3 ms·

> Drones cannot be massed because they interfere with one another in the electromagnetic spectrum. They also require a significant number of people to operate c

> Drones cannot be massed because they interfere with one another in the electromagnetic spectrum. They also require a significant number of people to operate compared to artillery. I think we've all seen these drone shows, where a large swarm maneuvers to make shapes in the sky, right? We're not far at all from one operator controlling a swarm, capable of pre-programmed formations and maneuvers. The economies of scale work overwhelmingly in favour of drones -- small, light, disposable.

createdapril24 2y ago
In theory, sure, but those swarm shows are pre-programmed: they aren't reacting dynamically to a (chaotic) situation on the ground and they aren't communicating with operators. There's some far-flung future in which drones are fully autonomous and in fact don't even need antennas. At that point it's possible they can be massed. But it's a bit of a science fiction. At least, there isn't any such product available (commercial or military) and this isn't how drones are being used in war. For economies of scale - true also of artillery and other equipment! The more you can scale production the more cost-effective the weapon. As mentioned, drones in the Russo-Ukraine war are starting to see their cost-effectiveness wane due to having to become larger (larger munitions, large antennas, etc), heaver (bigger batteries, larger munitions, etc), and non-disposable (high cost frequency hopping gear, difficult to find munitions, difficult to source batteries, etc). Giant technological leaps could happen, but it's nerve wracking to bet the outcome of a war on something like that.
yencabulator 2y ago
Meanwhile, the front line troops are reporting that almost all the drones are FPV guided. Computer vision apparently just isn't good enough to fly in through a doorway, like the FPV drones are used. (Sure, you could make a cluster of GPUs do that, in a test. It's completely different to do it in war.)

createdapril24 2y ago

In theory, sure, but those swarm shows are pre-programmed: they aren't reacting dynamically to a (chaotic) situation on the ground and they aren't communicating with operators. There's some far-flung future in which drones are fully autonomous and in fact don't even need antennas. At that point it's possible they can be massed. But it's a bit of a science fiction. At least, there isn't any such product available (commercial or military) and this isn't how drones are being used in war. For economies of scale - true also of artillery and other equipment! The more you can scale production the more cost-effective the weapon. As mentioned, drones in the Russo-Ukraine war are starting to see their cost-effectiveness wane due to having to become larger (larger munitions, large antennas, etc), heaver (bigger batteries, larger munitions, etc), and non-disposable (high cost frequency hopping gear, difficult to find munitions, difficult to source batteries, etc). Giant technological leaps could happen, but it's nerve wracking to bet the outcome of a war on something like that.

yencabulator 2y ago

Meanwhile, the front line troops are reporting that almost all the drones are FPV guided. Computer vision apparently just isn't good enough to fly in through a doorway, like the FPV drones are used. (Sure, you could make a cluster of GPUs do that, in a test. It's completely different to do it in war.)