Killer drones pioneered in Ukraine are the weapons of the future

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/02/08/killer-drones-pioneered-in-ukraine-are-the-weapons-of-the-future

by giuliomagnifico • 2 years ago

34 17 2 years ago

economist.com

kurthr• 2 years ago

The article isn't much longer than the taster:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240208152121/https://www.econo...

btbuildem2• 2 years ago

a shift towards small, cheap and disposable weapons; the increasing use of consumer technology; and the drift towards autonomy in battle

I've been following this with some trepidation. It's incredible how accessible this technology is. Right now jamming seems to be the best defence, but how long before target recognition works well enough on these low-power chipsets?

A bad actor can send out a swarm of a few dozen; it doesn't matter if your flak cannons take down 80%, the few that get through still do serious damage.

Good luck to the Secret Service and the security detail of various excessively wealthy individuals.

wizerdrobe• 2 years ago

Something I’ve wondered throughout the conflict, when and why did the US shift to a focus of techno-supremacy?

Seemingly, our strategy in the WWII was to invest in technology where possible but at the same time throwing many trucks and jeeps and puny Sherman tanks and guns and bandages and bullets and beans at the problem as possible.

Whereas in modern America we seem so much a “wonder weapons” mindset? That seems a poor posture in light of the article, all those expensive weapons will become a burden to protect or just outright destroyed.

BatFastard• 2 years ago

The U.S. has not been providing wonder weapons to Ukraine. It has been providing bullets, artillery shells, and Bradley fighting vehicles(which are pretty amazing, but are not new tech).

I would agree that the military like their new toys, like the f-35 fiasco.

DerSaidin• 2 years ago

Because 1) WWII was more of a total war scenario for the US, where a country is dedicating as much resources as possible to win (US is not doing this for Ukraine), and 2) developing technological supremacy takes lots of time, and can't be rushed, so it must be done ahead of time (and continue in peace time to maintain supremacy).

tomatotomato37• 2 years ago

I would also add to that the public perception that a wonder weapon (nuclear bombs) ended WWII, despite the fact it was only one of multiple more mundane factors that essentially guaranteed an Allied victory (and that's only counting the Pacific, in the European theater the "Wunderwaffe" lost the war)

dh2022• 2 years ago

I would also add that after Vietnam war America became more reluctant to put Americans in harm’s way. Is almost impossible politically to institute military draft in America: USA did not do it when it was fighting two wars at the same time (Afghanistan and Iraq).

This helps explain at least partially why America is so keen on military tech.

MilStdJunkie• 2 years ago

The end of citizen-soldiers, i.e., the end of the conscript military. That forces literally everything else.

The problem now - that no one wants to talk about - is that the gap between conscript-accessible "consumer" technology and current Pentagon wunderwaffe is growing distressingly thin. So, not surprisingly, people are starting to ask WHY a GPS chip costs as much as a house in Kansas.

Oh, I know, I know. "They got amazing stuff that's just, like, light-years beyond anything but they can't show YOU". Uh huh. Yeah, my dad knows kung fu, too.

For what it's worth, the end of conscription was a mistake. You don't want armed forces composed of 100% full timers, it's bad for your civilization, as a rule. Something like a mandatory youth civil service - say, three years in military, five years otherwise - would be a fantastic thing in today's post-ZIRP transition.

deterministic• 2 years ago

I agree. Citizens will think more than twice about supporting invading another country if they might end up having to personally be on the ground in a kill zone.

Which is why I believe that people supporting a war should be the ones actually fighting it.

krapp• 2 years ago

It's not as easy to convince Americans to throw their bodies into the meatgrinder to slaughter brown people for the sake of Raytheon and the almight petrodollar as it was to convince their grandparents to fight the Nazis. People are aware that war is a racket and the American military industrial complex aids and abets terror, suffering and genocide around the world, and it isn't worth having that blood on your hands and risking your life and mental health just to help with school loans.

So now we drone strike weddings for the sake of Raytheon and the almighty petrodollar and everyone is happy. Except the students who still have to pay their loans. And the brown people. But I guess you can't please everyone.

KevinMS• 2 years ago

when and why did the US shift to a focus of techno-supremacy?

A lot more profit in developing and producing very expensive showroom weapons.

RecycledEle• 2 years ago

why did the US shift to a focus of techno-supremacy?

In theory, we (the USA) can develop the tech during peace time and ramp up production during war time.

The problem is that during small brushfire wars, some of our less useful politicians decided to spend huge sums to avoid a few civilian casualties and even fewer US casualties. The more correct path would gave been to consider what weapons we would want to mass produce during a war that threatened our survival and take the opportunity to field test those weapons, not $100,000 artillery shells.

woleium• 2 years ago

Also see this future fiction short film from 2017

https://youtu.be/TlO2gcs1YvM?si=KsN2G1LwmNTUtFLh

btbuildem2• 2 years ago

I mean, they called it.

thriftwy• 2 years ago

Most consumer grade drones are too expensive for one-time FPV drone. They're usually built from kits.

MR4D• 2 years ago

Kits also allow two other key aspects:

1 - better control of the supply chain

2 - more tailored customization

imacomputer• 2 years ago

Small FPV quadcopters are terrifying in war.

If you haven't seen it yet, go checkout whats on r/CombatFootage, its essentially killbots that follow soldiers around and explode on contact or drop grenades. I think this is a future of warfare which we are not talking about enough. If the Ukraine is able to make these effectively with consumer technology, unfortunately everyone can, including criminals looking to make hits.

I could see this fall out in a few ways:

- Operating personal drones and other small craft will (and should) become restrictive, if not outright prohibited outside of designated areas. All commercial drones outside of these areas will have to have squawk their position and registration.

- Eventually radio jammers will not be effective countermeasures against these weapons. Machine vision, and a simple AI which could be crammed into a SoM (e.g. IoT AI products), lock onto targets and follow them into areas with radio jammers.

- Anyone who needs security protection will probably be spending a lot more time indoors including events.

Killer drones pioneered in Ukraine are the weapons of the future

Related Stories