4 ms·

I'm terrified that America won't be able to match Chinese industrial capacity for killbot type drones. Does anyone know if anyone has stared the infrastructure

by Teever 2y ago

I'm terrified that America won't be able to match Chinese industrial capacity for killbot type drones. Does anyone know if anyone has stared the infrastructure to produce these things en masse in the US? If so, how can someone with heavy construction experience, CAD skills, and embedded experience become a part of that?

AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
It's a bit more complicated than just production capacity of shitty quadcopters. The limiting factor with them isn't the airframe, you can make that out of literal tree branches and duct tape. The part that's important is the chips and US leadership seems very intent on fixing that, the question is if they're capable of doing so. We also don't know what form drones will take as the technology matures. Quadcopters are common right now because they require exactly zero aerodynamic knowledge to build or fly. Any tween with an AliExpress+YouTube account could design, build, and fly all of the systems we've seen to date. As the systems become more automated in the face of EWAR, lasers, shotguns, whatever, expect a reversion to high speed fixed wing systems that trade a little bit of CDF knowledge for order-of-magnitude performance improvement in basically all realms (payload, range, endurance, speed, survivability etc).
- surfingdino 2y ago
  We are already working on unmanned autonomous drones the size of a fighter jet https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/19/us-air-force-stages-dogfights-with-ai-flown-fighter-jet/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/19/us-air-force-stag...
  - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
    I'm well aware, but that's not what the commenter was referring to.
- ramesh31 2y ago
  Quantity has a quality all its' own. A swarm of a thousand quadcopters negates any drawbacks you've mentioned, and would be cheaper than even a single Bayraktar or Reaper (not even including their 6 figure weapons payload). And we're already seeing drone carrying "motherships" that drop multiple quads and have RF repeaters to extend range to 50km+. It's a lot like the switch from battleships to aircraft carriers in the early 20th century. When a single squadron of cloth and wooden biplanes became capable of sinking a 50,000 ton armored warship that took 5 years to build, the writing was on the wall, and the countries who didn't adapt lost.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The USA isn't going to fight a trench warfare style war with China. We would fight a standoff/siege war and would overwhelm China's defenses and take out China's production capabilities. China's production is mainly in the east, whereas the USA's is spread out across the country. China imports it oil (making them susceptible to siege) while the USA is a net exporter. There is a reason we are developing Rapid Dragon (named after a Chinese siege weapon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) . It quickly converts our 1500+ supply chain heavy aircraft fleet into stand-off attack platforms.
  - rgmerk 2y ago
    War in East Asia, were it to happen, will be nothing like war in Europe - as was the case in WWII.
  - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
    I'm still talking about the tiny high quantity quads, they can't do anything if they don't have the range to get from the launch location to the target and stand off range is the oldest advantage in warfare. I guarantee the ones fielded in the next ~5 years will start to look like the new high speed bullet quads but with a blended wing between the rotors so they're not wasting energy plowing diagonally through the air. You may see configurations that can tail stand or enter a hover briefly and some that fly entirely conventionally, but the current paradigm of quads hovering near targets is going to be short lived as defenses ratchet up. As I said, the chips are going to be the issue. If you can deploy a $200 Wish dot com wifi/gps jammer and take down every drone within 500m, again, quantity doesn't do anything. They'll be moving toward relying on spread spectrum and variations of basic image recognition up through spicier algorithms for localization and targeting.
surfingdino 2y ago
I am not worried. History likes to rhyme and I think China will do a switcheroo on Russia and align itself with the West for the purpose of dismantling Russia's military and industry, just like the Soviet Union switched sides from being an ally of Germany in 1939 to working with the Western Allies on breaking Germany's neck. The West will make some concessions, but they will be seen as worth the price of breaking Russia up.
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  Russia changed sides when Hitler invaded Russia. Not sure we can count on Putin making that mistake.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    All he has to do is fire one nuke and China will gladly listen to the US' suggestion that we should take these toys away from Russia.
    - dieortin 2y ago
      Russia is still the country with the highest amount of nuclear warheads on the planet. How would anyone “take them away”?
      - surfingdino 2y ago
        In exchange for food or being able to sell limited amounts of their natural resources in exchange for small amounts of hard currency. They are amazing at not being able to feed their population when they start a big war.
    - Teever 2y ago
      Nope, because then the US will be all in on Europe and Taiwan will be ripe for the picking.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Agreed. If you look back at the Cold War era, you'll lose count of the number of times China and Russia embraced each other with lofty rhetoric, each proclaiming to be the other's BFF, only to end up butting heads again after a few years.
atlasunshrugged 2y ago
There is the "replicator initiative" within the DOD but I have no idea if it's moving quickly or not. The U.S. defense establishment still seems stuck in a pattern of buying big extravagant and expensive systems (e.g. aircraft carriers, million dollar missiles) which are vulnerable to asymmetric attacks from low cost drones or land to sea based missiles. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12611 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12611
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
The USA wouldn't fight an 'in the trenches war' where drones will come into play. We would fight a stand off siege type war. Hence why we are developing Rapid Dragon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system), which would convert our entire logistics feel (something we excel at) into stand off bombers that would overwhelm Chinese defenses. We would effectively have an addition 1500 bombers in the form of C-130s, and 200+ C-17s. I'm guessing the system is named after an old Chinese siege weapon system to give China a message.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  And that fleet of ad hoc bombers would exhaust the entire supply of missiles in the first strike, leaving the surviving aircraft with nothing to do. Today the production capacity for all AGM-158 variants is ~500 missiles/year, with plans to increase it to 1000 missiles/year. In an all-out war, the right scale would be more like 1000 missiles/day.
  - Teever 2y ago
    For more on how dire this situation is with the American industrial capacity to produce missiles in a war with China check out this comprehensive report: https://features.csis.org/preparing-the-US-industrial-base-to-deter-conflict-with-China/ https://features.csis.org/preparing-the-US-industrial-base-t...
    - freshpretzels 2y ago
      I suspect that if this is being published, it's because they are already fixing the problem.
- maxglute 2y ago
  There's a reason LRIP for rapid dragon is molasses because planners recognize trying to move C130s and C17s in theatre is ridiculous. They all have to operate within 1IC to even be within standoff range to hit PRC MIC, well within operating ranges of J20 with PL17s specifically designed to pick off AWACs and other large targets like tankers... and rapid dragon. Like AGM158Bs with 1900km range (vs 1500km JASSMER for rapid dragon) is being made at... 5 per month. Until they pump that out to 100-1000s per month, it's token capability that's not being taken seriously. Not to mention US doesn't remotely have access to enough airfields in region or tanking capacity to deploy that much converted transport bomb trucks. US defense logistics is nice, but it pales to PRC mainland logistics designed to defeat the relative trickle of US standoff attacks airforce can actually deliver with basing US has access to, that itself is being targetted so US can't deliver any without hilariously inefficient/suboptimal tanking logistics from beyond 2 IC to the point it's likely not viable. Hence zerg rush to 100 B21 fleet. US fighting standoff war also throws allies / partners in region with security guarantee to the dogs. PRC going to start hitting US military infra in JP/SKR/PH to drag US into fighting in 1IC.
MaxPock 2y ago
Without using Chinese parts the US found that making their own small drones would cost $2,100. And those were just the observation drones for use by the Department of Interior. They were also only 20% as capable as Chinese drones. Read this and get terrified https://www.ft.com/content/dd2e936e-5934-49f1-8aa6-29dea9a41b18 https://www.ft.com/content/dd2e936e-5934-49f1-8aa6-29dea9a41...
hackerlight 2y ago
Anduril says they have a focus on industrial capacity and cost effectiveness
- ramesh31 2y ago
  >Anduril says they have a focus on industrial capacity and cost effectiveness US Military contractors have a very different conception of "cost effectiveness" than most of us. Anyone outside of Ukraine designing drones right now should simply stop what they are doing and watch and listen and learn from the innovators on the ground there. All of those pie in the sky ideas will probably be completely useless in the face of reality.

by Teever 2y ago

AnarchismIsCool 2y ago

It's a bit more complicated than just production capacity of shitty quadcopters. The limiting factor with them isn't the airframe, you can make that out of literal tree branches and duct tape. The part that's important is the chips and US leadership seems very intent on fixing that, the question is if they're capable of doing so. We also don't know what form drones will take as the technology matures. Quadcopters are common right now because they require exactly zero aerodynamic knowledge to build or fly. Any tween with an AliExpress+YouTube account could design, build, and fly all of the systems we've seen to date. As the systems become more automated in the face of EWAR, lasers, shotguns, whatever, expect a reversion to high speed fixed wing systems that trade a little bit of CDF knowledge for order-of-magnitude performance improvement in basically all realms (payload, range, endurance, speed, survivability etc).

surfingdino 2y ago
We are already working on unmanned autonomous drones the size of a fighter jet https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/19/us-air-force-stages-dogfights-with-ai-flown-fighter-jet/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/19/us-air-force-stag...
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  I'm well aware, but that's not what the commenter was referring to.
ramesh31 2y ago
Quantity has a quality all its' own. A swarm of a thousand quadcopters negates any drawbacks you've mentioned, and would be cheaper than even a single Bayraktar or Reaper (not even including their 6 figure weapons payload). And we're already seeing drone carrying "motherships" that drop multiple quads and have RF repeaters to extend range to 50km+. It's a lot like the switch from battleships to aircraft carriers in the early 20th century. When a single squadron of cloth and wooden biplanes became capable of sinking a 50,000 ton armored warship that took 5 years to build, the writing was on the wall, and the countries who didn't adapt lost.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The USA isn't going to fight a trench warfare style war with China. We would fight a standoff/siege war and would overwhelm China's defenses and take out China's production capabilities. China's production is mainly in the east, whereas the USA's is spread out across the country. China imports it oil (making them susceptible to siege) while the USA is a net exporter. There is a reason we are developing Rapid Dragon (named after a Chinese siege weapon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) . It quickly converts our 1500+ supply chain heavy aircraft fleet into stand-off attack platforms.
- rgmerk 2y ago
  War in East Asia, were it to happen, will be nothing like war in Europe - as was the case in WWII.
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  I'm still talking about the tiny high quantity quads, they can't do anything if they don't have the range to get from the launch location to the target and stand off range is the oldest advantage in warfare. I guarantee the ones fielded in the next ~5 years will start to look like the new high speed bullet quads but with a blended wing between the rotors so they're not wasting energy plowing diagonally through the air. You may see configurations that can tail stand or enter a hover briefly and some that fly entirely conventionally, but the current paradigm of quads hovering near targets is going to be short lived as defenses ratchet up. As I said, the chips are going to be the issue. If you can deploy a $200 Wish dot com wifi/gps jammer and take down every drone within 500m, again, quantity doesn't do anything. They'll be moving toward relying on spread spectrum and variations of basic image recognition up through spicier algorithms for localization and targeting.

surfingdino 2y ago

I am not worried. History likes to rhyme and I think China will do a switcheroo on Russia and align itself with the West for the purpose of dismantling Russia's military and industry, just like the Soviet Union switched sides from being an ally of Germany in 1939 to working with the Western Allies on breaking Germany's neck. The West will make some concessions, but they will be seen as worth the price of breaking Russia up.

ArnoVW 2y ago
Russia changed sides when Hitler invaded Russia. Not sure we can count on Putin making that mistake.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  All he has to do is fire one nuke and China will gladly listen to the US' suggestion that we should take these toys away from Russia.
  - dieortin 2y ago
    Russia is still the country with the highest amount of nuclear warheads on the planet. How would anyone “take them away”?
    - surfingdino 2y ago
      In exchange for food or being able to sell limited amounts of their natural resources in exchange for small amounts of hard currency. They are amazing at not being able to feed their population when they start a big war.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Nope, because then the US will be all in on Europe and Taiwan will be ripe for the picking.
CamperBob2 2y ago
Agreed. If you look back at the Cold War era, you'll lose count of the number of times China and Russia embraced each other with lofty rhetoric, each proclaiming to be the other's BFF, only to end up butting heads again after a few years.

atlasunshrugged 2y ago

There is the "replicator initiative" within the DOD but I have no idea if it's moving quickly or not. The U.S. defense establishment still seems stuck in a pattern of buying big extravagant and expensive systems (e.g. aircraft carriers, million dollar missiles) which are vulnerable to asymmetric attacks from low cost drones or land to sea based missiles. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12611 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12611

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

The USA wouldn't fight an 'in the trenches war' where drones will come into play. We would fight a stand off siege type war. Hence why we are developing Rapid Dragon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system), which would convert our entire logistics feel (something we excel at) into stand off bombers that would overwhelm Chinese defenses. We would effectively have an addition 1500 bombers in the form of C-130s, and 200+ C-17s. I'm guessing the system is named after an old Chinese siege weapon system to give China a message.

jltsiren 2y ago
And that fleet of ad hoc bombers would exhaust the entire supply of missiles in the first strike, leaving the surviving aircraft with nothing to do. Today the production capacity for all AGM-158 variants is ~500 missiles/year, with plans to increase it to 1000 missiles/year. In an all-out war, the right scale would be more like 1000 missiles/day.
- Teever 2y ago
  For more on how dire this situation is with the American industrial capacity to produce missiles in a war with China check out this comprehensive report: https://features.csis.org/preparing-the-US-industrial-base-to-deter-conflict-with-China/ https://features.csis.org/preparing-the-US-industrial-base-t...
  - freshpretzels 2y ago
    I suspect that if this is being published, it's because they are already fixing the problem.
maxglute 2y ago
There's a reason LRIP for rapid dragon is molasses because planners recognize trying to move C130s and C17s in theatre is ridiculous. They all have to operate within 1IC to even be within standoff range to hit PRC MIC, well within operating ranges of J20 with PL17s specifically designed to pick off AWACs and other large targets like tankers... and rapid dragon. Like AGM158Bs with 1900km range (vs 1500km JASSMER for rapid dragon) is being made at... 5 per month. Until they pump that out to 100-1000s per month, it's token capability that's not being taken seriously. Not to mention US doesn't remotely have access to enough airfields in region or tanking capacity to deploy that much converted transport bomb trucks. US defense logistics is nice, but it pales to PRC mainland logistics designed to defeat the relative trickle of US standoff attacks airforce can actually deliver with basing US has access to, that itself is being targetted so US can't deliver any without hilariously inefficient/suboptimal tanking logistics from beyond 2 IC to the point it's likely not viable. Hence zerg rush to 100 B21 fleet. US fighting standoff war also throws allies / partners in region with security guarantee to the dogs. PRC going to start hitting US military infra in JP/SKR/PH to drag US into fighting in 1IC.

MaxPock 2y ago

Without using Chinese parts the US found that making their own small drones would cost $2,100. And those were just the observation drones for use by the Department of Interior. They were also only 20% as capable as Chinese drones. Read this and get terrified https://www.ft.com/content/dd2e936e-5934-49f1-8aa6-29dea9a41b18 https://www.ft.com/content/dd2e936e-5934-49f1-8aa6-29dea9a41...

hackerlight 2y ago

Anduril says they have a focus on industrial capacity and cost effectiveness

ramesh31 2y ago
>Anduril says they have a focus on industrial capacity and cost effectiveness US Military contractors have a very different conception of "cost effectiveness" than most of us. Anyone outside of Ukraine designing drones right now should simply stop what they are doing and watch and listen and learn from the innovators on the ground there. All of those pie in the sky ideas will probably be completely useless in the face of reality.