3 ms·

Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful: slow, short-range, suspectible to bad weather and visibility, and carrying too small warhead

Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful: slow, short-range, suspectible to bad weather and visibility, and carrying too small warhead. So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately.

nikita2206 5y ago
I think this war shows how useful they are in urban combat, not a place where ballistic missile speeds and range are relevant. Small warhead would be a feature in close combat.
- deepsun 4y ago
  In modern wars, Russians solve the urban problem by converting urban landscape to rural (aka groznyfication). See Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol. And ballistic missiles are not for the task -- too funky and expensive, they are used to strike fuel/amunition storages. For urban warfare they use howitzers, mortars and 500/1000/2000kg air bombs.
qiskit 5y ago
Guns/muskets weren't that useful initially either. But the potential was there. Bows and arrows proved to be more effective for 100+ years before guns eventually won out. > So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. No. It's like using a nail gun rather than a hammer. > There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately. But none with the potential of drones and swarms. Cheap, easy to replace units that could fly, provide recoissance along with offensive/defensive capabilities. And it's just the beginning. I suspect most armies, law enforcement, private mercenaries, mall cops, etc will be using drones in the future.
sangnoir 5y ago
> Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful I'm going to copy an analogy I saw elsewhere: what we're seeing now is the equivalent of how planes were used in WWI; slow, not very effective, with limited range and roles. By the time WWII came around, there was technological and strategic improvements leading to to high-alt bombers, fighter escorts, dive bombers and jet engines. Nothing a WWI pilot would recognize. Drones will likely evolve in ways that would make their current use seem quaint.

nikita2206 5y ago

I think this war shows how useful they are in urban combat, not a place where ballistic missile speeds and range are relevant. Small warhead would be a feature in close combat.

deepsun 4y ago
In modern wars, Russians solve the urban problem by converting urban landscape to rural (aka groznyfication). See Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol. And ballistic missiles are not for the task -- too funky and expensive, they are used to strike fuel/amunition storages. For urban warfare they use howitzers, mortars and 500/1000/2000kg air bombs.

qiskit 5y ago

Guns/muskets weren't that useful initially either. But the potential was there. Bows and arrows proved to be more effective for 100+ years before guns eventually won out. > So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. No. It's like using a nail gun rather than a hammer. > There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately. But none with the potential of drones and swarms. Cheap, easy to replace units that could fly, provide recoissance along with offensive/defensive capabilities. And it's just the beginning. I suspect most armies, law enforcement, private mercenaries, mall cops, etc will be using drones in the future.

sangnoir 5y ago

> Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful I'm going to copy an analogy I saw elsewhere: what we're seeing now is the equivalent of how planes were used in WWI; slow, not very effective, with limited range and roles. By the time WWII came around, there was technological and strategic improvements leading to to high-alt bombers, fighter escorts, dive bombers and jet engines. Nothing a WWI pilot would recognize. Drones will likely evolve in ways that would make their current use seem quaint.