139
submitted 11 months ago by zephyreks@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 56 points 11 months ago

"Today, a column of tanks or a column of advancing troops can be discovered in three to five minutes and hit in another three minutes," Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy commander of Ukraine's HUR military-intelligence service, told The Wall Street Journal.

"The days of massed armored assaults, taking many kilometers of ground at a time, like we did in 2003 in Iraq — that stuff is gone because the drones have become so effective now," Bradley Crawford, a retired US Army sergeant who's an Iraq war veteran, told the newspaper.

This war is going to change military doctrine entirely. The concept of large and expensive tanks and planes has been decinated by information age technologies at a tiny fraction of the cost.

[-] BudgieMania@kbin.social 29 points 11 months ago

It's fascinating in a certain way. Massing dudes armed with the spear, one of the most basic concepts for a weapon possible, remained viable for millenia; but massing tanks and planes, which are marvels of advanced engineering, has been made obsolete in a century. XX and XXI century progress has been absurd.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Modern military doctrine was really defined by Nazi operations in WW2, but what's missed is that the Nazis failed (and for good reason). The depth of supply lines required for an occupation (not just a decapitating strike like France) are immense and infeasible. That's been proven time and time again by both the US and USSR, and now by Russia.

After the attempted decapitation strike on Kyiv failed, the Russian offensive faltered and had to regroup.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago

I'd be curious to see how it plays out with the next major ground operation the US does.
I feel like neither Russia nor Ukraine having air superiority changes the dynamics quite a bit.
I have my doubts that the tactic would work as well if the target has more unfettered ability to bomb your potential staging areas.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

I can't find the link, but I saw a video of a training exercise where an F-35 dropped a shit-ton of autonomous drones, and they circled until they each had an individual target, then plunged right into them.

Fuck that. You have zero warning because you can't see the F-35 and you can't see the drones until they turn your lights off.

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Homies acting like the US hasn't been bombing places with drones since 2003

Shaheds Russia is bombing Ukraine with right now are an Iranian copy of a captured Sentinel drone

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

These were different. Real small and about a hundred of them. Its a continuation of weapon system they used in Iraq, where a munition would be shot over a position and release a hundred little guided bombs. Now it's just guided bombs and a shitton of the fuckers.

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

No I'm agreeing with you.

I'm responding to people sweating about these "new" capabilities like the US has been caught by surprise.

[-] chowder@lemmy.one 9 points 11 months ago
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah! That's it!! Fucking wild!

Edit: wait till the end and you can hear the sound of unseen death

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

If the F-35 is operating within small drone range, it's probably detectable on infrared tbh. If it's a larger drone, then there's not really much of an advantage of launching it by F-35 because you'd probably be outside of radar range anyway. The F-35 is most useful when it IS accomplishing the role of CAS because it has the benefit of a pilot.

As it stands, I feel like the primary role of jets today is to maintain aerial superiority to drop heavy bombs (which are far cheaper than building an equivalent drone).

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

It would release them about a mile out. I'll see if I can find it. I sent it to a friend a while back.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

That's going to be easily within infrared detection distance, right? Sounds like it would only work against insurgents who don't have access to advanced guided munitions.

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The secret here is the word "drop". As in drop them on drones beyond their limit maximum height.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago

I think the whole concept of air superiority is also under question.

How do you have air superiority when hundreds of drones can be launched without airfields or any real infrastructure required?

How do you gain it when SEAD type missions would be constantly needed against hundreds of drones which cost a fraction of the cost of the munitions used against them?

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Well, there's still the infrastructure to actually distribute the drones to where they're deployed.
So if I can use cruise missiles to take out your air defenses, and long range bombers to take out your airfields, and then start hitting supply caches and truck convoys, you might have a hard time actually getting the drones to the areas where they're needed before their targets have moved on.

Or not, I don't know. I'm just curious how it pans out in a more asymetric conflict.

[-] chowder@lemmy.one 4 points 11 months ago

How do you gain it when SEAD type missions would be constantly needed against hundreds of drones which cost a fraction of the cost of the munitions used against them?

Shit dude, there are a lot of possibilities out there.Airlauch your own drone swarm to give it extra range. Produce drones with further range, better accuracy, and better explosives. Electronic warfare to stop enemy swarms. That's just off the top of my stoned head.

[-] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Those drones are fast as shit

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 11 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Airlauch

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Thing is, modern drones that can take out tanks don't really need staging areas. You can fit one in your backpack and operate it out of a hole in the ground.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

I'm not talking small airfield, more like the cache where you would actually keep and distribute the drones.
The whole thing falls apart of you can't keep resupplying them, even if they don't need much space to operate.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Distributing modern drones isn't any different from distributing guns or ammunition or food or supplies. They're small, easy to pack, individually distributable, and require minimal infrastructure.

You might need a lot of infrastructure to launch a Predator, but I could build an FPV drone in my room.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

I remember drones being frequently brought up in Robert Evans' It Could Happen Here. Basically it was a run through of what might happen in a civil war in the US. He figured a population with guns would certainly hinder an army but drones would be the game changer.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago

With the freedom of the Internet though, open-source drone development might be able to achieve far lower costs than what government procurement can.

Hardening of communications isn't THAT complicated, after all.

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There are no real game changers, only smaller steps of adaption. You won't suddenly stopping using soldiers because drones are better. You will equip the soldiers with with more capabilities to defend drones.

Drones aren't efficient in Ukraine on both sides because they are more capable but because neither side has much in terms of defenses against drones.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

This is only continuing the trend started in ww1. The big paradigm shift of ww1 was that you can stop any number of men with machine-guns and artillery. So you need more space between the men. Tanks allowed to cover the men for an assault, so offensive could still be done.

Now, with the accuracy of the artillery and missiles and the drones to scout, tanks are also destroyed before they can accomplish their mission. So the no-man's-land is even larger than before.

It is an interesting challenge to overcome.

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

There are no more lines of battle. A drone could attack anywhere. A drone could drop a grenade bouquet down the hatch of oil tankers. It's weird the fighting is contained in Ukraine at all.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

There very much is a line of battle, it's just that it's 5km thick.

Drones behind the lines are like missiles or long range artillery. But they don't prevent movement from the enemy.

Weapons and sensors will be developed to fight drones too. It'll just take a few years.

[-] neuropean@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Tbf, modern US tank doctrine was already revised prior to this such that they’re used supporting infantry, not in use in armored brigades like the gulf wars.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

A report by Natalia Bugaynova on the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) now says that the infamous pictures of rows of destroyed Leopard tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) that marked Ukraine’s disastrous counteroffensive were owing to the Western/NATO warfighting style that it trained the Ukrainian army in.

“(Large-scale) mechanized breaches that NATO trained Ukraine’s counteroffensive brigades to execute are incredibly difficult and are not the only option available to Ukrainian forces,” said her report on ISW.

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/ukraine-dumps-nato-us-military-doctrine-russias-impregnable/

[-] Nurgle@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

This is like WWI or more aptly the Spanish Civil War, giving us a taste of the next major conflict. Which will be nothing but drones clouding out the sun. They can make quicker decisions, carry bigger payloads, go longer and “save” soldiers lives. There’ll be little reason for forward deployments other than deploying air defense and limited support.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Drones won't get rid of men on the ground... But it gets to the point where a war is just sending men into a swarm of drones, and that just sounds unpleasant.

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Drones don't conquer areas. Drones don't search for explosives or hidden defenders. So no, this will not change the number of soldiers but just be an andditional wave before them taking over the job that precision-guided artillery is fullfilling now.

Also there are only very few situations where a new type of weapon actually replaced older ones. Not without decades and decades of the existing ones being adapted to new tech and tactics.

Your "we don't need forward deployments other than limited air defense anymore"-argument is the same wrong simplification we heard about the end of tanks after every single bigger engagement since ww1.

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

You think they can make a machine do parkour, and they can make a machine navigate collapsed buildings, but they won't be able to make a machine that can clear a building?

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

No, they actually can't, they can make a drone that can parkour a know course. On a good day an unknown course strictly comprised out of known parts. The more autonomous the task, the harder it gets.

Contrary to public believe A.I. isn't actually intelligent but really dump. They can only work well with permutations of known things but are still rather helpless when confronted with unknown factors.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Don't drones rely on wireless communication? Would it not be possible to one day make large "dead zones" many kilometers wide where drones can't operate because of some sort of signal interruption?

[-] Chunk@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Some advanced stuff like F35 has EW mitigation and is designed to withstand some jamming.

Tiny little drones definitely don't have that shit. But they might one day.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The sheer number of drones operating in Ukraine, as well as battle-management systems that provide real-time imaging and locations, mean that troops and tanks out in the open have just minutes before they're targeted, a top Ukrainian military official says.

"Today, a column of tanks or a column of advancing troops can be discovered in three to five minutes and hit in another three minutes," Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy commander of Ukraine's HUR military-intelligence service, told The Wall Street Journal.

"The days of massed armored assaults, taking many kilometers of ground at a time, like we did in 2003 in Iraq — that stuff is gone because the drones have become so effective now," Bradley Crawford, a retired US Army sergeant who's an Iraq war veteran, told the newspaper.

Ukraine has been increasingly relying on cheap, first-person-view drones, or FPVs, to take out Russian military hardware.

While the exact number of drones deployed remains unclear, the Royal United Services Institute estimated earlier this year that Ukraine was losing about 10,000 drones a month, a sign of their widespread use.

Russia is meanwhile working to make a deadlier, more advanced version of Iran's Shahed-136 attack drone, The Washington Post reported based on leaked documents.


The original article contains 382 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 46%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Doesn't/won't drone and missile intercept technology keep up with the drones and missiles?

Obviously, ruzzia won't. They are shit, but I would assume the US Army is already finding solutions on how to counter this.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's harder to intercept in general. In this case, drones have minimal radar and infrared signature and are extremely cheap...

It's impractical to spend a million dollars intercepting a drone that costs $500 to build.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Lasers or fast firing small calibre weapons can hit drones. We already have weapons with enough accuracy to hit drones, what's missing is a system to detect them. But with AI, cameras should be able to do that soon. Drones should then increase their camouflage. But they also are noisy, so sound detector might be another solution (probably not alone).

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Drone are super easy to detect with any basic SDR. Only the infrared line of sight beam riding drone and fully autonomous drones are immune

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

It will, eventually, but this stuff takes time.

The problem with drones is that they can be very small, and very cheap.

The first part makes them difficult to detect and target. The second part makes destroying them with, say, guided missiles, extremely inefficient. You can basically bankrupt your opponent by sending more drones then they have missiles to shoot them down with.

Creating hard counters to modern drones is going to require radical new thinking. I suspect energy weapons may end up playing a serious role in this regard.

[-] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

I did see some stuff about lasers destroying drones

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
139 points (96.6% liked)

World News

32054 readers
739 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS