5 ms·

> Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. Even worse: Advancing missile technology has mostly invalidated the need for aircraft i

> Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. Even worse: Advancing missile technology has mostly invalidated the need for aircraft in a major war since a long while, and drones will literally sweep what's left of it. The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever. The drones can travel 1700 km autonomously, very hard to jam, and they are cheaper than the missiles that are used to shoot them. So that at this point you could bankrupt an enemy by just sending drones. If they can destroy them, they go bankrupt due to missile costs. If they cant or dont, you hit all the targets. The only way to deal with this will be miniaturization of warfare, ie creation of mini drones and mini missiles to hunt drones. Which is still difficult to do and yet to be done because miniaturization is difficult. Aircraft are old news. If you can destroy a target by sending an autonomous drone that travels 1700km, which costs less than a fraction of one sortie of an aircraft, leave aside the cost of aircraft, its armament and pilot training, it means that drones rule warfare now.

eru 4y ago
> The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever. Do you have more information on that?
- unity1001 4y ago
  Not in easily accessible Western media, obviously. You have to follow Indian, Chinese or other unaligned sources. Indian outlets would be the easiest. However the best and most striking is to follow the Russian/Slavic channels in Telegram. The footage there is incredible (not gore). They post what Ukrainians post online - drones in flight just before hitting their target. Drones passing over. Multiple drones flying in and hitting their targets despite immense air defense fire. One drone even hit a weapons depot and the resulting fire from the explosion lasted for a day.
  - rnk 4y ago
    This is interesting news about the iranian drones I haven't read anywhere. Indian and Chinese media is widely available on the web, surprising this hasn't come up. Can you provide a link to some stories? My own web search found this in Politico. So I don't think it's a secret kept from western media. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/26/iranian-drones-ukraine-russia-war-00058802 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/26/iranian-drones-ukra...
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Note that in general media only covers stories that they want to see covered. Especially in a war, there will definitely be explicit pressure on how the war is covered, and most journalists are anyway aligned with their home countries even when there is no government pressure. So just like you wouldn't expect RT to cover Russian losses except perhaps in the most general terms, you shouldn't expect our own countries' losses to be covered by our own media other than in passing (even if it's obviously not as directly controlled as RT is).
    - unity1001 4y ago
      You can google 'Intel Slava Z' telegram channel and join it to access such stuff. Its one of the larger slavic intelligence channels. There are others too. Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers, and second, its something that Iran did, who is obviously evil according to such corporate Angloamerican media like the Politico. I have to add, following anything from such mainstream corporate Anglosaxon sources is as foolish as it was back in 2003. Back in 2003, there was more effort on the part of the establishment and the corporate media to keep a degree of reliability and trustworthiness. Today, its just emotional manipulation.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose armament makers are the competition to US armament makers, so that explanation seems inadequate and parochial. > Anglosaxon Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels that contribute nothing to the substance of your message right after the same regime whose propaganda substance you are echoing does so prominently with the exact same terms the same way in its propaganda.
  - piyushpr134 4y ago
    you can search on youtube too. For instance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fXYvjxtYg&ab_channel=Firstpost https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fXYvjxtYg&ab_channel=First...
    - agapon 4y ago
      That video looks more like a commercial than a report on the actual performance of those "suicide drones".
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > However the best and most striking is to follow the Russian/Slavic channels in Telegram. The footage there is incredible Social media video footage is a very good way to receive whatever emotional message the person who shot, edited, and published the video wants to convey. Its much less useful as a basis for strategic analysis of the value of weapon systems.
- agapon 4y ago
  They are not that amazing. At least those that are being most commonly used now, Shahed-136 "rebranded" as Geran-2 in Russia. They are rather slow and very noisy . Ukraine claims that 29 of them were shot down while 12 hit their targets. They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer. BTW, people in Ukraine call those Shaheds "mopeds" because of their engine sound.
  - agapon 4y ago
    https://mil.in.ua/en/news/a-video-featuring-the-destruction-of-the-iranian-shahed-136-uav-in-dnipropetrovsk-region-appeared/ https://mil.in.ua/en/news/a-video-featuring-the-destruction-...
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > Ukraine claims If we go by Ukraine's claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point. So, just forget that. > 12 hit their targets You don't seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap. > They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer. The actual videos from the front tell a different story.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > If we go by Ukraine’s claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point. Ukraine has never claimed an intent to enter Russian territory, so that is clearly false. > You don’t seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap. It is a demonstration that Ukraine’s air defenses have focused on what Russia had and was using previously, and not this particular threat. Israel’s performance against this and more advanced Iranian drones (and the fact that Israel keeps jets even though it is the world leader in this class of munitions) are pretty good signals that while these kind of munitions have a role in modern combat, they aren’t magic trump cards that replace manned jets in general, or even just for ground strike roles. This thread is a pretty good breakdown: https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/1574414714469335046 https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/1574414714469335046
mizzao 4y ago
Are you referring to the Turkish Bayraktars or a different drone?
- ivalm 4y ago
  No, Russians are buying Iranian drones that are surprisingly capable. Also funny that Russians are so behind the times that they need to buy advanced military tech from Iran. Edit: apparently Russians have advanced but uneconomical drones, Iran strikes a better balance!
  - unity1001 4y ago
    That's not the case. Russian suicide drones seem to be WAY too advanced - it is said that they are so silent that you can't even hear them until they dive for the hit. From there comes the advantage of the Iranian drones - they make a lot of noise and you can hear them from miles away. But they are WAY cheaper. So you can just swarm the air defences using them. And if the enemy actually uses missiles to hit them, it evaluates to a result like the Iranian drone having shot down the more expensive defense missile because the drone is way cheaper. ... Iran defense industry just proved that in the current environment there is no need for drones to be that advanced like Russians' drones: The existing defense setups are SO unprepared and so behind in countering drone technology that you can just use simple, cheap drones to hit targets. And even more when you use swarms. Then again, that's good engineering. It means that Iranians well-engineered their drones according to the existing circumstances.
    - ivalm 4y ago
      Ok, this is an interesting and nuanced post, thank you for the explanation, I edited my post!
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      I feel this has not shaken out properly yet. Obviously (to me) there is another yet-to-be-invented drone counter battery which is not yet invented. Probably smaller drones dive bombing onto the Iranian drones.
hef19898 4y ago
Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much. And all major powers are only developing new generation fighters, bombers and tanks to keep the military-industrial complex busy. Or not. A Javelin can take out a tank, but not replace it. A drone, or cruise missile, can take a ground target, a missile can take out aircraft, but they cannot replace their roles. The reason tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is a combination of bad docteine / tactics and deployment, the use of quasi obsolete models and the large scale use of last gen anti-tank weapons. The reason nobody has airial superiority is somewhat similar, near equal tech, decent air defence and comparable numbers. As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. Stealth, and I am not a real proponent of that and still have to see the advantage it gives you, means one of the following scenarios will happen (assuming near peer adversaries): - Gen 5 vs. Gen 4 (stealth vs. non-stealth, or rather low detectability): Gen 5 sees Gen 4 first, shoots multiple missiles, Gen 4 takes losses before they can counter attack -> Gen 4 retreats / is out of the fight (no dogfight) or Gen 4 is cought, numerically superior, closes in with Gen 5 and you have a dogfight - Gen 4 vs. Gen 4: Everyone detects everyone at a large distance, missiles are fired, some losses occure (everyone can react so becasue they are not surprised), parties close in, you have a dog fight (assuming no onr retreats first) - Gen 5 vs. Gen 5: Parties detect each other very late and close, you almost have a dogfight from the get go So no, fighters aren't going away nor are dogfights.
- int_19h 4y ago
  To some extent, the reason why tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is because that's not actually unexpected in a peer-to-peer conflict. It's just that it's been so long since the Cold War, we kinda forgot what anticipated losses in a war like that look like. Same goes for aircraft.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much I wouldnt go THAT far yet because there are still some uses for the aircraft. Especially very long range missions are economical by using aircraft. Ie, 2000 km and more ranges. Including interception and air defense. There are missiles that can travel such distances, but they are expensive still. However true, very soon that kind of range will also be covered by drones, making aircraft totall obsolete. > As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. That was a time in which the missiles were still in their infancy. Hence the miss rate and the need to dogfight. Today its not like that. > one of the following scenarios will happen I propose that none of those scenarios will happen. Existing air defense systems now can reach distances up to 500 km and shoot down literally, actually anything. (S-500 and above). Suicide drones can travel 1700 km. Strike drones even more. There is no need to have any aircraft take off and do mission at a long distance, in which they would get promptly shot down by advanced air defense systems. Just spam drones.
dotancohen 4y ago
> So that at this point you could bankrupt an enemy by just sending drones Isn't this already the case with the Hamas rockets and the Iron Dome? The Hamas rockets are sawed-down telephone poles, and the Iron Dome interceptors are $100,000 precision instruments.

eru 4y ago

> The Iranian drones' amazing performance in Ukraine shows that warfare has changed forever. Do you have more information on that?

unity1001 4y ago
Not in easily accessible Western media, obviously. You have to follow Indian, Chinese or other unaligned sources. Indian outlets would be the easiest. However the best and most striking is to follow the Russian/Slavic channels in Telegram. The footage there is incredible (not gore). They post what Ukrainians post online - drones in flight just before hitting their target. Drones passing over. Multiple drones flying in and hitting their targets despite immense air defense fire. One drone even hit a weapons depot and the resulting fire from the explosion lasted for a day.
- rnk 4y ago
  This is interesting news about the iranian drones I haven't read anywhere. Indian and Chinese media is widely available on the web, surprising this hasn't come up. Can you provide a link to some stories? My own web search found this in Politico. So I don't think it's a secret kept from western media. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/26/iranian-drones-ukraine-russia-war-00058802 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/26/iranian-drones-ukra...
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Note that in general media only covers stories that they want to see covered. Especially in a war, there will definitely be explicit pressure on how the war is covered, and most journalists are anyway aligned with their home countries even when there is no government pressure. So just like you wouldn't expect RT to cover Russian losses except perhaps in the most general terms, you shouldn't expect our own countries' losses to be covered by our own media other than in passing (even if it's obviously not as directly controlled as RT is).
  - unity1001 4y ago
    You can google 'Intel Slava Z' telegram channel and join it to access such stuff. Its one of the larger slavic intelligence channels. There are others too. Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers, and second, its something that Iran did, who is obviously evil according to such corporate Angloamerican media like the Politico. I have to add, following anything from such mainstream corporate Anglosaxon sources is as foolish as it was back in 2003. Back in 2003, there was more effort on the part of the establishment and the corporate media to keep a degree of reliability and trustworthiness. Today, its just emotional manipulation.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Such stuff wouldnt be in mass media ever because first, it reduces the competition chances of US armament makers Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose armament makers are the competition to US armament makers, so that explanation seems inadequate and parochial. > Anglosaxon Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels that contribute nothing to the substance of your message right after the same regime whose propaganda substance you are echoing does so prominently with the exact same terms the same way in its propaganda.
- piyushpr134 4y ago
  you can search on youtube too. For instance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fXYvjxtYg&ab_channel=Firstpost https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fXYvjxtYg&ab_channel=First...
  - agapon 4y ago
    That video looks more like a commercial than a report on the actual performance of those "suicide drones".
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > However the best and most striking is to follow the Russian/Slavic channels in Telegram. The footage there is incredible Social media video footage is a very good way to receive whatever emotional message the person who shot, edited, and published the video wants to convey. Its much less useful as a basis for strategic analysis of the value of weapon systems.
agapon 4y ago
They are not that amazing. At least those that are being most commonly used now, Shahed-136 "rebranded" as Geran-2 in Russia. They are rather slow and very noisy . Ukraine claims that 29 of them were shot down while 12 hit their targets. They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer. BTW, people in Ukraine call those Shaheds "mopeds" because of their engine sound.
- agapon 4y ago
  https://mil.in.ua/en/news/a-video-featuring-the-destruction-of-the-iranian-shahed-136-uav-in-dnipropetrovsk-region-appeared/ https://mil.in.ua/en/news/a-video-featuring-the-destruction-...
- unity1001 4y ago
  > Ukraine claims If we go by Ukraine's claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point. So, just forget that. > 12 hit their targets You don't seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap. > They had a benefit of surprise when they started being used, but not any longer. The actual videos from the front tell a different story.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > If we go by Ukraine’s claims, they should have been at the gates of Moscow at this point. Ukraine has never claimed an intent to enter Russian territory, so that is clearly false. > You don’t seem to be aware that even if we trusted that number from Ukraine itself, it would still qualify as a majestic performance since the drones are dirt cheap. It is a demonstration that Ukraine’s air defenses have focused on what Russia had and was using previously, and not this particular threat. Israel’s performance against this and more advanced Iranian drones (and the fact that Israel keeps jets even though it is the world leader in this class of munitions) are pretty good signals that while these kind of munitions have a role in modern combat, they aren’t magic trump cards that replace manned jets in general, or even just for ground strike roles. This thread is a pretty good breakdown: https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/1574414714469335046 https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/1574414714469335046

mizzao 4y ago

Are you referring to the Turkish Bayraktars or a different drone?

ivalm 4y ago
No, Russians are buying Iranian drones that are surprisingly capable. Also funny that Russians are so behind the times that they need to buy advanced military tech from Iran. Edit: apparently Russians have advanced but uneconomical drones, Iran strikes a better balance!
- unity1001 4y ago
  That's not the case. Russian suicide drones seem to be WAY too advanced - it is said that they are so silent that you can't even hear them until they dive for the hit. From there comes the advantage of the Iranian drones - they make a lot of noise and you can hear them from miles away. But they are WAY cheaper. So you can just swarm the air defences using them. And if the enemy actually uses missiles to hit them, it evaluates to a result like the Iranian drone having shot down the more expensive defense missile because the drone is way cheaper. ... Iran defense industry just proved that in the current environment there is no need for drones to be that advanced like Russians' drones: The existing defense setups are SO unprepared and so behind in countering drone technology that you can just use simple, cheap drones to hit targets. And even more when you use swarms. Then again, that's good engineering. It means that Iranians well-engineered their drones according to the existing circumstances.
  - ivalm 4y ago
    Ok, this is an interesting and nuanced post, thank you for the explanation, I edited my post!
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    I feel this has not shaken out properly yet. Obviously (to me) there is another yet-to-be-invented drone counter battery which is not yet invented. Probably smaller drones dive bombing onto the Iranian drones.

hef19898 4y ago

Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much. And all major powers are only developing new generation fighters, bombers and tanks to keep the military-industrial complex busy. Or not. A Javelin can take out a tank, but not replace it. A drone, or cruise missile, can take a ground target, a missile can take out aircraft, but they cannot replace their roles. The reason tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is a combination of bad docteine / tactics and deployment, the use of quasi obsolete models and the large scale use of last gen anti-tank weapons. The reason nobody has airial superiority is somewhat similar, near equal tech, decent air defence and comparable numbers. As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. Stealth, and I am not a real proponent of that and still have to see the advantage it gives you, means one of the following scenarios will happen (assuming near peer adversaries): - Gen 5 vs. Gen 4 (stealth vs. non-stealth, or rather low detectability): Gen 5 sees Gen 4 first, shoots multiple missiles, Gen 4 takes losses before they can counter attack -> Gen 4 retreats / is out of the fight (no dogfight) or Gen 4 is cought, numerically superior, closes in with Gen 5 and you have a dogfight - Gen 4 vs. Gen 4: Everyone detects everyone at a large distance, missiles are fired, some losses occure (everyone can react so becasue they are not surprised), parties close in, you have a dog fight (assuming no onr retreats first) - Gen 5 vs. Gen 5: Parties detect each other very late and close, you almost have a dogfight from the get go So no, fighters aren't going away nor are dogfights.

int_19h 4y ago
To some extent, the reason why tanks get destroyed left and right in Ukraine is because that's not actually unexpected in a peer-to-peer conflict. It's just that it's been so long since the Cold War, we kinda forgot what anticipated losses in a war like that look like. Same goes for aircraft.
unity1001 4y ago
> Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much I wouldnt go THAT far yet because there are still some uses for the aircraft. Especially very long range missions are economical by using aircraft. Ie, 2000 km and more ranges. Including interception and air defense. There are missiles that can travel such distances, but they are expensive still. However true, very soon that kind of range will also be covered by drones, making aircraft totall obsolete. > As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat. That was a time in which the missiles were still in their infancy. Hence the miss rate and the need to dogfight. Today its not like that. > one of the following scenarios will happen I propose that none of those scenarios will happen. Existing air defense systems now can reach distances up to 500 km and shoot down literally, actually anything. (S-500 and above). Suicide drones can travel 1700 km. Strike drones even more. There is no need to have any aircraft take off and do mission at a long distance, in which they would get promptly shot down by advanced air defense systems. Just spam drones.

dotancohen 4y ago

> So that at this point you could bankrupt an enemy by just sending drones Isn't this already the case with the Hamas rockets and the Iron Dome? The Hamas rockets are sawed-down telephone poles, and the Iron Dome interceptors are $100,000 precision instruments.