4 ms·

The most surprising thing here is that the US was previously only spending $225 Million on drones when it’s been fully apparent for the past decade(s) that dron

The most surprising thing here is that the US was previously only spending $225 Million on drones when it’s been fully apparent for the past decade(s) that drones were the future of warfare.

l5870uoo9y 6mo ago
Took a war to realize this.
- kylehotchkiss 6mo ago
  two wars
- readitalready 6mo ago
  Took getting their asses handed to them in a war to realize this.
scottyah 6mo ago
It didn't make sense to physically stock up on them before. It was mostly research, prototyping, comms infrastructure, software for swarms, AI piloting, ground control, etc. The next phase of building factories and manufacturing tooling/capabilities is a little bit concerning.
- GerryAdamsSF 6mo ago
  Simple DJI style drones employed en masse in Afghanistan would have been helpful for a variety of tasks. I cannot see any reason, over than oversight and a lack of imagination, why something useful in Ukraine in 2022 was not feasible or useful in 2017 by the USA. We already used drones quite handily well before that time frame but in a much more limited manner in a different form factor.
  - cosmicgadget 6mo ago
    Combat in Ukraine is, as I understand it, somewhat like WWI with long lines of contact that only shift slowly. So you have a good idea that if you point your drone in a given direction, you'll find an enemy tank or trench. For Afghanistan it seems like high-flying, capable, armed drones were a better option for that type of conflict.
  - rl3 6mo ago
    >I cannot see any reason, over than oversight and a lack of imagination, why something useful in Ukraine in 2022 was not feasible or useful in 2017 by the USA. Perhaps it had to do with optics? It's not like there was a lack of capability in 2017. [0] The war in Ukraine provided a way for the US to assist in rapid iteration of the technology without having to shoulder the negative sentiment or grapple with the morality of it. Also worth noting that the two conflicts were wildly different: Afghanistan was more of an occupation across a much larger area with air superiority. There's not really much impetus to field killer drone swarms when you already have the 24/7 ability to instantly delete most enemy combatants off the map to begin with. Whereas Ukraine with neither side having air superiority and it resembling something closer to modern trench warfare. In most cases with literal trenches. >We already used drones quite handily well before that time frame but in a much more limited manner in a different form factor. The picture below is from 1995. [1] By approximately 2001 it received the MQ-1A designation indicating it was capable of employing AGM-114 (hellfire) payloads. Kind of crazy to think about. [0] https://www.twz.com/6866/60-minutes-does-an-infomercial-on-drone-swarms-for-the-pentagon https://www.twz.com/6866/60-minutes-does-an-infomercial-on-d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator#/media/File:RQ-1_Predator_in_flight_near_USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN-70)_951205-N-3149J-006.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator#...
  - red-iron-pine 6mo ago
    i mean mon ami drones were employed heavily in Afghanistan just not DJI suicide drones, and not on the squad level in 2006 those would have been great but the tech wasn't there the way it is in 2026. but in 2016 the US had eyes on everything. the difference is that the US had an occupation -- hearts & minds -- and couldn't just JDAM everything that moves, which is the SOP in Ukraine
dijit 6mo ago
I think the surprising thing to me here is that there is a generation of children afraid of a clear blue sky because it means drones can see them.. ... and it only cost $225M. (source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-congresss-briefing-drone-strikes/354548/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-c...)
- cosmicgadget 6mo ago
  Surely the 225M only covers tiny drones and not the Predators, Reapers, and the others employed in the GWOT.
mc32 6mo ago
I think we sorely miss people like Paul van Riper. I’m pretty confident he’d have seen their use and advocated for them years ago.
jonplackett 6mo ago
What is weird is that all these current super expensive high tech weapons like aircraft carriers, f22s are basically like cavalry in the tank era. Drones (and cheap-ish ballistic missiles) have turned it all on its head. In the war with Iran you have the USA shooting down 50k drones with multiple multi-million dollar missiles. Some of the THAAD missiles are over 10 million each - and you have to launch 2 to get an interception. Meanwhile they have to keep the aircraft carriers hundreds of miles off shore or they’ll be sunk with hypersonic missiles. The economics are crazy but even if you’re willing to pay, the capacity to build enough isn’t there either.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > they have to keep the aircraft carriers hundreds of miles off shore Drones + cheap antidrones + aircraft carriers + stealth aircraft looks like a solid high/low optimum. Anyone pitching an only-high or only-low strategy is leaving chips on the table.
  - ohnei 6mo ago
    I'm not familiar with a stealth meant for even when you have to park it sometimes. If anyone has a great drone dominance then all your anti drone should go into drone related infrastructure. If someone has the corresponding high dominance then you can wait until nature runs out of resources for maintaining the absurd. The US is a strategy of failure since Vietnam because it is profitable to war hawk supporters to lose every war in the economics and funnel the money back into more strategic losers.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > If anyone has a great drone dominance then all your anti drone should go into drone related infrastructure If your opponent has drone dominance, you neutralize that advantage with anti-drone kit and then build your own advantage. Part of that will be drones. But part will be heavier, more sophisticated platforms. (Which will eventually pilot themselves, but aren’t drones since they aren’t cheap.) You can’t win a war only playing defense. > someone has the corresponding high dominance then you can wait until nature runs out of resources for maintaining the absurd Their high technology destroys your industry while you wait. This is strategy as old as the Bronze Age.
rozal 6mo ago
[dead]
hulitu 6mo ago
They chose the wrong supplier. This was fixed. /s

The most surprising thing here is that the US was previously only spending $225 Million on drones when it’s been fully apparent for the past decade(s) that drones were the future of warfare.

l5870uoo9y 6mo ago

Took a war to realize this.

kylehotchkiss 6mo ago
two wars
readitalready 6mo ago
Took getting their asses handed to them in a war to realize this.

scottyah 6mo ago

It didn't make sense to physically stock up on them before. It was mostly research, prototyping, comms infrastructure, software for swarms, AI piloting, ground control, etc. The next phase of building factories and manufacturing tooling/capabilities is a little bit concerning.

GerryAdamsSF 6mo ago
Simple DJI style drones employed en masse in Afghanistan would have been helpful for a variety of tasks. I cannot see any reason, over than oversight and a lack of imagination, why something useful in Ukraine in 2022 was not feasible or useful in 2017 by the USA. We already used drones quite handily well before that time frame but in a much more limited manner in a different form factor.
- cosmicgadget 6mo ago
  Combat in Ukraine is, as I understand it, somewhat like WWI with long lines of contact that only shift slowly. So you have a good idea that if you point your drone in a given direction, you'll find an enemy tank or trench. For Afghanistan it seems like high-flying, capable, armed drones were a better option for that type of conflict.
- rl3 6mo ago
  >I cannot see any reason, over than oversight and a lack of imagination, why something useful in Ukraine in 2022 was not feasible or useful in 2017 by the USA. Perhaps it had to do with optics? It's not like there was a lack of capability in 2017. [0] The war in Ukraine provided a way for the US to assist in rapid iteration of the technology without having to shoulder the negative sentiment or grapple with the morality of it. Also worth noting that the two conflicts were wildly different: Afghanistan was more of an occupation across a much larger area with air superiority. There's not really much impetus to field killer drone swarms when you already have the 24/7 ability to instantly delete most enemy combatants off the map to begin with. Whereas Ukraine with neither side having air superiority and it resembling something closer to modern trench warfare. In most cases with literal trenches. >We already used drones quite handily well before that time frame but in a much more limited manner in a different form factor. The picture below is from 1995. [1] By approximately 2001 it received the MQ-1A designation indicating it was capable of employing AGM-114 (hellfire) payloads. Kind of crazy to think about. [0] https://www.twz.com/6866/60-minutes-does-an-infomercial-on-drone-swarms-for-the-pentagon https://www.twz.com/6866/60-minutes-does-an-infomercial-on-d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator#/media/File:RQ-1_Predator_in_flight_near_USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN-70)_951205-N-3149J-006.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator#...
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  i mean mon ami drones were employed heavily in Afghanistan just not DJI suicide drones, and not on the squad level in 2006 those would have been great but the tech wasn't there the way it is in 2026. but in 2016 the US had eyes on everything. the difference is that the US had an occupation -- hearts & minds -- and couldn't just JDAM everything that moves, which is the SOP in Ukraine

dijit 6mo ago

I think the surprising thing to me here is that there is a generation of children afraid of a clear blue sky because it means drones can see them.. ... and it only cost $225M. (source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-congresss-briefing-drone-strikes/354548/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-c...)

cosmicgadget 6mo ago
Surely the 225M only covers tiny drones and not the Predators, Reapers, and the others employed in the GWOT.

mc32 6mo ago

I think we sorely miss people like Paul van Riper. I’m pretty confident he’d have seen their use and advocated for them years ago.

jonplackett 6mo ago

What is weird is that all these current super expensive high tech weapons like aircraft carriers, f22s are basically like cavalry in the tank era. Drones (and cheap-ish ballistic missiles) have turned it all on its head. In the war with Iran you have the USA shooting down 50k drones with multiple multi-million dollar missiles. Some of the THAAD missiles are over 10 million each - and you have to launch 2 to get an interception. Meanwhile they have to keep the aircraft carriers hundreds of miles off shore or they’ll be sunk with hypersonic missiles. The economics are crazy but even if you’re willing to pay, the capacity to build enough isn’t there either.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> they have to keep the aircraft carriers hundreds of miles off shore Drones + cheap antidrones + aircraft carriers + stealth aircraft looks like a solid high/low optimum. Anyone pitching an only-high or only-low strategy is leaving chips on the table.
- ohnei 6mo ago
  I'm not familiar with a stealth meant for even when you have to park it sometimes. If anyone has a great drone dominance then all your anti drone should go into drone related infrastructure. If someone has the corresponding high dominance then you can wait until nature runs out of resources for maintaining the absurd. The US is a strategy of failure since Vietnam because it is profitable to war hawk supporters to lose every war in the economics and funnel the money back into more strategic losers.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > If anyone has a great drone dominance then all your anti drone should go into drone related infrastructure If your opponent has drone dominance, you neutralize that advantage with anti-drone kit and then build your own advantage. Part of that will be drones. But part will be heavier, more sophisticated platforms. (Which will eventually pilot themselves, but aren’t drones since they aren’t cheap.) You can’t win a war only playing defense. > someone has the corresponding high dominance then you can wait until nature runs out of resources for maintaining the absurd Their high technology destroys your industry while you wait. This is strategy as old as the Bronze Age.

rozal 6mo ago

[dead]

hulitu 6mo ago

They chose the wrong supplier. This was fixed. /s