8 ms·

Regulatory gridlock in the U.S. risks losing the drone arms race

80 points by seanobannon 2y ago

xnx 2y ago
It's shocking to me the Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing only mentioned "drone" once, and that was not in reference to the future of warfare. Ukraine has made pretty clear that drones will play a huge roll in future major conflicts. It's crazy that we haven't already shifted major portions of the defense budget from legacy weapons systems (e.g. tanks) to drones.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure the US had drones before Ukraine occurred. The US does invest in drones. Maybe they will more, but we're probably a little way away from them assuming the role of tanks any time soon.
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    There's things like the Anduril Bolt. They cost like 100x as much as devices the Ukranians are building from cardboard. Another major innovation is TOW style fiber optic control which is immune to electronic countermeasures. There's definitely a lot to learn, but sadly necessity is the mother of invention and not since WW2 has manufacturing cost really been a serious concern for US defense production. Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore. I'm not sure if I'd be rooting for this eventuality.
      - jcgrillo 2y ago
        No, I'm definitely not! But I can't imagine the US defense sector doing anything sensible otherwise.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    "Drone" gets used to cover a lot of things; full aircraft sized Reaper/Predator drones down to toy-sized quadcopters. It's the latter which Ukraine has been developing, including a unique solution to ECM: the fiber-optic drone. Small drones do not assume the role of tanks. Drones assume the role of WW1 aircraft: artillery spotters and very light bombing capability. They have this role there because both sides have SAM superiority over the other's airforce. Drones solve the problem that combat aircraft are too expensive and too easy to shoot down.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Small drones do not assume the role of tanks I'm not saying they do. I was replying to a comment.
    - FreebasingLLMs 2y ago
      > very light bombing capability. Define "light". Ukraine is fielding FPV drones with EFPs attached that can easily slice into anything armored.
- V__ 2y ago
  I would be really interested in a deep analysis. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority and the war has evolved into trench warfare.. thus drones are a very usefull tool. But would this still be the case for a conflict with US involvement?
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    The major threat is SAM and other anti air. Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. Neither side has been able to gain safe access to the skies in this whole conflict, modern AA is just able to cover such a wide area it's hard to get ground assets close enough to strike.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. That's what those capabilities are designed to do ("SEAD"), but they're very expensive. And so strategic that the US wasn't willing to let the Ukranians have any.
      - rtkwe 2y ago
        Of course yeah, the main thing is they've not really been tested in a while against OpFor radar or AA so I have some reservations about it actually working long term. The last time they really tested at all was 2003 during the second Iraq war. Even if they can knock out dedicated AA manpads could still pose a significant threat they haven't had to encounter in a while. If they work like they should on paper and can keep the opponents pinned to the ground under US air supremacy it'll be great but there's always that little doubt that it will work as well against a more evenly match opponent like a theoretical US v Russia/China when it's not punching down so far.
  - tim333 2y ago
    If you think of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, maybe not during the initial attack but once there were troops on the ground they would likely be vulnerable.
- moduspol 2y ago
  Yep. It boggles my mind that we still do aircraft flyovers at big football games. Those should be drones doing coordinated light shows--even in heavy winds, rain, and unfavorable conditions. Just to show that we've mastered it, and that we can do it easily even when there are no stakes. My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it, but I don't think that's the way forward. It needs to be known that we've absolutely mastered them. You know, kind of like the Chinese have done with their drone shows at the Olympics and similar events.
  - Syonyk 2y ago
    > My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it... What would you call the Reapers and such? The US has a massive fleet of large, armed drones, remotely operated, and quite a few are capable of being armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_the_United_States_military#List_of_U.S._military_UAVs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_th... It's different from the consumer/small commercial drones being talked about here, but the US Military is pretty darn good at UAVs.
    - xnx 2y ago
      True. This is a very different class of drone. What is the defense against an adversary who releases a thousand quadcopter style drones against a US aircraft carrier?
      - nradov 2y ago
        The type of quadcopter style drones that can be produced in the thousands have very short range and limited sensors. How are they going to get to the aircraft carrier? The lessons learned in a land conflict in Eastern Europe have little relevance to the Pacific Theater, where the US Navy intends to focus now.
      - 00N8 2y ago
        The carriers aren't sailing around alone - they're escorted by a whole fleet (plus air patrol) that will intercept the drone launching vehicle at multiple dozen nautical miles range. Smaller quadcopter drones won't even get close to catching the carrier (which can travel over 40 kts while evading) before their batteries die. And even if a few hundred got through, how much damage can they really do? I'd imagine the flight decks can be patched quickly, although some radar equipment & any jets parked at the time of the attack would probably be lost. It's definitely a concern as part of a larger attack, but I don't think a quadcopter drone swarm alone is likely to sink a carrier or leave it combat ineffective in the long term.
- nradov 2y ago
  I guess you haven't been paying attention. The Marine Corps has divested its tanks in preparation for fighting an island-hopping campaign against China. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/force-design-2030-divesting-to-meet-the-future-threat/ https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/fo...
  - euroderf 2y ago
    It's pretty amazing that an American armed forces service gave up an entire lineup of weaponry. 2021: "The Marine Corps had more than 450 tanks prior to the deactivation of the tank battalions. To date, MCSC has transferred more than 400 tanks to the Army. The remaining tanks in the Marine Corps inventory are afloat globally on Maritime Prepositioning Ships and are scheduled for transfer to the Army over the next few years."
BurningFrog 2y ago
I saw someone claiming drones are the biggest military invention since the stirrup! The US would do well to start catching up on that technology. BTW, I assume that when/if the Ukraine war ends, the Ukrainian drone industry will be the best in the world.
- floatrock 2y ago
  The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete, and I think most war strategists acknowledge that drones and cruise missiles have made the aircraft carrier obsolete in a true hot war. We haven't seen one of those sink yet, but well, Russia controls the historically strategic port of Sevastopol, and yet what's left of their Black Sea fleet has retreated to ports back behind Stormshadow range. Taiwan plans are definitely looking at cruise-missile-vs-airplane-range ratios. So yes, drones and other unmanned munitions are game changers. I just wish the argument wasn't "increase civilian drones so we have a rich and vibrant military industrial complex ready for when we get to destroy things." Then again, some of what the article is kinda saying is "if there's civilian applications for this, you don't need to have a military industrial complex (until you're forced to on a wartime footing, at which point you're not starting from zero)." Which is basically the strategic-importance argument that is keeping Boeing afloat these days...
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Russia has exactly one aircraft carrier that nearly sank of its own accord. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admir... Taiwan should be building a lot of drones if they intend to fight. However, that's not the only possibility; recent shifts in US posture may encourage the "voluntary reintegration" local political faction, including the possibility of handing over TSMC intact.
    - floatrock 2y ago
      It's not Russia's aircraft carriers I'm concerned about. Russia's experience with drones vs. her guided missile cruisers has more than enough there to translate to more capable aircraft carriers.
slimjimrick 2y ago
Interesting read
TheBicPen 2y ago
This reads like a piece of defense propaganda. "Undoing the 1990s decision" - should we really return the US defense industry to cold-war levels? The world has changed, and the threat of outright war with the US is dramatically lower than 4 decades ago. Yes, China is an adversary, but to say that it's an existential threat to the US the same way the Soviet Union was is absurd.
- uejfiweun 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    Claims that other people are propagandizing are ridiculous with zero evidence, that’s some FUD BS. Make a better argument against OP if you’re so sure.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - barbazoo 2y ago
    > And they (China) are explicitly interested in overturning the global order. - Putin is actively taking Ukrainian territory by force - Trump is threatening to take Greenland, Canada and the Panama canal by (economic) force - Xi Jinping is threatening to take Taiwanese territory by force Of all three, Jinping seems like the smallest threat to the "world order". If you're talking about economic power, that's a different story but I wouldn't call them "adversary" in that context.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      Nobody takes Trump's comments seriously. Possibly not even Trump. Putin is in a hot war right now. Xi seems to be actively preparing for one. The chance of the US sitting aside a military invasion of Taiwan seems very low to me.
yimby2001 2y ago
I think the weakness of this argument is that “domestic American drones” will just be using parts, or entire drones, made in China “Ukraine are producing two-and-a-half drones a day now.“ What is that supposed to mean? A drone has a lot of parts. I can make 2 1/2 drones a day if I have the parts.
- danielvf 2y ago
  Ukraine announced a two weeks ago that they built 2.5 million drones last year. Maybe that number got garbled somewhere?
- lawn 2y ago
  Ukraine is producing way more that that: they're up to millions per year: https://thedefensepost.com/2024/10/03/ukraine-produce-million-drones-2/ https://thedefensepost.com/2024/10/03/ukraine-produce-millio...
palata 2y ago
The problem I have with the idea of subsidising small drones as a proxy for defense is that they solve very different problems: Making a small quadcopter that flies is now entirely solved: you take an open source autopilot, put it on some open source autopilot board, and that's it. If you go further than that, successfully producing delivery drones means that they need to carry a payload safely to some destination, deliver the payload nicely (as in, smoothly leave a parcel on the ground), come back and be reusable. The drone flies by GPS, but doesn't really need a radio signal (ideally there is no operator, the drone just goes, delivers and comes back). Killer drones are "one-way". They are defined by a lifetime of like 25min, ending up violently in a place where the operators care about maximising damage. They fly in war zones. Nobody really cares if some percentage of the drones falls from the sky or doesn't explode upon contact. They need to fly in GPS-denied mode, and they probably need a radio for the operator to select the target when the times comes. This has to be a military-grade radio that works in the presence of jamming to some extent. Those are very different projects. Feels a bit like saying that subsidising personal cars is good for the tank business.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  Bomb and kamikaze drones based on civilian drones are already a reality though, Ukraine uses to defend itself. Don't know why you're talking as if that wasn't possible, when it's happening already.
  - palata 2y ago
    Hmm maybe I'm not being very clear, I didn't want to write a 20 pages essay :-). I was saying that I don't think it's a particularly efficient way to approach defense. My point was that Ukraine doesn't buy 2 millions civilian drones and use them as killer drones. Ukraine is actually producing killer drones. If you are good at producing civilian drones, it doesn't mean that you are good at producing killer drones because the specs are pretty different. If you subsidise heavily a civilian company making survey drones, for instance, and then try to attach a bomb to those and send them in a war zone, they won't do much today. In the end you will have subsidised work that went into making a drone that can make hundreds or thousands of flights during its lifetime, never fall from the sky, lands smoothly, doesn't make too much noise, follows drone regulations in civilian spaces, etc. But none of that work is useful for a killer drone (that has a lifetime of 25min in a war zone). On the other hand, your civilian drones will not have the ability to lock a target and crash into it, fly in GPS-denied environments and a jamming-resistant radio.
maximusdrex 2y ago
While I agree with the ultimate conclusion of the article, that FAA regulations need to be modernized for commercial use of sUAS systems, it completely fails to analyze any of the other relevant dynamics facing the American drone industry. There are a plethora of American companies building drones for commercial and/or defense purposes (I work at one) but this article reads like the author knows only about the most publicized one and another company they heard about on a podcast. The article would benefit from an understanding of the Probably the most major blocker for the authors dreams of swarms of millions of American military drones is the following: jet engines and rocket motors can be produced in the US profitably, the American economy just isn’t set up to build drones motors, props, etc. in an economically efficient manner. Because of this, the cost-optimized drones developed for the commercial sector will never be acceptable for the us military. Secondly, the author seems to think that self-organized systems are a brand new innovation and would trivially port to a battlefield environment. However, these techniques rely on 5G connectivity and gps, whereas military sUAS systems need GPS-denied autonomy and the ability to communicate in a heavily jammed environment.
tim333 2y ago
>But look, Ukraine are producing two-and-a-half drones a day now. That seems way off. See the recent euromaidanpress headline: >Defense News: Ukraine plans 15-km unmanned “kill zone” along Russian front as drone production hits 4,000+ daily https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/02/defense-news-ukraine-plans-15-km-unmanned-kill-zone-along-russian-front-as-drone-production-hits-4000-daily/ https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/02/defense-news-ukraine-... Which is kind of interesting strategically. I was thinking Ukraine can't really afford to keep losing large numbers of soldiers and will probably try switching to drones to hold the Russians back. It's probably a technology that favours defenders over attackers as the defenders can work from hidden bunkers but the attackers have to move above ground.
- throwup238 2y ago
  It’s not being talked about much outside of military analyst circles but those small drones have significantly changed the logistics of modern warfare possibly more than anything in the 21st century. Before, with cover and conceal warfare, armies had to deliver massive firepower to even have a chance of hitting an enemy unit from a another dynamic military, with ever more expensive precision munitions to make up for that fact. Now a small drone can drop a grenade and do the same amount of damage at similar distances between combatants. It makes a huge difference when a combat engineer slash drone pilot can carry 20kg of drones and small explosives into the battlefield as part of a small team instead of manning an entire artillery unit.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > hitting an enemy unit from a another dynamic military Would note that Russia’s failure to execute combined-arms manoeuvre-based warfare technically makes it a static fighting force.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      I think it’s better to look at it as a spectrum and Russia’s place on it differs based on time and place. They don’t have the air superiority to carry out the kinds of operations the US could and what seems like a suboptimal command structure but they are getting increasingly more organized, especially as the war drags on and they develop/acquire more adaptions like the Shahed drones or glide bomb conversion kits. IMO the biggest thing getting in their way is the desperate human wave tactics that hamper their ability to grow a veteran core that could actually organize the combined arms.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Jtsummers 2y ago
I'm surprised no one else noticed that this is a submarine article for Anduril and called it out. "Sean's Substack" was created 2 days ago (at the time of writing this comment) and has just this one article, no history to establish credibility either. The main story is about Manna, an Irish company, but that doesn't help the US itself as they aren't made in the US. The article is advocating for a similar regulatory regime as Manna (and presumably others) have received in Ireland here in the US, and then name drops Anduril near the end. Anduril's current business is to become part of the military industrial complex, but if regulations are changed they could shift their production towards commercial projects and expand their business.
- ecshafer 2y ago
  So? It might be a submarine article for Anduril, but their point still stands. The FAA regulations on Drones needs to be rewritten to allow innovation for both commercial and defense purposes.
  - moregrist 2y ago
    I tend to think that it’s not too much to ask a company to engage in transparent advocacy as opposed to astroturfing.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    What evidence exists to show FAA regulations are hampering innovation?
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    Do they need to be rewritten? And if they do, is a thought piece by someone with no prior connection or history in aviation the person to make the case for it?

80 points by seanobannon 2y ago

xnx 2y ago

It's shocking to me the Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing only mentioned "drone" once, and that was not in reference to the future of warfare. Ukraine has made pretty clear that drones will play a huge roll in future major conflicts. It's crazy that we haven't already shifted major portions of the defense budget from legacy weapons systems (e.g. tanks) to drones.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I'm pretty sure the US had drones before Ukraine occurred. The US does invest in drones. Maybe they will more, but we're probably a little way away from them assuming the role of tanks any time soon.
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  There's things like the Anduril Bolt. They cost like 100x as much as devices the Ukranians are building from cardboard. Another major innovation is TOW style fiber optic control which is immune to electronic countermeasures. There's definitely a lot to learn, but sadly necessity is the mother of invention and not since WW2 has manufacturing cost really been a serious concern for US defense production. Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Seems like we'll need a really big war to make that essential, and then there's an open question whether we'd actually be able to do it given that nobody knows how to do anything anymore. I'm not sure if I'd be rooting for this eventuality.
    - jcgrillo 2y ago
      No, I'm definitely not! But I can't imagine the US defense sector doing anything sensible otherwise.
- pjc50 2y ago
  "Drone" gets used to cover a lot of things; full aircraft sized Reaper/Predator drones down to toy-sized quadcopters. It's the latter which Ukraine has been developing, including a unique solution to ECM: the fiber-optic drone. Small drones do not assume the role of tanks. Drones assume the role of WW1 aircraft: artillery spotters and very light bombing capability. They have this role there because both sides have SAM superiority over the other's airforce. Drones solve the problem that combat aircraft are too expensive and too easy to shoot down.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Small drones do not assume the role of tanks I'm not saying they do. I was replying to a comment.
  - FreebasingLLMs 2y ago
    > very light bombing capability. Define "light". Ukraine is fielding FPV drones with EFPs attached that can easily slice into anything armored.
V__ 2y ago
I would be really interested in a deep analysis. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority and the war has evolved into trench warfare.. thus drones are a very usefull tool. But would this still be the case for a conflict with US involvement?
- rtkwe 2y ago
  The major threat is SAM and other anti air. Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. Neither side has been able to gain safe access to the skies in this whole conflict, modern AA is just able to cover such a wide area it's hard to get ground assets close enough to strike.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > Maybe the US's stealth or long range cruise missiles would be enough to knock down and keep down the opponents anti air coverage but it's not guaranteed. That's what those capabilities are designed to do ("SEAD"), but they're very expensive. And so strategic that the US wasn't willing to let the Ukranians have any.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      Of course yeah, the main thing is they've not really been tested in a while against OpFor radar or AA so I have some reservations about it actually working long term. The last time they really tested at all was 2003 during the second Iraq war. Even if they can knock out dedicated AA manpads could still pose a significant threat they haven't had to encounter in a while. If they work like they should on paper and can keep the opponents pinned to the ground under US air supremacy it'll be great but there's always that little doubt that it will work as well against a more evenly match opponent like a theoretical US v Russia/China when it's not punching down so far.
- tim333 2y ago
  If you think of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, maybe not during the initial attack but once there were troops on the ground they would likely be vulnerable.
moduspol 2y ago
Yep. It boggles my mind that we still do aircraft flyovers at big football games. Those should be drones doing coordinated light shows--even in heavy winds, rain, and unfavorable conditions. Just to show that we've mastered it, and that we can do it easily even when there are no stakes. My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it, but I don't think that's the way forward. It needs to be known that we've absolutely mastered them. You know, kind of like the Chinese have done with their drone shows at the Olympics and similar events.
- Syonyk 2y ago
  > My genuine hope is that secretly we actually are really good with drones and just strategically have decided not to broadcast it... What would you call the Reapers and such? The US has a massive fleet of large, armed drones, remotely operated, and quite a few are capable of being armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_the_United_States_military#List_of_U.S._military_UAVs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_in_th... It's different from the consumer/small commercial drones being talked about here, but the US Military is pretty darn good at UAVs.
  - xnx 2y ago
    True. This is a very different class of drone. What is the defense against an adversary who releases a thousand quadcopter style drones against a US aircraft carrier?
    - nradov 2y ago
      The type of quadcopter style drones that can be produced in the thousands have very short range and limited sensors. How are they going to get to the aircraft carrier? The lessons learned in a land conflict in Eastern Europe have little relevance to the Pacific Theater, where the US Navy intends to focus now.
    - 00N8 2y ago
      The carriers aren't sailing around alone - they're escorted by a whole fleet (plus air patrol) that will intercept the drone launching vehicle at multiple dozen nautical miles range. Smaller quadcopter drones won't even get close to catching the carrier (which can travel over 40 kts while evading) before their batteries die. And even if a few hundred got through, how much damage can they really do? I'd imagine the flight decks can be patched quickly, although some radar equipment & any jets parked at the time of the attack would probably be lost. It's definitely a concern as part of a larger attack, but I don't think a quadcopter drone swarm alone is likely to sink a carrier or leave it combat ineffective in the long term.
nradov 2y ago
I guess you haven't been paying attention. The Marine Corps has divested its tanks in preparation for fighting an island-hopping campaign against China. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/force-design-2030-divesting-to-meet-the-future-threat/ https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2857680/fo...
- euroderf 2y ago
  It's pretty amazing that an American armed forces service gave up an entire lineup of weaponry. 2021: "The Marine Corps had more than 450 tanks prior to the deactivation of the tank battalions. To date, MCSC has transferred more than 400 tanks to the Army. The remaining tanks in the Marine Corps inventory are afloat globally on Maritime Prepositioning Ships and are scheduled for transfer to the Army over the next few years."

BurningFrog 2y ago

I saw someone claiming drones are the biggest military invention since the stirrup! The US would do well to start catching up on that technology. BTW, I assume that when/if the Ukraine war ends, the Ukrainian drone industry will be the best in the world.

floatrock 2y ago
The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete, and I think most war strategists acknowledge that drones and cruise missiles have made the aircraft carrier obsolete in a true hot war. We haven't seen one of those sink yet, but well, Russia controls the historically strategic port of Sevastopol, and yet what's left of their Black Sea fleet has retreated to ports back behind Stormshadow range. Taiwan plans are definitely looking at cruise-missile-vs-airplane-range ratios. So yes, drones and other unmanned munitions are game changers. I just wish the argument wasn't "increase civilian drones so we have a rich and vibrant military industrial complex ready for when we get to destroy things." Then again, some of what the article is kinda saying is "if there's civilian applications for this, you don't need to have a military industrial complex (until you're forced to on a wartime footing, at which point you're not starting from zero)." Which is basically the strategic-importance argument that is keeping Boeing afloat these days...
- pjc50 2y ago
  Russia has exactly one aircraft carrier that nearly sank of its own accord. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admir... Taiwan should be building a lot of drones if they intend to fight. However, that's not the only possibility; recent shifts in US posture may encourage the "voluntary reintegration" local political faction, including the possibility of handing over TSMC intact.
  - floatrock 2y ago
    It's not Russia's aircraft carriers I'm concerned about. Russia's experience with drones vs. her guided missile cruisers has more than enough there to translate to more capable aircraft carriers.

slimjimrick 2y ago

Interesting read

TheBicPen 2y ago

This reads like a piece of defense propaganda. "Undoing the 1990s decision" - should we really return the US defense industry to cold-war levels? The world has changed, and the threat of outright war with the US is dramatically lower than 4 decades ago. Yes, China is an adversary, but to say that it's an existential threat to the US the same way the Soviet Union was is absurd.

uejfiweun 2y ago
[deleted]
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Claims that other people are propagandizing are ridiculous with zero evidence, that’s some FUD BS. Make a better argument against OP if you’re so sure.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- barbazoo 2y ago
  > And they (China) are explicitly interested in overturning the global order. - Putin is actively taking Ukrainian territory by force - Trump is threatening to take Greenland, Canada and the Panama canal by (economic) force - Xi Jinping is threatening to take Taiwanese territory by force Of all three, Jinping seems like the smallest threat to the "world order". If you're talking about economic power, that's a different story but I wouldn't call them "adversary" in that context.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    Nobody takes Trump's comments seriously. Possibly not even Trump. Putin is in a hot war right now. Xi seems to be actively preparing for one. The chance of the US sitting aside a military invasion of Taiwan seems very low to me.

yimby2001 2y ago

I think the weakness of this argument is that “domestic American drones” will just be using parts, or entire drones, made in China “Ukraine are producing two-and-a-half drones a day now.“ What is that supposed to mean? A drone has a lot of parts. I can make 2 1/2 drones a day if I have the parts.

danielvf 2y ago
Ukraine announced a two weeks ago that they built 2.5 million drones last year. Maybe that number got garbled somewhere?
lawn 2y ago
Ukraine is producing way more that that: they're up to millions per year: https://thedefensepost.com/2024/10/03/ukraine-produce-million-drones-2/ https://thedefensepost.com/2024/10/03/ukraine-produce-millio...

palata 2y ago

The problem I have with the idea of subsidising small drones as a proxy for defense is that they solve very different problems: Making a small quadcopter that flies is now entirely solved: you take an open source autopilot, put it on some open source autopilot board, and that's it. If you go further than that, successfully producing delivery drones means that they need to carry a payload safely to some destination, deliver the payload nicely (as in, smoothly leave a parcel on the ground), come back and be reusable. The drone flies by GPS, but doesn't really need a radio signal (ideally there is no operator, the drone just goes, delivers and comes back). Killer drones are "one-way". They are defined by a lifetime of like 25min, ending up violently in a place where the operators care about maximising damage. They fly in war zones. Nobody really cares if some percentage of the drones falls from the sky or doesn't explode upon contact. They need to fly in GPS-denied mode, and they probably need a radio for the operator to select the target when the times comes. This has to be a military-grade radio that works in the presence of jamming to some extent. Those are very different projects. Feels a bit like saying that subsidising personal cars is good for the tank business.

cutemonster 2y ago
Bomb and kamikaze drones based on civilian drones are already a reality though, Ukraine uses to defend itself. Don't know why you're talking as if that wasn't possible, when it's happening already.
- palata 2y ago
  Hmm maybe I'm not being very clear, I didn't want to write a 20 pages essay :-). I was saying that I don't think it's a particularly efficient way to approach defense. My point was that Ukraine doesn't buy 2 millions civilian drones and use them as killer drones. Ukraine is actually producing killer drones. If you are good at producing civilian drones, it doesn't mean that you are good at producing killer drones because the specs are pretty different. If you subsidise heavily a civilian company making survey drones, for instance, and then try to attach a bomb to those and send them in a war zone, they won't do much today. In the end you will have subsidised work that went into making a drone that can make hundreds or thousands of flights during its lifetime, never fall from the sky, lands smoothly, doesn't make too much noise, follows drone regulations in civilian spaces, etc. But none of that work is useful for a killer drone (that has a lifetime of 25min in a war zone). On the other hand, your civilian drones will not have the ability to lock a target and crash into it, fly in GPS-denied environments and a jamming-resistant radio.

maximusdrex 2y ago

While I agree with the ultimate conclusion of the article, that FAA regulations need to be modernized for commercial use of sUAS systems, it completely fails to analyze any of the other relevant dynamics facing the American drone industry. There are a plethora of American companies building drones for commercial and/or defense purposes (I work at one) but this article reads like the author knows only about the most publicized one and another company they heard about on a podcast. The article would benefit from an understanding of the Probably the most major blocker for the authors dreams of swarms of millions of American military drones is the following: jet engines and rocket motors can be produced in the US profitably, the American economy just isn’t set up to build drones motors, props, etc. in an economically efficient manner. Because of this, the cost-optimized drones developed for the commercial sector will never be acceptable for the us military. Secondly, the author seems to think that self-organized systems are a brand new innovation and would trivially port to a battlefield environment. However, these techniques rely on 5G connectivity and gps, whereas military sUAS systems need GPS-denied autonomy and the ability to communicate in a heavily jammed environment.

tim333 2y ago

>But look, Ukraine are producing two-and-a-half drones a day now. That seems way off. See the recent euromaidanpress headline: >Defense News: Ukraine plans 15-km unmanned “kill zone” along Russian front as drone production hits 4,000+ daily https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/02/defense-news-ukraine-plans-15-km-unmanned-kill-zone-along-russian-front-as-drone-production-hits-4000-daily/ https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/02/defense-news-ukraine-... Which is kind of interesting strategically. I was thinking Ukraine can't really afford to keep losing large numbers of soldiers and will probably try switching to drones to hold the Russians back. It's probably a technology that favours defenders over attackers as the defenders can work from hidden bunkers but the attackers have to move above ground.

throwup238 2y ago
It’s not being talked about much outside of military analyst circles but those small drones have significantly changed the logistics of modern warfare possibly more than anything in the 21st century. Before, with cover and conceal warfare, armies had to deliver massive firepower to even have a chance of hitting an enemy unit from a another dynamic military, with ever more expensive precision munitions to make up for that fact. Now a small drone can drop a grenade and do the same amount of damage at similar distances between combatants. It makes a huge difference when a combat engineer slash drone pilot can carry 20kg of drones and small explosives into the battlefield as part of a small team instead of manning an entire artillery unit.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > hitting an enemy unit from a another dynamic military Would note that Russia’s failure to execute combined-arms manoeuvre-based warfare technically makes it a static fighting force.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    I think it’s better to look at it as a spectrum and Russia’s place on it differs based on time and place. They don’t have the air superiority to carry out the kinds of operations the US could and what seems like a suboptimal command structure but they are getting increasingly more organized, especially as the war drags on and they develop/acquire more adaptions like the Shahed drones or glide bomb conversion kits. IMO the biggest thing getting in their way is the desperate human wave tactics that hamper their ability to grow a veteran core that could actually organize the combined arms.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Jtsummers 2y ago

I'm surprised no one else noticed that this is a submarine article for Anduril and called it out. "Sean's Substack" was created 2 days ago (at the time of writing this comment) and has just this one article, no history to establish credibility either. The main story is about Manna, an Irish company, but that doesn't help the US itself as they aren't made in the US. The article is advocating for a similar regulatory regime as Manna (and presumably others) have received in Ireland here in the US, and then name drops Anduril near the end. Anduril's current business is to become part of the military industrial complex, but if regulations are changed they could shift their production towards commercial projects and expand their business.

ecshafer 2y ago
So? It might be a submarine article for Anduril, but their point still stands. The FAA regulations on Drones needs to be rewritten to allow innovation for both commercial and defense purposes.
- moregrist 2y ago
  I tend to think that it’s not too much to ask a company to engage in transparent advocacy as opposed to astroturfing.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  What evidence exists to show FAA regulations are hampering innovation?
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Do they need to be rewritten? And if they do, is a thought piece by someone with no prior connection or history in aviation the person to make the case for it?