4 ms·

I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. But aga

I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. Still have to fear the EMP though.

nradov 5y ago
The only way to generate a significant EMP is with a nuclear weapon, at which point you have bigger problems than drone swarms. Non-nuclear EMP weapons do exist but the effects don't extend very far.
imtringued 5y ago
>But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. I don't know why people insist on flying grenades with lots of electronics. That is very expensive. It would be more logical to use the drones for physical target acquisition and surveillance and then use an actual grenade launcher or other conventional weapons to do the killing blow.
- mLuby 5y ago
  You're right. But if the target is on the fourth floor of an eight story building, a drone (or human) might be the only way to get the weapon there. Slaughterbots provide better leverage of air superiority than current missile-based options.
credit_guy 5y ago
> I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. Maybe you're thinking of sub-$1000 quadcopter-type drones. I'm thinking of fixed wing drones, something like the Houthi Samad [1] or the Iranian Shahed [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza

nradov 5y ago

The only way to generate a significant EMP is with a nuclear weapon, at which point you have bigger problems than drone swarms. Non-nuclear EMP weapons do exist but the effects don't extend very far.

imtringued 5y ago

>But against small units of well dug in, or hidden enemies - mortars, snipers or troops in trenches, I'm sure they'd be great. I'm thinking basically a grenade with wings that can hover, spot a target and be guided by an operator ~1km away. I don't know why people insist on flying grenades with lots of electronics. That is very expensive. It would be more logical to use the drones for physical target acquisition and surveillance and then use an actual grenade launcher or other conventional weapons to do the killing blow.

mLuby 5y ago
You're right. But if the target is on the fourth floor of an eight story building, a drone (or human) might be the only way to get the weapon there. Slaughterbots provide better leverage of air superiority than current missile-based options.

credit_guy 5y ago

> I'm not sure that these drone 'swarms' are going to have enough of a payload to take out anything significant like strong armour or heavy emplacements. Maybe you're thinking of sub-$1000 quadcopter-type drones. I'm thinking of fixed wing drones, something like the Houthi Samad [1] or the Iranian Shahed [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samad_(UAV) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_149_Gaza