7 ms·

What wars are actually being won with them? I see them mainly used (eg Ukraine war) to annoy the other party with many military insignificant attacks on civili

What wars are actually being won with them? I see them mainly used (eg Ukraine war) to annoy the other party with many military insignificant attacks on civilians. Very sad but not something that actually wins wars.

ramchip 1y ago
> As the invasion enters a fourth summer, drones are currently thought to account for around 70 percent of all Russian and Ukrainian battlefield casualties. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-drone-wall-is-europes-first-line-of-defense-against-russia/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-...
- wkat4242 1y ago
  Yeah but did they actually win a war? It looks like they just introduced another stalemate. I didn't know the role on the battlefield was this big though.
michaeljohansen 1y ago
"Drones are key to not losing wars".
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
Wearing down your opponent with consistent (relatively) inexpensive attacks does in fact win wars. Attrition works.
WJW 1y ago
In the Ukraine war big troop concentrations have become almost impossible because the thousands of spotter drones in the air at any moment will spot them almost immediately, and provide accurate targeting information to (rocket) artillery within seconds. FPV drones with a hand grenade strapped to them will finish off any stragglers. Bigger version (with more explosives) also apparently quite effective against armored vehicles like IFVs and tanks, and can be used to deploy new minefields without having to risk soldiers out in the open. So perhaps they are not (yet) key to winning a war, but they are certainly already key to not losing. There's a very good reason Ukraine is ramping up drone production to several million per year. Convert that to drones deployed per day and use your imagination to come up with uses for 30000 kamikaze drones per day.
- delusional 1y ago
  > Bigger version (with more explosives) also apparently quite effective against armored vehicles like IFVs and tanks At that point it seems like it's basically a very slow moving missile, except it's steerable by a human operator. I was under the impression that the value of these weapons was mostly in their simple construction from readily available parts (cheap ammunition and grenades instead of expensive purpose made javelins). Doesn't that kind of go away if you start to "innovate" with them? If Lockheed Martin starts selling the drones at $30k a pop, I don't understand why they'd be better than a missile.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    Why would innovation mean more expensive? The fiber optic FPV drone was an innovation and it's extremely cheap to build? I don't think it's only been about cost, it's been about devastating effectiveness, they just happen to be much much cheaper than basically anything they destroy. Necessity is the mother of invention, Ukraine is developing these things and innovating for actual survival, we're not talking about engaging lockhead martin on a 20 billion dollar budget.
    - delusional 1y ago
      It wouldn't necessarily, but innovation would separate the product from the commoditized nature of regular consumer drones, which I postulate is what made them cheap. Suddenly you need a special military drone, and that could end up being a moat Lockheed would charge you 20 billion for. I suppose my concern is that missiles and bombs probably aren't any more expensive to produce than these drones are. There's just a huge markup for military equipment. We are trying to solve a problem of capitalism (or the military industrial complex i suppose) through technology, and that rarely works. It usually just creates a new layer of incumbents that want another 20 billion.
      - wkat4242 1y ago
        They're cheap because there's just not a lot of stuff in them. They're a lot simpler than even a model airplane, just 4 or more motors with fixed pitch propellers. Before commercial drones people would just make their own in a garage.
guiriduro 1y ago
They can be used to concurrently overwhelm air defences to improve the odds for more expensive cruise missiles. Ukraine has used small drones to decent effect tactically to disable vehicles, and vice versa (less effectively)
bell-cot 1y ago
You're correct about the "military insignificant attacks on civilians". The problem is that mainstream western news sources are not covering the daily reality of front-line fighting in Ukraine - where drones have become a whole new dimension of high-lethality micro-scale air power.
- jakobnissen 1y ago
  You must be reading other mainstream media than I do, because drone warfare has been covered extensively in what I read. Namely DR (Danish national media), Zetland and The Atlantic.
FpUser 1y ago
Not sure about winning but drones are the major factor in Ukrainian war. Style of warfare did change completely. You should probably listen to interviews with the soldiers on both sides. An eye opener. As for attacking civilians being the goal: [1] - "At least two people were killed, including a 22-year-old police officer who was named by authorities as Maria Dziumaha, and more than a dozen were wounded in the attacks, according to authorities..." That is after more than 400 drones were used in the attack. [1] - https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/europe/russia-air-assault-ukraine-kyiv-intl-hnk https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/europe/russia-air-assault-ukr...
Marazan 1y ago
The majority of casualties on both sides are currently caused by drones. Yes, Russia is also using them to terrorise civilians but they clearly have huge battlefield implications and any military not immediately addressing this issue is going g to go into their next conflict at a massive disadvantage
zihotki 1y ago
Insignificant? Are destroyed strategic bombers insignificant? As well as huge amounts of armor vehicles so that now motocycles and other cheap vehicles are used instead. They pay significant role now, may be even more than artillery
danmaz74 1y ago
You're probably mostly thinking about Shahads and similar alternatives to cruise missiles, but what's much more significant in Ukraine is the use of FPV drones on the front lines to attack armor, transports, artillery and individual trenches. They account for the biggest part of inflicted losses nowadays.
bamboozled 1y ago
The title is, "Drones are the key to wining wars", not "Drones have won wars". Read the article.
coffinbirth 1y ago
[flagged]

ramchip 1y ago

> As the invasion enters a fourth summer, drones are currently thought to account for around 70 percent of all Russian and Ukrainian battlefield casualties. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-drone-wall-is-europes-first-line-of-defense-against-russia/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-...

wkat4242 1y ago
Yeah but did they actually win a war? It looks like they just introduced another stalemate. I didn't know the role on the battlefield was this big though.

michaeljohansen 1y ago

"Drones are key to not losing wars".

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

Wearing down your opponent with consistent (relatively) inexpensive attacks does in fact win wars. Attrition works.

WJW 1y ago

In the Ukraine war big troop concentrations have become almost impossible because the thousands of spotter drones in the air at any moment will spot them almost immediately, and provide accurate targeting information to (rocket) artillery within seconds. FPV drones with a hand grenade strapped to them will finish off any stragglers. Bigger version (with more explosives) also apparently quite effective against armored vehicles like IFVs and tanks, and can be used to deploy new minefields without having to risk soldiers out in the open. So perhaps they are not (yet) key to winning a war, but they are certainly already key to not losing. There's a very good reason Ukraine is ramping up drone production to several million per year. Convert that to drones deployed per day and use your imagination to come up with uses for 30000 kamikaze drones per day.

delusional 1y ago
> Bigger version (with more explosives) also apparently quite effective against armored vehicles like IFVs and tanks At that point it seems like it's basically a very slow moving missile, except it's steerable by a human operator. I was under the impression that the value of these weapons was mostly in their simple construction from readily available parts (cheap ammunition and grenades instead of expensive purpose made javelins). Doesn't that kind of go away if you start to "innovate" with them? If Lockheed Martin starts selling the drones at $30k a pop, I don't understand why they'd be better than a missile.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  Why would innovation mean more expensive? The fiber optic FPV drone was an innovation and it's extremely cheap to build? I don't think it's only been about cost, it's been about devastating effectiveness, they just happen to be much much cheaper than basically anything they destroy. Necessity is the mother of invention, Ukraine is developing these things and innovating for actual survival, we're not talking about engaging lockhead martin on a 20 billion dollar budget.
  - delusional 1y ago
    It wouldn't necessarily, but innovation would separate the product from the commoditized nature of regular consumer drones, which I postulate is what made them cheap. Suddenly you need a special military drone, and that could end up being a moat Lockheed would charge you 20 billion for. I suppose my concern is that missiles and bombs probably aren't any more expensive to produce than these drones are. There's just a huge markup for military equipment. We are trying to solve a problem of capitalism (or the military industrial complex i suppose) through technology, and that rarely works. It usually just creates a new layer of incumbents that want another 20 billion.
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      They're cheap because there's just not a lot of stuff in them. They're a lot simpler than even a model airplane, just 4 or more motors with fixed pitch propellers. Before commercial drones people would just make their own in a garage.

guiriduro 1y ago

They can be used to concurrently overwhelm air defences to improve the odds for more expensive cruise missiles. Ukraine has used small drones to decent effect tactically to disable vehicles, and vice versa (less effectively)

bell-cot 1y ago

You're correct about the "military insignificant attacks on civilians". The problem is that mainstream western news sources are not covering the daily reality of front-line fighting in Ukraine - where drones have become a whole new dimension of high-lethality micro-scale air power.

jakobnissen 1y ago
You must be reading other mainstream media than I do, because drone warfare has been covered extensively in what I read. Namely DR (Danish national media), Zetland and The Atlantic.

FpUser 1y ago

Not sure about winning but drones are the major factor in Ukrainian war. Style of warfare did change completely. You should probably listen to interviews with the soldiers on both sides. An eye opener. As for attacking civilians being the goal: [1] - "At least two people were killed, including a 22-year-old police officer who was named by authorities as Maria Dziumaha, and more than a dozen were wounded in the attacks, according to authorities..." That is after more than 400 drones were used in the attack. [1] - https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/europe/russia-air-assault-ukraine-kyiv-intl-hnk https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/europe/russia-air-assault-ukr...

Marazan 1y ago

The majority of casualties on both sides are currently caused by drones. Yes, Russia is also using them to terrorise civilians but they clearly have huge battlefield implications and any military not immediately addressing this issue is going g to go into their next conflict at a massive disadvantage

zihotki 1y ago

Insignificant? Are destroyed strategic bombers insignificant? As well as huge amounts of armor vehicles so that now motocycles and other cheap vehicles are used instead. They pay significant role now, may be even more than artillery

danmaz74 1y ago

You're probably mostly thinking about Shahads and similar alternatives to cruise missiles, but what's much more significant in Ukraine is the use of FPV drones on the front lines to attack armor, transports, artillery and individual trenches. They account for the biggest part of inflicted losses nowadays.

bamboozled 1y ago

The title is, "Drones are the key to wining wars", not "Drones have won wars". Read the article.

coffinbirth 1y ago

[flagged]