6 ms·

The original press release from HMG is https://www.gov.uk/government/news/groundbreaking-ukraine-tech-sharing-agreement-to-deliver-drones-and-support-jobs https

The original press release from HMG is https://www.gov.uk/government/news/groundbreaking-ukraine-tech-sharing-agreement-to-deliver-drones-and-support-jobs https://www.gov.uk/government/news/groundbreaking-ukraine-te... .

kragen 1y ago
This has barely more information, but enough to establish an order of magnitude: > The drone developed under Project OCTOPUS was designed by Ukraine with support from UK scientists and technicians and has already proved successful on the battlefield, proving highly effective against the Shahed one-way attack drone variants used by Russia – despite costing less than 10% to produce than the drones they are designed to intercept. What does a Shahed cost? https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-really-cost https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-rea... says about US$50k, so they're saying that the Octopus drones cost on the order of US$5k, and "thousands" of them costs on the order of US$10M. So this is a single-digit percentage of Ukraine's yearly drone budget: not insignificant, but far from game-changing.
- tim333 1y ago
  The main article has that the Ukrainians are investing US$271m in UK plants so presumably more than $10m worth.
  - kragen 1y ago
    But that would mean that the Octopus interceptor drones cost more than the Shaheds they're designed to shoot down. Is it possible that this paragraph isn't actually about Octopus? > The agreement followed investment from Ukraine’s largest drone manufacturer, UKRSPECSYSTEMS, which announced that it would invest £200 million (US$271.2 million) into two new UK facilities – the first major investment by a Ukrainian defence company in the UK, according to Healy.
    - tim333 1y ago
      My guess is that they will producing a lot of the interceptor drones and keeping the plant there for a long time even if the war ends.
      - kragen 1y ago
        If the interceptor-drone agreement followed the investment, the investment can't have been conditional on the agreement, so maybe the plant was intended to produce other drones, perhaps for sale to, for example, the Allance of Sahel States (ASS). £200M is the same order of magnitude as Ukraine's total yearly spending on drones, I think.
        tim333 1y ago
        I think Ukraine is investing large sums into its arms industry and it will probably continue as a large part of its economy, exporting arms after the war is over. They would after all be in a strong position as one of the only countries to have successfully fought a major power in recent times.
        kragen 1y ago
        Probably a better position than the Taliban, actually, who actually won the war and recouped all their lost territory. That seems unlikely to be in the cards for Ukraine.
    - Y-bar 1y ago
      > But that would mean that the Octopus interceptor drones cost more than the Shaheds they're designed to shoot down. But does it cost more than the Shahed plus the target of the Shahed? That it the equation Ukraine is using.
      - kragen 1y ago
        That's a different question; I'm just saying it would contradict the "less than 10%" claim in the article and the press release. It would maybe also not be a great idea to field weapons that cost more than their targets, because, measured in dollars, it means you're doing more damage to yourself than to the enemy. Economically speaking, it's like a handgun that shoots both backwards and forwards. If you're immensely richer than the enemy—and the UK's GDP is almost twice the size of Russia's, even before you add in Ukraine's GDP, Poland's GDP, Germany's, etc.—it can still be a winning strategy. But it's still pretty galling.

kragen 1y ago

This has barely more information, but enough to establish an order of magnitude: > The drone developed under Project OCTOPUS was designed by Ukraine with support from UK scientists and technicians and has already proved successful on the battlefield, proving highly effective against the Shahed one-way attack drone variants used by Russia – despite costing less than 10% to produce than the drones they are designed to intercept. What does a Shahed cost? https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-really-cost https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-rea... says about US$50k, so they're saying that the Octopus drones cost on the order of US$5k, and "thousands" of them costs on the order of US$10M. So this is a single-digit percentage of Ukraine's yearly drone budget: not insignificant, but far from game-changing.

tim333 1y ago
The main article has that the Ukrainians are investing US$271m in UK plants so presumably more than $10m worth.
- kragen 1y ago
  But that would mean that the Octopus interceptor drones cost more than the Shaheds they're designed to shoot down. Is it possible that this paragraph isn't actually about Octopus? > The agreement followed investment from Ukraine’s largest drone manufacturer, UKRSPECSYSTEMS, which announced that it would invest £200 million (US$271.2 million) into two new UK facilities – the first major investment by a Ukrainian defence company in the UK, according to Healy.
  - tim333 1y ago
    My guess is that they will producing a lot of the interceptor drones and keeping the plant there for a long time even if the war ends.
    - kragen 1y ago
      If the interceptor-drone agreement followed the investment, the investment can't have been conditional on the agreement, so maybe the plant was intended to produce other drones, perhaps for sale to, for example, the Allance of Sahel States (ASS). £200M is the same order of magnitude as Ukraine's total yearly spending on drones, I think.
      - tim333 1y ago
        I think Ukraine is investing large sums into its arms industry and it will probably continue as a large part of its economy, exporting arms after the war is over. They would after all be in a strong position as one of the only countries to have successfully fought a major power in recent times.
        kragen 1y ago
        Probably a better position than the Taliban, actually, who actually won the war and recouped all their lost territory. That seems unlikely to be in the cards for Ukraine.
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    > But that would mean that the Octopus interceptor drones cost more than the Shaheds they're designed to shoot down. But does it cost more than the Shahed plus the target of the Shahed? That it the equation Ukraine is using.
    - kragen 1y ago
      That's a different question; I'm just saying it would contradict the "less than 10%" claim in the article and the press release. It would maybe also not be a great idea to field weapons that cost more than their targets, because, measured in dollars, it means you're doing more damage to yourself than to the enemy. Economically speaking, it's like a handgun that shoots both backwards and forwards. If you're immensely richer than the enemy—and the UK's GDP is almost twice the size of Russia's, even before you add in Ukraine's GDP, Poland's GDP, Germany's, etc.—it can still be a winning strategy. But it's still pretty galling.