As Watling himself puts it: “Unhardened UAVs are disposable tools like munitions and get consumed very rapidly. You need them in your force and you need them to be cheap.”

For decades, Western armies have relied on a few expensive, ‘exquisite’ high-tech platforms, and that includes drones. This conflict of disposable drones may lead to a radical change in military procurement towards the many and the cheap.

  • mysticaldeknoi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    “…even if the figure really is 10,000, this appears sustainable…10,000 DJI quadcopters at an average cost of about $1,000 would be $10m. Last week, Russia lost an Su-34 bomber, with a sticker price of something over $40m…

    “And yesterday Russia apparently lost an even more advanced Su-35, which goes for around $85m. Together these two aircraft alone represent a loss ten times as great as all Ukraine’s drones for the month put together.“

    The headline is pretty much clickbait. $10m is a drop in the bucket.

  • nhgeek@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This conflict has unique characteristics and will rewrite some “rules” for modern war.

  • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wouldn’t we by now be seeing piles of dead drones being showcased daily if they were lost in such a high number? Like it was done with the recent loss of leos?

    • Cypher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of these drone losses will be little more than shrapnel strewn across the battlefield. Not much to show off.

      • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If they get shot down sure, but jammed drones would either land or fall, in either way theres plently to go for a drone carcass surely.

        • Cypher@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          True but then it becomes a logistics and organisation problem for a fairly meaningless photo op and Russia aren’t doing well with either of those things.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re not going to be in a pile, though. They’re still going to be individual drones lying in ditches in no-man’s land. Hardly a compelling photo-op.

          • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have reports that russia is running out of materials, surely if the drones are flying around they would be closer to their front lines, so easier opportunity to recover.

            I mean just logically, russia is not doing so well in the information war, so I assumed they would use any opportunity to showcase their achievements, like they have done with the several bradleys/leos destroyed. They were milking that footage for a week at least.

            So to me its weird that they have not tried to improve morale with such statistics. But I obviously have no clue on combat morale.

  • 73 million seconds@fosstodon.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    @sexy_peach In one of Hromadske’s reports from Bakhmut a drone team did quote a fairly high number for drone losses. Not sure how accurate 10k a month is but it doesn’t strike me as completely unbeliveable in relation to that.

  • JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Drones are closer in attrition to ammunition than aircraft, so just need to be resupplied as such. They are undoubtedly helpful with all the mortar and artillery spotting, so we need enough resupply to make the attrition worth it.

    Also, what think tank is this? Are they credible?