4 ms·

> [Peter Zeihan] says they're mopeds with wings, and a third rate US factory could churn them out, but Russia can't build them. Who is he to make a technical e

> [Peter Zeihan] says they're mopeds with wings, and a third rate US factory could churn them out, but Russia can't build them. Who is he to make a technical evaluation of drone quality? Americans are very biased to assume everything made by anyone besides their first-world allies is crap, and IMHO that kind of thinking will be their undoing. Russia is adapting to sudden supply chain constraints it was obviously unprepared for, and Iran almost certainly has a lot more experience dealing with (and working around) them. Russia could have all the skill in the world, but they won't be able to build anything if they can't source some critical part for their existing designs. If Iran has the parts for their designs, they can build.

WJW 4y ago
Honestly they are kind of crap in the sense that they really are mopeds with wings, which have sometimes even been shot out of the air by policemen with small arms. They are decidedly not crap in the sense that the type of air defense most nations have developed so far will struggle engaging such drones cost effectively. If you use a 500k missile to shoot down a 20k drone, that is a win for the drone operator. If you don't shoot it down and it severely damages a 10m power plant, that is also a win for the drone operator. The aircraft vs air defense arms race in the past couple of decades has been towards more capable (and thus more expensive) platforms on both sides, leaving room for this kind of cheap drone on the bottom of the market. There are plenty of systems that can cost-effectively engage drones though, from old-style flak guns to other cheap drones to (in the future) lasers. It is only a matter of time before the West finds proper countermeasures.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  The last part is wishful thinking. The Germans found no counter measures for tanks in WWI and neither did the French in WWII. The only viable counter to tanks between 1915 and 1955 were more tanks as the USSR and US showed.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    Bazooka? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka Molotov cocktail? "the time-honored anti-tank weapon of last resort." https://www.thearmorylife.com/molotov-cocktail-vs-tank-a-history-of-this-desperate-measure/ https://www.thearmorylife.com/molotov-cocktail-vs-tank-a-his...
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      I think the key word is "viable." IIRC the Bazooka was better than nothing but not particularly effective. And your quote's characterization of the Molotov cocktail as a "weapon of last resort" speaks to its ineffectiveness.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Tank destroyers. Towable anti-tank guns. And, ultimate, the reason you have to keep your opponent from gaining air superiority (if not gain it yourself) to operate tanks effectively: CAS aircraft.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    In WWI the Germans developed very effective anti-tank rifles. In WWII French tanks were generally superior to German tanks, it was in fact the Germans who found the effective counter measure - combined arms. Anti-tank guns and especially shaped charge warheads rendered tanks without proper infantry support all but useless.
  - WJW 4y ago
    I see what you mean but think that it is not applicable to the current drone situation in Ukraine. It is quite possible to shoot down these drones, it is merely difficult to do so cost effectively with the means they have at the moment. An old-style flak gun coupled to a basic anti-air radar would probably work just fine and is definitely not out of reach for the West to build; the challenge is to get enough of those out in the field quickly enough. Something like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard would be an absolute beast against simple drones, but according to the wiki the Ukrainians only have about 30 of them and they are limited to ~5 km range. They would need a lot more, which would take some time to acquire. Then again you could dispense with the tracked undercarriage for defending static objects like power plants, so just getting the guns would be enough.

WJW 4y ago

Honestly they are kind of crap in the sense that they really are mopeds with wings, which have sometimes even been shot out of the air by policemen with small arms. They are decidedly not crap in the sense that the type of air defense most nations have developed so far will struggle engaging such drones cost effectively. If you use a 500k missile to shoot down a 20k drone, that is a win for the drone operator. If you don't shoot it down and it severely damages a 10m power plant, that is also a win for the drone operator. The aircraft vs air defense arms race in the past couple of decades has been towards more capable (and thus more expensive) platforms on both sides, leaving room for this kind of cheap drone on the bottom of the market. There are plenty of systems that can cost-effectively engage drones though, from old-style flak guns to other cheap drones to (in the future) lasers. It is only a matter of time before the West finds proper countermeasures.

thrown_22 4y ago
The last part is wishful thinking. The Germans found no counter measures for tanks in WWI and neither did the French in WWII. The only viable counter to tanks between 1915 and 1955 were more tanks as the USSR and US showed.
- mellavora 4y ago
  Bazooka? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka Molotov cocktail? "the time-honored anti-tank weapon of last resort." https://www.thearmorylife.com/molotov-cocktail-vs-tank-a-history-of-this-desperate-measure/ https://www.thearmorylife.com/molotov-cocktail-vs-tank-a-his...
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    I think the key word is "viable." IIRC the Bazooka was better than nothing but not particularly effective. And your quote's characterization of the Molotov cocktail as a "weapon of last resort" speaks to its ineffectiveness.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Tank destroyers. Towable anti-tank guns. And, ultimate, the reason you have to keep your opponent from gaining air superiority (if not gain it yourself) to operate tanks effectively: CAS aircraft.
- jjk166 4y ago
  In WWI the Germans developed very effective anti-tank rifles. In WWII French tanks were generally superior to German tanks, it was in fact the Germans who found the effective counter measure - combined arms. Anti-tank guns and especially shaped charge warheads rendered tanks without proper infantry support all but useless.
- WJW 4y ago
  I see what you mean but think that it is not applicable to the current drone situation in Ukraine. It is quite possible to shoot down these drones, it is merely difficult to do so cost effectively with the means they have at the moment. An old-style flak gun coupled to a basic anti-air radar would probably work just fine and is definitely not out of reach for the West to build; the challenge is to get enough of those out in the field quickly enough. Something like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard would be an absolute beast against simple drones, but according to the wiki the Ukrainians only have about 30 of them and they are limited to ~5 km range. They would need a lot more, which would take some time to acquire. Then again you could dispense with the tracked undercarriage for defending static objects like power plants, so just getting the guns would be enough.