4 ms·

hapless Russians Or, you know, hapless Ukrainians. Ukrainians may have been quicker to innovate in this area but that was a long time ago.

nvy 3y ago
>Or, you know, hapless Ukrainians. Ukrainians may have been quicker to innovate in this area but that was a long time ago. What's your point?
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage.
  - rainworld 3y ago
    Indeed. There’s a pervasive social media-fuelled notion of superiority in this area that does not reflect reality. It hardly gets more one-sided than /r/RussiaUkraineWar2022.
    - nvy 3y ago
      I don't think I suggested the Ukrainians have superiority at all. If anything the fact that the Russians, despite their staggering incompetence, can employ drones effectively suggests that this new weapon system is an even more significant threat. As for my choice of subreddit, I'm well aware that it's biased. But I'd rather watch Russian occupiers get killed than Ukrainians fighting for their right to exist.
      - rainworld 3y ago
        despite their staggering incompetence Easy on the hubris.
        nvy 3y ago
        Your precious Russia went from "we'll take Kyiv in 3 days" to, more than a year later, still being unable to achieve air superiority and fielding T-55 museum pieces as its soldiers eat moldy rations. That is complete and utter incompetence from what everyone thought was a major global power.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage. It may not be, but only one side is using them to inflict damage that is upwards of 100M+ USD at a time (on occasion). The Russian use of drones appears to be less effective then the Ukrainian use for whatever reason. Its crazy that a 100k drone can destroy planes that are worth tens of millions of dollars that kind of price difference will surely change some ways that wars are fought.
    - rainworld 3y ago
      on occasion Exactly. These are stunts designed to keep morale high, in Ukraine and the West. Their impact on the outcome of the war is negligible. These are Ukraine + NATO dealing as much damage as they think they can get away with. And Russia absorbing the blows because the alternative—open conflict with NATO and curtailing the freedoms of millions of Ukrainians in Russia[0]—is considered a worse option. For now at least. The Russian use of drones appears to be less effective then the Ukrainian use for whatever reason. But thanks to the censorship in place we wouldn’t know, would we? In fact, Ukrainian officials have admitted more than once that the Russians know exactly what they are hitting. And the effectiveness of Ukrainian air defense is obviously way exaggerated.[1] The fact that Ukrainians have admittedly lost more than one fighter jet trying to shoot down drones and cruise missiles is telling. will surely change some ways that wars are fought Yes. No one is safe from this, every defense can be (fairly cheaply) overwhelmed. But the situation here is unique in that Ukrainians can pretend they are not paying the price, and Russia does not respond with significant escalation. For now at least. As for NATO, well, they are paying a price. Bunkers containing NATO officers have been busted. Flimsy cover stories of freak accidents. Remember that B-2 going up in flames? Happened shortly after the attacks on Russian nuclear bases. Predictable, professional, restrained. All in all it’s something, but not enough to deter NATO, or even stop them from escalating slowly. But then "Putin is someone who generally thinks that revenge is a dish best served cold," [CIA director] Burns said at an annual security forum in Aspen. [0]: For these attacks usually have a local component. And from the flight patterns of NATO planes we can tell that Western ISR is essential to attacks on Crimea, for example. [1]: A thing never talked about is the price paid by civilians. For there is a cost if you do AD over populated areas, you are trading civilians for military targets. Which, 18 months in, shouldn’t be located in cities in the first place. Random impacts of AD missiles, both Soviet and Western, are well documented. As are impacts of debris and downed missiles/drones, of course.
deeviant 3y ago
What exact point are you trying to make? Why do you say the innovation was a long time ago? Drone warfare, on both sides, is literally evolving before our very eyes on daily basis. All the words militaries are taking extensive notes and it's pretty obvious the small scale drones are the future of warfare, or at least the ability to deal with them.

nvy 3y ago

>Or, you know, hapless Ukrainians. Ukrainians may have been quicker to innovate in this area but that was a long time ago. What's your point?

chrisco255 3y ago
Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage.
- rainworld 3y ago
  Indeed. There’s a pervasive social media-fuelled notion of superiority in this area that does not reflect reality. It hardly gets more one-sided than /r/RussiaUkraineWar2022.
  - nvy 3y ago
    I don't think I suggested the Ukrainians have superiority at all. If anything the fact that the Russians, despite their staggering incompetence, can employ drones effectively suggests that this new weapon system is an even more significant threat. As for my choice of subreddit, I'm well aware that it's biased. But I'd rather watch Russian occupiers get killed than Ukrainians fighting for their right to exist.
    - rainworld 3y ago
      despite their staggering incompetence Easy on the hubris.
      - nvy 3y ago
        Your precious Russia went from "we'll take Kyiv in 3 days" to, more than a year later, still being unable to achieve air superiority and fielding T-55 museum pieces as its soldiers eat moldy rations. That is complete and utter incompetence from what everyone thought was a major global power.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage. It may not be, but only one side is using them to inflict damage that is upwards of 100M+ USD at a time (on occasion). The Russian use of drones appears to be less effective then the Ukrainian use for whatever reason. Its crazy that a 100k drone can destroy planes that are worth tens of millions of dollars that kind of price difference will surely change some ways that wars are fought.
  - rainworld 3y ago
    on occasion Exactly. These are stunts designed to keep morale high, in Ukraine and the West. Their impact on the outcome of the war is negligible. These are Ukraine + NATO dealing as much damage as they think they can get away with. And Russia absorbing the blows because the alternative—open conflict with NATO and curtailing the freedoms of millions of Ukrainians in Russia[0]—is considered a worse option. For now at least. The Russian use of drones appears to be less effective then the Ukrainian use for whatever reason. But thanks to the censorship in place we wouldn’t know, would we? In fact, Ukrainian officials have admitted more than once that the Russians know exactly what they are hitting. And the effectiveness of Ukrainian air defense is obviously way exaggerated.[1] The fact that Ukrainians have admittedly lost more than one fighter jet trying to shoot down drones and cruise missiles is telling. will surely change some ways that wars are fought Yes. No one is safe from this, every defense can be (fairly cheaply) overwhelmed. But the situation here is unique in that Ukrainians can pretend they are not paying the price, and Russia does not respond with significant escalation. For now at least. As for NATO, well, they are paying a price. Bunkers containing NATO officers have been busted. Flimsy cover stories of freak accidents. Remember that B-2 going up in flames? Happened shortly after the attacks on Russian nuclear bases. Predictable, professional, restrained. All in all it’s something, but not enough to deter NATO, or even stop them from escalating slowly. But then "Putin is someone who generally thinks that revenge is a dish best served cold," [CIA director] Burns said at an annual security forum in Aspen. [0]: For these attacks usually have a local component. And from the flight patterns of NATO planes we can tell that Western ISR is essential to attacks on Crimea, for example. [1]: A thing never talked about is the price paid by civilians. For there is a cost if you do AD over populated areas, you are trading civilians for military targets. Which, 18 months in, shouldn’t be located in cities in the first place. Random impacts of AD missiles, both Soviet and Western, are well documented. As are impacts of debris and downed missiles/drones, of course.

deeviant 3y ago

What exact point are you trying to make? Why do you say the innovation was a long time ago? Drone warfare, on both sides, is literally evolving before our very eyes on daily basis. All the words militaries are taking extensive notes and it's pretty obvious the small scale drones are the future of warfare, or at least the ability to deal with them.