[HN Gopher] The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare
___________________________________________________________________
The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare
Author : tekdude
Score : 98 points
Date : 2022-05-09 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| divan wrote:
| That's true. Everyone in Ukraine now know the name "Bayraktar"
| and videos from the drone's camera showing destroying russian
| vehicles in action has been a huge morale boost for people. I
| think decent-quality video recording is one of the most
| underapreciated features of TB2. Here is a strike on the
| invaders' helicopter just yesterday recorded with IR camera:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juxv8L3gkKo
| georgeg23 wrote:
| There were protests at SpaceX when it was revealed the Turksat 5B
| satellite would command and control these TB2 drones, extending
| their range from operator line-of-sight to near global.
|
| Elon decided to go ahead with the launch. At some point we need
| to start calling SpaceX a defense company.
| abc_lisper wrote:
| Well, space x is a commodity service. If not them, someone will
| be happy to accept Turkish Lira.
| georgeg23 wrote:
| Correction: Turksat 5A
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrksat_5A
| emteycz wrote:
| Is a trucking company a defense company if they ship something
| for the military? Or the same with air transport?
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| No, but if they truck a bunch of equipment into warzones and
| have huge government contracts they might be considered one
| emteycz wrote:
| Is this a defense company now, then? https://twitter.com/wa
| lter_report/status/1523497545351278593...
|
| Any company doing shipping for the military has large
| government contracts. The government contracts have
| turnover limits, and every company this large works with
| the government a lot.
| simulate-me wrote:
| If you become an integral part of the logistics pipeline for
| the military, then yes. Even if the company seems relatively
| civilian, you can bet it will be forced to focus on the
| military in the event of a military operation.
| ISL wrote:
| If they can precisely deliver ~22 tons of material from
| Florida to anywhere in the globe in ~20-50 minutes, arriving
| at perhaps Mach 5, one should tend to regard SpaceX as at
| least weapons-capable.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _arriving at perhaps Mach 5_
|
| Quite a lot faster than that actually; Mach 20+ on reentry.
| The way the media talks about "hypersonics" without getting
| into specifics is very misleading. Hypersonic cruise
| missiles are a tough nut to crack, but hypersonic reentry
| vehicles are table stakes for ballistic missiles and
| spacecraft.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Do people not consider SpaceX a defense company? At the very
| least I thought people always considered it dual-use
| georgeg23 wrote:
| SpaceX tries not to highlight their military work but it is a
| majority of their business, even with "commercial" Starlink.
|
| A more direct offensive buildup is happening with their
| government Starlink satellites:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
| xxpor wrote:
| You can't work there (except possibly in some minor roles) if
| you're not a US Person as defined by ITAR for a reason.
| more_corn wrote:
| ITAR applies because rockets are indistinguishable from
| ICBMs
| xxpor wrote:
| Exactly. Rocket companies are always defense companies.
| nradov wrote:
| While there is some overlap, it's quite easy to
| distinguish between civilian launch vehicles and military
| ICBMs. All major civilian rockets use liquid fueled core
| stages. But all ICBMs are solid fuel.
| zardo wrote:
| Until you get down to the details of what makes a good
| orbital launch vehicle vs what makes a good ICBM.
| robonerd wrote:
| As a "get to Mars" company it makes very little sense,
| they've invested virtually nothing into colony technology,
| just rockets. Mars is to SpaceX what manganese nodules were
| to Hughes' Glomar Explorer, a flimsy cover story that only
| seems plausible because everybody knows the guy in charge is
| wacky. I believe the real purpose of their attempt to create
| a rapidly reusable heavy lift rocket (Starship) is to rapidly
| replenish a massive constellation of expendable interceptors
| in LEO, for ballistic missile defense.
| beebeepka wrote:
| That point was almost 20 years ago
| baybal2 wrote:
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >At some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense
| company.
|
| They do themselves. ITAR compliance is a prerequisite to
| employment at SpaceX.
| more_corn wrote:
| Because rockets
| stefan_ wrote:
| Of course SpaceX is a defense company. Starlink is essentially
| the next GPS in terms of defense importance.
| 01100011 wrote:
| I would venture a guess that nearly every SiValley darling
| supports the military-industrial complex in some fashion. The
| military-industrial complex started SiValley, after all.
|
| If you don't think there's a military application for AI, self-
| driving whatevers, logistics innovations, or even social media
| you are uninformed or willfully ignorant.
| jollybean wrote:
| I would go way further and venture that Space X and those
| satellites have background relationships with defence
| industry all along.
|
| Most of Elon's businesses have state related support in some
| way (even Twitter), it's part of how he operates.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I think they probably don't, if only because government
| contracting is an absolutely massive pain and having been on
| both sides (early at a YC co and have worked in local and
| federal gov) I know that the gov side considers it an issue
| that they don't have a close enough relationship to tech
| startups. This was the whole rationale for launching DIU.mil,
| Afwerx, sofwerx, NavalX, etc. and championing OTAs which
| helped shorten the procurement process so they could get
| smaller companies interested
|
| edit: spelling error
| 01100011 wrote:
| If you think supporting the government means working
| directly working with the government then, again, you don't
| know the game.
|
| Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front
| companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the
| only time where that has occurred?
|
| There are many layers to that onion and it is obfuscated
| for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that I
| don't think many rock star engineers would be happy if they
| thought their life's work was being used to fuel the murder
| machine.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front
| companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the
| only time where that has occurred?
|
| Are you saying they got off the shelf parts? Otherwise,
| they would be working with the government, even if the
| purpose of the components wasn't known.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Possibly. Structural, mechanical and propulsion parts
| were probably custom. Some electronics parts were
| probably "COTS" mil-spec parts which were procured for
| imaginary projects or diverted from existing ones.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're
| discussing then. Is the point in your original comment
| that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technologies
| of all sorts for their work and that people who work at
| startups unknowingly contribute to this? I mean sure, but
| I can also tell you that the government struggles with
| buying products commercial off the shelf, this is again a
| reason you see the push for OTAs and collaborating more
| closely with the private sector instead of primes.
|
| Also, not sure if calling it "the murder machine" is
| necessary or useful for a discussion. Many people, myself
| included, believe that a strong military is necessary for
| the United States to ensure its own survival and apply
| its protective cordon around NATO, Korea, Japan, etc. and
| despite its flaws has probably led to much less overall
| destruction and death than if the U.S. had a very weak
| military and could not deter more global conflicts.
| 01100011 wrote:
| > "the murder machine"
|
| Sorry this is my way of saying I think this is what many
| unsuspecting valley engineers, who in some cases lean
| quite leftish, would term it if they knew they were
| contributing to it. Case in point, I worked at a defense
| comm company and when a fellow engineer overheard a use
| case in drones they literally wept. That engineer left
| shortly thereafter for the valley. I use colorful
| language sometimes for my own amusement.
|
| My point is that not every piece used by the military
| industrial complex(specifically agencies with 3-9
| letters) comes from standard procurement channels. Sure,
| when you're building F-35s or whatever. But this assumes
| every big government project is a big government project.
| Some are one-offs. I'm intentionally obtuse here for a
| myriad of reasons and I've said about all I can.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense
| company_
|
| What is the real-world outcome you're going for?
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| The government definitely thinks of SpaceX as a defense
| company. They have to comply with ITAR because if you have the
| technology to get to space you basically have the technology
| for an ICBM.
| [deleted]
| belter wrote:
| They are being treated like that already.
|
| "Russian space chief Dmitry Rogozin apparently threatens Elon
| Musk"
|
| https://www.space.com/russian-space-chief-rogozin-threatens-...
| Cenk wrote:
| See also, this popular Ukrainian song about the Turkish Bayraktar
| drone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayraktar_(song)
| brnt wrote:
| Turkish drones, but all Ukrainian engines.
| atakurt wrote:
| that was like that,newer ones have TEI-PD170 Turbodiesel
| Aviation Engine
| robonerd wrote:
| > _Several news sources have reported that a single TB2 drone can
| be purchased for a million dollars, but Bayraktar, while not
| giving a precise figure, told me that it costs more. In any
| event, single-unit figures are misleading; TB2s are sold as a
| "platform," along with portable command stations and
| communications equipment. In 2019, Ukraine bought a fleet of at
| least six TB2s for a reported sixty-nine million dollars; a
| similar fleet of Reaper drones costs about six times that._
|
| It seems to me there is still a lot of opportunity in the low end
| with even smaller and cheaper UAVs with a few kilograms of
| payload. There have already been numerous instances of COTS UAVs
| being jerry-rigged to drop mortar shells, and it seems to work
| pretty well in a lot of scenarios. Particularly for smaller
| governments dealing with relatively unsophisticated insurgencies.
| Steltek wrote:
| Wouldn't a COTS drone be relatively easy to jam or have early
| warning by detecting its control/video links?
|
| I get why Russia is having trouble adapting (logistics,
| sanctions, brain drain, paper tiger military) but outside of
| the Russia-Ukraine war, how effective would a COTS drone really
| be in a different state-vs-state direct conflict?
| foxyv wrote:
| You can bet that countermeasures are already in place or are
| being developed now. Jamming of commercial drones is doable.
| However, it is ridiculously hard to jam software controlled
| radio equipment. Especially military grade hardware. SpaceX
| demonstrated this recently when they got past Russia's top of
| the line hardware. The energy requirements balloon to
| ridiculous levels when you are talking about broad spectrum
| jammers doing area denial. In addition, such jammers make
| excellent targets since you know exactly where they are. If
| drones could be targeted it makes jamming a lot easier, but
| still difficult.
|
| One thing we can expect is home on signal anti-aircraft
| batteries and anti-loitering munitions that seek other
| loitering munitions. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one
| of the last big wars where such COTS drone tactics are
| successful.
| pfbtgom wrote:
| I'm not sure how effective signal jamming would be against
| COTS quadcopters. It's relatively easy to provide on-loss-of-
| signal instructions to the navigation microcontroller.
| Perhaps it could be a return to set location command or a
| home in on signal jammer and explode command.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >or a home in on signal jammer and explode command.
|
| Congratulations, you just invented the anti-radiation
| missile.
|
| The drone space seems to be speed running decades of SAM
| and combat aviation tech.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Some kind of middle ground platform with the largest
| commercial multicopters as a cost effective base but with
| some jamming resistant communications would be the sweet
| spot. Perhaps 5kg payload and a few km range and some
| autonomy such as being given permission to autonomously drop
| munitions on specific target signatures in specific areas.
|
| If it can be entirely radio silent within the last mile
| radius (records video for later transmission, finds targets
| and attacks without intervention) then jamming would be
| extremely difficult.
| gostsamo wrote:
| The ukrainians are repurposing small civil drones and old
| soviet shells to attack russian targets on and behind the
| lines.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Aerorozvidka:
|
| https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-cheap-grenades-expensive-
| tan...
| baybal2 wrote:
| openasocket wrote:
| You should take a look at the switchblade. The switchblade 300
| model has the equivalent of a 40mm grenade as a warhead, 2.7kg
| weight, endurance of 10 minutes and a range of around 10km all
| puts it well in that lower end range. Couldn't find any pricing
| data, but I imagine more COTS approaches could come out pretty
| cheap.
|
| I'm actually surprised we've got man-portable loitering
| munitions like the switchblade in use before the widespread
| adoption of guided mortar rounds. I'd have to imagine it's more
| cost effective (in terms of kilograms of high explosive on
| target per dollar) to make some GPS-guided or laser-guided
| mortars, and either use ground troops or a small UAV to provide
| targeting data.
| stult wrote:
| > I'd have to imagine it's more cost effective (in terms of
| kilograms of high explosive on target per dollar) to make
| some GPS-guided or laser-guided mortars
|
| The problem is scale. No one in the private sector makes or
| needs mortar rounds, so the DoD doesn't benefit from buying
| COTS components for them. Whereas you can pretty much just
| strap a grenade to a quadcopter with a few minor tweaks and
| you're in business. Which is more or less exactly what the
| Ukrainians have been doing with their surplus Soviet anti-
| tank grenades.
| jollybean wrote:
| I don't even see how the 'switchblade' is useful for anything
| but special operations strikes on 'key assets' - which is
| what it was designed for.
|
| It doesn't matter if it's 'price effective per kg' - it can't
| disable a tank, and might not disable a soft target without a
| direct it.
|
| The 900 series is the one that might be quite useful.
|
| All of that said, we'll have to see how countermeasures work
| it may be that they develop rapidly to neutralize drones ...
|
| ... and then a rational actor like China takes the
| 'saturation approach' and launches 100's of them at a single
| battalion etc..
| attentive wrote:
| Perhaps it's 10km range, more precise and visual targeting on
| moving vehicles vs close range and/or fixed position
| targeting. There is a switchblade 600 with even more range
| and more payload which can be used anti-armor.
|
| Also, mortars and other artillery are subject to a counter-
| battery fire.
| foxyv wrote:
| The XM395 120mm GPS mortar guidance kit is about $10k per
| round and was introduced a short time before the switchblade.
| Switchblades are about $7k and are fairly low yield
| relatively speaking.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Precision_Guided_Mortar_.
| ..
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I've seen a claim that Switchblade 300 costs less than USD
| 7k. No idea how accurate this is tho.
| dmix wrote:
| This video says $6k as well
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PcWS1marOA
|
| The most interesting part is that it flies extremely fast
| so you'll never see it coming. Particularly how it bursts
| through a windshield before exploding.
| wrnr wrote:
| Why are these things as effective as they are in the ukrain-
| russian war? Don't these things show up on radar and therefor
| vulnerable to conventional anti air defence. Before the start of
| the war experts where warning that russia could lock down the air
| space of the whole of europe. These single propeller planes can
| not be as fast as jet engines and need to be almost on top of
| their target to drop bombs on them? What is preventing Russia
| from building these things in the thousands and I don't know
| patrol the skies of eastern ukrain with it?
| outworlder wrote:
| > What is preventing Russia from building these things in the
| thousands and I don't know patrol the skies of eastern ukrain
| with it?
|
| You need to build them, you need to train operators, you need
| to deploy said operators. They are not autonomous.
|
| A better question is, if Russia's electronic warfare
| capabilities are so amazing, how are the drones even able to
| operate?
|
| We'll probably find out that the capabilities were either
| overstated, or not deployed nearly enough to matter. Pretty
| sure some AA battery money went to Yacht upkeep.
| blagie wrote:
| My suspicion is that the Russian weapons and munitions are
| fine, but that there isn't any coordination, integration,
| management, or planning. If I'm sitting at an S400, and I see
| a radar blip, I probably don't know if it's GA, commercial
| aviation, news helicopter, Russian military plane returning,
| or a Ukrainian drone. I just know something's flying.
|
| This is all speculation based on how I expect the governments
| there work.
|
| I suspect that if the Ukrainians wanted Russian munitions,
| they'd just need to wander over in Russian uniforms, and pick
| some up...
| robonerd wrote:
| > _Don 't these things show up on radar_
|
| I'm sure they do, but they're quite small and mostly made out
| of composites that are fairly transparent to radar. Their radar
| cross section must be very small compared to a gen 4 jet
| fighter.
|
| > _What is preventing Russia from building these things in the
| thousands and I don 't know patrol the skies of eastern ukrain
| with it?_
|
| Money, corruption, inertia, brain drain...
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Their radar cross section must be very small compared to a
| gen 4 jet fighter.
|
| Still not less than the most of missiles (engine, ordnance).
|
| The real problem is what it is not some video game, you don't
| have a "satellite view" with enemy units outlined with a red
| rectangles. Eg S300 was designed in 70s, it's _UI /UX_ is
| eye-watering.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| I wish more people would talk about the Switchblade loitering
| munitions (kamikaze) drones.
|
| We've already had western made drones on the battlefield for
| decades, this is nothing new, just much cheaper than what the
| west makes while doing the same job equally good.
|
| But the man portable kamikaze drones are the real game changer.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G9xLyNfPzQ
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv8Flu533xE
| famil wrote:
| Artillery with spotters accomplished the same task.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Except you can't survey an area with a an artillery warhead.
|
| Sure, you can use your spotters to scout ahead, but why put
| them in danger of an ambush and have them get killed by a
| sniper or hidden machinegun, when you can survey that area
| from a safe distance, and take out the sniper/machine gun if
| you see one?
|
| This is not meant to replace artillery battalions and scouts,
| but to complement them.
| greedo wrote:
| Cheaper to use a drone for spotting instead of a FIST unit.
| That's what's working for the UA.
|
| Kamikaze drones have a role for the smaller units, but at
| the battalion level, it's better to use a surveillance
| drone to coordinate fires from mortars, MLRS and artillery.
| The rounds fired from these systems typically have longer
| range than a drone, a higher rate of fire, and larger
| warheads.
| glogla wrote:
| I think these are pretty complementary. Switchblade 300
| is a 10km range Javelin (same warhead in fact) with
| integrated surveillance capability that can go beyond
| range of sight. It is not there to replace mortars,
| artillery and MRLS, which are area weapons.
| openasocket wrote:
| switchblade 600 has the Javelin-like warhead, switchblade
| 300 has something equivalent to a 40mm grenade for a
| warhead
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The 300 is the low collateral assassination drone when
| you can't use sword bombs.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Artillery has been used by Ukraine, and by a lesser
| extent by Russia, extremely effectively as a precision
| weapon against all kind of targets, including MBTs.
| thelittleone wrote:
| The switchblade 300 has the same warhead as a javelin?
| Got a source for that?
| foxyv wrote:
| It's the 600 with the tank buster.
| gpderetta wrote:
| In fact it seems to me that overall drones as artillery
| spotters have been much more impactful than direct fire
| drones in this war.
| jollybean wrote:
| Yes, except for the strategic things like hitting AA,
| ships etc..
| alkonaut wrote:
| You can survey with a drone. Merging the observation with
| the munition is what makes it a loitering munition, but
| drones for observation/targeting/correction + traditional
| corrected or guided artillery is very similar (especially
| guided shells like Excalibur etc which are also themselves
| similar to loitering munitions just that they loiter very
| briefly...)
| sitkack wrote:
| Same task, totally different logistics.
|
| You can put the spotter and the artillery in your backpack?
| The _task_ is only one part of the equation.
| melling wrote:
| I've heard varying numbers about the range of the artillery.
| Somewhere between 15 and 45 miles. Whatever the range,
| hundreds of drones covering the country could allow for
| extreme precision.
| melling wrote:
| I'm a little surprised that drones in Ukraine haven't been
| discussed widely on HN. Ukraine doesn't have the air force,
| pilots are expensive and take a lot of time of to train
|
| Here are a few interesting stories that I saw over the past
| couple of months
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us-rapidly-developed-ghost-dro...
|
| https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-technology-bu...
|
| https://www.popsci.com/aviation/black-hawk-helicopter-first-...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/24/ukraine-war-...
|
| Super cheap drones could make a difference too:
|
| https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-cheap-drones
|
| Something super simple with GPS for reconnaissance, for example
| thriftwy wrote:
| Ukraine did have some air force even in 2014 where its army was
| barely functioning, and it surely has air force now. What's
| left of it at this stage.
|
| Ukraine is a large country.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Ukraine doesn't have the air force
|
| Strange that their nonexistent air force has been getting
| transfers of spare parts so they can fly more of their
| nonexistent fighters.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/politics/ukraine-aircraft-spa...
| baybal2 wrote:
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Ukraine absolutely has an airforce. According to a recent CNN
| article, "In early March, about two weeks into the war, the
| defense official said Ukraine has 56 fighter aircraft, which
| composed about 80% of its fixed-wing fighters"
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/politics/ukraine-aircraft-spa...
| jollybean wrote:
| They are not flying a lot of missions. It was down to a few
| sorties a day.
|
| Neither Air Force is spending a lot of time in hotly
| contested territory.
|
| I suggest UKR AF is really just patrolling within the
| territory they control as a deterrent to Russian AF.
|
| But neither spending a lot of time directly in each other's
| turf.
|
| A bit sad UKR doesn't have better AA because Russia is flying
| a lot more sorties on their lines than they should be able to
| get away with. They are a bit too fast for MANPADs.
| 01100011 wrote:
| The UkAF literally bombed Snake Island the other day. They
| definitely have an air force.
| georgeg23 wrote:
| "Starlink helps Ukraine's elite drone unit target and destroy
| Russian tanks"
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/starlink-helps-u...
| throw93232 wrote:
| This drones are almost useless against modern army with good anti
| air defense.
|
| Here is Indian article with some technical details.
| https://www.defenceview.in/why-did-the-turkish-tb2-uav-sudde...
| bumby wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > _" Military analysts had previously assumed that slow, low-
| flying drones would be of little use in conventional combat,
| but the TB2 can take out the anti-aircraft systems that are
| designed to destroy it."_
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This seems superficially reasonable, but it looks like the TB2
| Bayraktar was used to bomb the fuel depot in Bryansk less than
| two weeks ago and that's 150km into Russia. They seemed to have
| used the TB2 the other day on Snake Island. As of a week ago
| there had been 6 internationally confirmed incidents where a
| Tb2 was shot down. They were known to have had at least 20 when
| the war started and have received more sense. So it doesn't
| seem like they've disappeared at all. So one can only assume
| that either Russia's air defense isn't as good as everyone
| thought, they aren't using it effectively, or the drone is
| harder to shoot down as operated than people thought.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > So one can only assume that either Russia's air defense
| isn't as good as everyone thought
|
| I think a big risk here is thinking that _only_ Russia is
| less competent than advertised. My guess is that 90% of
| professional militaries (at least those without a LOT of
| active recent combat) are Potemkin villages wholly incapable
| of operating as advertised.
|
| Against any of those militaries, things which really _should_
| not work, frequently will work fine.
| stult wrote:
| It's a very solvable problem though. At least for countries
| other than Russia, which might not be technically nimble
| enough to adapt mid-conflict and under a strong sanctions
| regime. S-300s/S-400s/Buks and the somewhat rarer western
| equivalents like the Patriot system just aren't designed to
| target something flying that slow with that small of a radar
| cross section. That doesn't mean the drones aren't reasonably
| easy to detect and target, just that the targeting systems
| need to be fine-tuned a little.
|
| I doubt NATO would have this problem, not only because Turkey
| is part of NATO but because US tactics would probably be more
| effective against similar drones. We rely on fighters to
| establish air superiority more than SAMs, while the Russians
| do the opposite. Worst case scenario, F-15s/16s/22s/35s can
| use cannons and pilots are more adaptable than radar systems.
| I also suspect that the F-35's sensors at least are far
| superior to whatever the Russians are relying on.
|
| I am also somewhat suspicious of the reports we have heard
| about them striking deep within Russian territory. Not
| because I doubt their veracity, but because I am certain we
| are not getting all of the relevant information. I wouldn't
| be surprised to find out if there was some supplementary SEAD
| (suppression of enemy air defense) going on that Ukraine and
| its western allies are remaining tight lipped about. It
| wouldn't shock me to find out that NATO has some clever trick
| for blinding Russian SAM radar in a way that the Russians
| haven't figured out yet. The Russians would never ever admit
| the existence of such a capability publicly because it would
| totally destroy demand for their military exports, and NATO
| wouldn't want to tip their hand in anyway that would give the
| Russians an opportunity to adapt.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > We rely on fighters to establish air superiority more
| than SAMs, while the Russians do the opposite. Worst case
| scenario, F-15s/16s/22s/35s can use cannons and pilots are
| more adaptable than radar systems. I also suspect that the
| F-35's sensors at least are far superior to whatever the
| Russians are relying on.
|
| Or just, ya know, shoot the damn thing.
|
| The specs are well within what you can expect to hit with
| with an "old enough they give them out like candy" AA gun.
| gpderetta wrote:
| The problem is that I think it is very hard for a modern
| fighter jet to engage a slow and low drone with a cannon.
| Probably it is easier with missles, but not very cost
| effective.
|
| Probably anti-drone drones or some sort of CIWS is going
| more effective.
| stult wrote:
| I mentioned cannons as the absolute worst case option in
| case US air-to-air missiles suffer from the same issues
| as Russian SAMs appear to, and from the perspective of
| extant US capabilities that could be adapted and rapidly
| fielded for immediate use. My ultimate point being that
| we're just way better positioned to handle these drones
| right now and into the near future than the Russians are
| or will be.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _So one can only assume that either Russia 's air defense
| isn't as good as everyone thought, they aren't using it
| effectively, or the drone is harder to shoot down as operated
| than people thought._
|
| All of the above I bet.
| juanani wrote:
| ch4s3 wrote:
| That's what seems to be the case, but I don't know enough
| to really make sense of it.
| gpderetta wrote:
| The problem with using AA against drones is that saturating
| an area with very cheap drones is a great way to depleting
| the AA resources, as the Armenians unfortunately found out.
| throwaway98314 wrote:
| ilamont wrote:
| _A Patriot missile - usually priced at about $3m (PS2.5m) - was
| used to shoot down a small quadcopter drone, according to a US
| general. The strike was made by a US ally, Gen David Perkins
| told a military symposium. "That quadcopter that cost 200 bucks
| from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a Patriot," he
| said._
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39277940 (2017)
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Assuming 10,000 patriot missiles have been manufactured[1],
| it would cost only $2 million in quadcopters[2] to deplete
| the entire missile supply? What a bargain!
|
| 1. apologies for lacking a better source
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
|
| 2. i.e. 2/3rds the cost of a single missile
| duskwuff wrote:
| Not to mention the possibility of operating swarms of
| drones to overwhelm air defenses. If an attacker can launch
| one drone for $200, it isn't much harder for them to launch
| fifty for $10,000 -- and it's a lot harder (and more
| expensive) to defend against.
| Seanambers wrote:
| There are systems in the west that can counter drones much
| more economically. Heres Rheinmetals Oerlikon Skynex for
| instance ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DXpPmpmcak Long
| range missiles, Short range missiles, Lasers and electronic
| warfare modules in combination for static defence. I would
| assume that the U.S also has similar concepts.
| stefan_ wrote:
| That's funny because there is countless footage of TB2 blowing
| up the very systems that are meant to defeat them so easily.
| What's the obsession in India with Ukrainian ops? Is it just a
| government desperately needing to justify it's wholly Russian-
| built army?
| outworlder wrote:
| Maybe a little deeper than that?
|
| https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/indias-response-to-the-
| ukrai...
| more_corn wrote:
| The article describes how they've fared far better than
| expected against good air defense. For example flying an
| unmanned crop duster in, drawing missile fire, taking out
| missile battery.
| jollybean wrote:
| Countermeasures will evolve quickly.
|
| What will 'change things' is when China makes these and sends
| 1000 of them to Taiwan all at once with another few thousand in
| reserve.
|
| The cost/scale/saturation issue hasn't really been explored.
|
| Notably - the 'West' is helpless to support Ukraine because
| nobody has anything useful except the Americans who have mostly
| 'super high end gear'.
|
| It'd be nice to see Ukraine being brought onto F-series jets,
| predators and other gear sooner than later.
|
| The other glaring hole is AA - Patriots are really expensive and
| there's only a few of them, this feels like a weakness to me in
| that Russia could feasibly strike those and then what?
|
| There's a 'mid market' of gear that needs to be sorted out.
|
| Finally - artillery - it's not going away, we're struggling to
| get Ukraine what amounts to almost ancient tech.
|
| NATO should have 100's of M777's in reserve, precisely for these
| occasions, i.e. to lend out as necessary.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the 'West' is helpless to support Ukraine because nobody has
| anything useful_
|
| Are we watching the same war?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-09 23:02 UTC)