this can done by the* drone manager in combat.
It can be legally integrated into the software, or into an analog control system. Such as when aircraft fire engage targets and fire missiles.
you really dont want to control an FPV drone over any sort of routed network, the latency is too high.
Then there is a kamikaze drone because its small like the Japanese.
The only thing that makes it inaccurate is that so-called suicide drones so far are irrecoverable (as far as I am aware, anyway, this is the case for Lancet and Shahed). A working definition of a drone is a machine of autonomous or partially autonomous operational capability, with the implication being it can be used repetitively. Being recoverable in the event that a mission is aborted or revised would make this true of "suicide" drones, even if their ultimate purpose is to blow up. And it preserves a clear distinction with missiles—as well as rockets and bombs—which once they go do not come back.
Bomber drones, drone missiles, it does make me think of Pearl Harbor and kamikazes.
I would argue the inaccurate part is that a suicide drone is launched without a known target, where either an operator or the machine itself can recognize the target and attempt to destroy it, whereas a missile is programed before launch, even if you have some fancy network missiles which can then fallback to known secondary targets if the first is destroyed.
>I would argue the inaccurate part is that a suicide drone is launched without a known target
Well if you mean a drone is something that should be conceived of as having more operational flexibility, yes; but even homicidal drones are generally "programmed" before launch, to the extent they have a prepared mission (as do crewed machines). The difference is ordnance objects have much more fixed scripts, even if they're fancy, as you said.
To be fair, I don't count things like a Shaeed and other meme shit that's just a low budget cruise missile when talking about actual suicide drones. Things like Switchblades, Lancets, and even scaled up versions of those systems have either an operator or some form of target recognition software, whereas a missile is launched at a predefined target or target list. The ability to be told "go to this field and frick up the first tank you see" is something that I would say is the defining characteristic between a suicide drone and a missile, and results from having both loitering capacity and an enhanced sensor and decision making suite, whether that's in the form of a communication package or onboard AI.
IDK how I feel about calling a prop-driven flying explosive a "missile". I don't know if a rocket motor is a prerequisite, but it just doesn't feel right.
We're just getting back to the traditional definition of missile which is anything flying through the air.
A bullet is a suicide drone.
>throw rock
>accidentally launch a suicide drone
>Jerks off
>Found out you wasted a few milliom suicide drones
The difference is in speed and maneuverability. It's quite a simple concept to grasp, really, I'm surprised people as dumb as you exist and are allowed to use internet capable devices.
I would assume the difference would be that a drone can actually go back if its mission is canceled, while a missile would need to ditch into a lake or something if they had to cancel it mid flight.
>Cruise missle
Bro, you fly there and explode
>Suicide Drone
Bro, you fly there and wait till we say where you can explode
I think speed and propulsion method is a key thing here though, missiles are rocket propelled and are flying at like mach 1+, drones are usually propeller craft and fly at like 150km/hr
That's a result of the need for the drone to loiter, which means higher endurance vs a missile which merely needs to get somewhere and is done. If they moved a Reaper/Predator to jet engine instead of a prop, would you call it a missile?
Are shaheds piloted like switchblades or solely preprogrammed like cruise missiles
The 2nd.
A loitering missile or loitering guided bomb would make more sense
>loitering guided bomb
lmao what
you know these things don't have any propulsion, right? they're constantly losing energy, if you want to have them loiter on top you can do nothing but massively cut into standoff range
You see, one is a missile, and the other is a drone.
One is a drone the other is a missile. How can you be so fricking stupid that you can't tell the difference between the two.
In my mind a cruise missile is a weapon that typically is launched from a separate vehicle like a strike aircraft or warship. A suicide drone has a launch profile that is more similar to a traditional aircraft. I concede the distinction is somewhat arbitrary.