7 ms·

FPV drones for combat are a hot flash in the pan. They have had a major effect for now, but naturally as these countermeasures evolve, so weakens their effect.

• alphabettsy 1y ago
  > Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx. Citation needed.
  • originalvichy 1y ago
    Travel the world or check out your favorite map software, snd look at current hot conflicts and recent ones in the past. You have Iraq and Ukraine/Russia which are relatively flat, then you have Afghanistan or Iran on the opposite side of the spectrum. Even a flat country can have forests too thick for flying wirelessly or with fiber optics.
  • speeder 1y ago
    I saw some fascinating videos explaining that the terrain caused the war in first place. The huge border between Russia and Ukraine is completely flat grassland. This means that to Russia, Ukraine joining NATO is an unacceptable risk because that border is impossible to defend against NATO tank invasion, and the flatness go all the way to Moscow. A lot of people on internet keep poking fun at Russia inadequate tanks as "proof" Russia is stupid for invading with such crappy gear. Russia is very well aware of this, and is why they invaded in first place, they know of Ukraine joins NATO any military exchange with NATO (like what happened between Iran and Israel) would need to immediately become nuclear because their existing army can't defend the huge open flat terrain against NATO equipment.
    • inglor_cz 1y ago
      I would say that the events of Russo-Ukrainian war have shown that even a lot of tanks (and NATO does not have anywhere near as many as Russia did, the former Soviet stockpile was absolutely massive) aren't the crushing force that they used to be in Manstein's and Guderian's time. Of course Putin is a bit old and may think in old patterns... On the other hand, I believe Russia made itself very vulnerable by letting its cosmic sector drown in corruption. Nowadays they have fallen so behind the US in launch capabilities that it isn't even funny. Try hiding anything from the fleet of satellites that the US has, or can have if it wishes to. Starlink may be the single most dangerous technologic development of the 21st century to Russia.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • wltr 1y ago
        However, they effectively bought the owner of Starlink.
        • inglor_cz 1y ago
          I don't believe they have enough money to buy Musk. They can influence him through propaganda and memes, but outright bribery is unlikely. That would have to be a vast, vast money transfer. Trump looks more likely to be bribe-able than Musk. Very different personalities and net worths. Musk seemed to be genuinely angry with Trump's budget, for example.
• dinfinity 1y ago
  > I’ve watched way too much footage from the front. Did you see the videos of a drone dropping a shitload of thermite on a forest canopy? [0] > Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx. Most nations have cellular networks that penetrate buildings and forests just fine. In fact, Ukraine used the Russian cellular network for their recent attack deep behind enemy lines. I'm not saying this will always be possible, but it's not hard to see that line of sight communication is not the end of the line for military drone control. There are many routes for providing an ad hoc line of communication if you don't just use consumer-level tech. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00-ngEj5Q9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00-ngEj5Q9k
  • originalvichy 1y ago
    Did you miss the part about signals jamming in the article? The reason the attack on airfields worked is precisely because they operate inland and not on the frontline. Cellular networks not only can be jammed but towers are a priority target. That’s why Starlink is/was so crucial. Even GPS is jammed so independent flight can be impossible with cheap components. The thermite drones do attack forested areas on the farmlands, but the forests I talk about are tens or hundreds of kilometers wide. You could just fire an artillery round and be done with it.
    • general1726 1y ago
      Since fiber optics being used signal jamming is stopping to be a thing. You can fly with a drone into basement and have 4k video.
    • fellowniusmonk 1y ago
      I wonder what the tech gap is to using circular polarized light from the sun as a point of reference for dead reckoning. If Bees use it why not camera systems?
      • LorenPechtel 1y ago
        That will give facing. Not range, nor actual bearing (your drone is moving relative to the local air, not to the ground.)
• aaron695 1y ago
  [dead]
• thebruce87m 1y ago
  > Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx. The drones now are using fibre optic cables with the reel mounted on the drone. Having the reel on the drone avoids snagging issues and the fibre itself avoids EW jamming and line of sight issues.
  • abracadaniel 1y ago
    I watched the video of one navigating a series of nets to weave its way inside and into the open hatch of a tank. It’s ridiculously impressive.
    • dizhn 1y ago
      I watched a video of one being destroyed by cutting the trailing fiber optic cable with a pair of scissors. Also impressive.
      • Fokamul 1y ago
        Yes, def. possible. But right now in UA's regions where drones are used the most, there are so many used fiber-optic cables laying on the fields, that you have basically zero chance to cut them all, because you would be cutting already discarded ones. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcMZWRJL_m4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcMZWRJL_m4
        • ethbr1 1y ago
          I was wondering about that. At military-industrial scale, that's a lot of fiber optic cable. And it's glass, no? So not going to environmentally degrade over time. Considering the fighting is mostly over agricultural fields, what are the long term consequences of years of war?
          • sentientslug 1y ago
            Somehow I don’t think that’s their primary concern at the moment
• inglor_cz 1y ago
  "Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx." This is true, but flat open fields are precisely the places where major mechanized battles usually took place. For the very reason that manoeuvering other equipment in complicated terrain is hard. Ofc there are significant exceptions, like the Alpine front in WWI, where Austrians and Italians faced each other in mountainous terrain for years, or the Hürtgen Forest in WWII. But a remarkable share of all major mechanized battles of history took place in flat open fields, or something at least resembling that sort of terrain (gently sloping hills with good visibility etc. etc.)
  • originalvichy 1y ago
    I made the error of emphasizing that I was thinking in a generalized manner of major nations with military tensions with shared borders. A lot of thought should be put towards if simple geography could make this cheap dispenable warfare more expensive than initially due to requirements for repeaters, shielded high-end comms chips or other assistive tech.
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    >Ofc there are significant exceptions, like the Alpine front in WWI, where Austrians and Italians faced each other in mountainous terrain for years, or the Hürtgen Forest in WWII. But a remarkable share of all major mechanized battles of history took place in flat open fields, or something at least resembling that sort of terrain (gently sloping hills with good visibility etc. etc.) Fighting through some portion of the Ardennes has been a fairly recurrent theme in central European land warfare since vikings did it in the 800s. I'm sure if one digs they can find a reference to a roman general doing it too.
    • inglor_cz 1y ago
      I haven't claimed that there were zero such instances, but my guess is that such battles in difficult terrain may be ~ 5 per cent of the total, if not less. People and animals get exhausted easily in bad terrain, and it is hard to supply the troops. Even mechanical equipment becomes less reliable and more prone to malfunction. Notably, the German operation Sichelschnitt in 1940 was very successful because the French command considered it unlikely that German Panzers would be able to cross the Ardennes in force, even though the French command was probably well aware of their own military history.
• aftbit 1y ago
  The big thing that FPV drones have going for them is that they're ludicrously cheap and easily constructed from relatively basic parts by moderately skilled people. It's literally cheaper to strap a grenade to an FPV drone and fly it into a tank hatch than it is to fire a single non-precision artillery round, let alone tens or hundreds of them. Plus, you can deploy your drones remotely from the top of a trunk deep behind enemy lines and fly them into irreplaceable strategic aviation assets with a shot exchange factor better than 1000x.
  • codedokode 1y ago
    Artillery carries more explosive and is good for destroying buildings and fortifications though.
  • Nicook 1y ago
    Did you not read the article? One of his major points is that a mortar is significantly cheaper and faster.
    • UncleEntity 1y ago
      Assuming you have good gun bunnies (term of affection, I assure you) and a spotter on the ground or in the air. The mortar guys in my old company could put a round into a trashcan with line-of-sight but when someone else is calling in fire then they are more of an area weapon. Assuming that a fire mission is going to involve more than one or two rounds to bracket the target now you're talking more dollars and the people on the ground probably aren't going to stand there and wonder how long it's going to take to hit them. The way I (and most other people I've heard talk about it) see it is drones are an area denial weapon.
      • ahartmetz 1y ago
        > people on the ground probably aren't going to stand there and wonder how long it's going to take to hit them Lesson learned in WW1 and apparently forgotten multiple times since then: the first few shells have by far the most damage potential and they better be precise.
• morkalork 1y ago
  Isn't the drip-drip-drip of single soldiers running around the response to artillery in the first place? Any concentration of manpower attracts artillery and if it's significant, HIMARS gets called in. Naturally, the response is to disperse men and make artillery less effective. The response to that is FPVs chasing down the individuals instead. They're a counter to a counter and can't be judged in isolation.
  • originalvichy 1y ago
    My point is that it is difficult to imagine another peer conflict in a similar geographical type reaching such a level that budgets should be diverted in a major way to develop these devices in the hope that they are some miracle weapon. Layperson politicians read headlines and think they are a first-level counter and not a counter-to-a-counter as you said :)
    • morkalork 1y ago
      That is true, although I think a lot of what can be invested in, is transferable. Control software, targeting, AI could be adapted to larger or smaller scale drones. Manufacturing capabilities can be as well. ISR drones are pervasive and it used to be uneconomical to shoot down a relatively cheap one, like an Orlan, with something that cost as much or more. Now there's cheap counter-ISR FPVs. I don't think the future is manually guided at all though.
      • ashoeafoot 1y ago
        Drones could be manufactured from standardized components, LEGO so to speak, allowing for add hoc redesign and automated manufacturing . Foilwrapped fuelcokecans with a primer and a bus are where its at .
    • more_corn 1y ago
      Taiwan
• thisislife2 1y ago
  Exactly. Many are missing the big picture - while Ukraine has managed to hurt the Russsians with drone warfare, how much has all that really helped Ukraine to drive back the Russians or re-take the territory held by the Russians? The simple answer is that it hasn't. Moreover, drones are not going to give an edge to Ukranian any more as the Russian too have mastered not just counter-drone warfare but also streamlined it into their conventional warfare tactics. (For example, Russians now outproduce the Ukrainians in drones and now use WW2 style motorbikes to evade drone defence - https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/06/25/russias-motorcycle-maneuvers-in-ukraine-target-nato-future/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/06/25/russias-motorcycle-... ).
  • ponector 1y ago
    Drones really helped to slow down Russian invasion. Now FPV drones are also used as anti-air defense. $1500 FPV drone can intercept $100k reconnaissance drone or loitering munition.
• scyzoryk_xyz 1y ago
  Great insight in this comment - in the 21st century wars are so unique that hi-tech weapons emerge specifically for certain battlefield applications. I.e. just one country over, just one slightly different conflict between different actors would require completely different looking-feeling weapon systems. It’s not something you think about, usually - so much of what we see used is made for asymmetrical warfare.
  • more_corn 1y ago
    Yeah, so Taiwan. Drones or no drones? Just poking around at the news, seeing Chinese drone carrier ships. Drone carrier aircraft, landing craft being prepared, drone swarming being practiced. Pretty sure we’re going to see a lot of drone warfare in the coming years. I hate to put a timeline on it but the Chinese did announce one so we know what it’s going to look like and where it’s going to happen and when it’s going to happen. And there gunna be lotsa drones.
    • euroderf 1y ago
      When the battlespace is crawlin' with drones, floating hunks of metal large enough to carry humans and their vehicles are going to be prominent & vulnerable. The Chinese are big on dual-use hulls. Do all these normally-civilian ships have mount points for rapid-fire point defense ?
• ihagen 1y ago
  Don't forget that drones are evolving very fast and their potential is frightening. What about swarm of unmanned AI and computer vision capable drones spreaded across fields and forests waiting for their prey? You can make antipersonnel drones much smaller as you don't need even to kill the enemy - just to wound. You can place a big batteries across that zones so drones could go recharge theirselves and continue serving. Eventually you can just drop thousands of such killers above the territory or even some city and they will kill every human they find. Ok, then we can make unmanned drone hunters and human killer bots will start to enhance their defense capabilities. That will start another round in evolution where humans on the battlefield are just spectators. Or prey if they unlucky.
  • mike_hearn 1y ago
    The article contradicts this view. It says that drones are hardly evolving: even years into the war they still use easily jammed analogue radio links on a handful of frequencies, and the biggest "upgrade" has been tying a fiber optic cable to them with all the obvious downsides that implies (at double the cost). Nor have they become easier to pilot. The FPV drone is used in battle largely because they're extremely cheap and use components sourceable from many suppliers backed by hobbyist markets. These devices are so cheap and basic they don't even use digital encryption for the video back to the operator, they don't even take off a third of the time, and you're talking about putting AI chips on them. There is much lower hanging fruit than AI.
    • ihagen 1y ago
      As far as I know drones usually are one step forward against jamming capabilities of the defence. Jamming device that blocks all frequences costs a lot in money, consumes a lot of power and can be mounted only on a vehicle. And then fiber-optic drones join the game. Infantry not in the vehicle is unprotected and is unable to defence itself. The only chance to survive is to run faster than drone which can be achieved using bikes. But that is not a solution at all. Not all drones are cheap. What about FPV with night vision cameras? Even if it costs a lot but gives you superiority you can benefit from it in some critical missions and then mass production will reduce the cost. I suppose going from FPV drones to unmanned AI-drones will change everything like when jet aircrafts replaced propeller aircrafts.
• Akasazh 1y ago
  All writing on the success of technology in war follows the same structure. A new weapon is introduced and finds success, is boasted as the future of warfare. It works and is a significant advantage for the side using it, being a force multiplier. After the initial succes the other side starts using it too, and there's a scramble for countermeasures. This makes the wonder weapon less effective. Then articles are written that are the inverse of the hype following the first implementation. Even doubting if 'this is the end of -wonder weapon- ?' Look at the tank. With every new weapon (take drones) it is theorized that drones would be the end of effectiveness of tanks as a weapon system. It's not, but it's not longer a wonder weapon, yet a piece of equipment, that's constantly evolving. Is an arms race and it's been like that since the invention of the club by our ancestors.