Ukraine is Changing the Face of Warfare

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

12 Responses

  1. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    The thing to keep in mind is that every move in the history of conventional war has a counter move. Drones have been most important in Ukraine as a defensive weapon since they prevent Russia from massing armor and personnel for a breakthrough. However to the extent we’re talking about small, cheap suicide drones, in addition to jamming, I think someone will eventually develop a lighter, maybe even automated targeting version of something like the Flakpanzer Gepard. It wasn’t designed with this kind of fighting in mind but something eventually will be, now that we know these things will need to be defended against but you don’t want to waste missiles costing 6 or 7 figures on them.Report

  2. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    One thing the Ukrainians have proven is you don’t need a multi-trillion dollar military-industrial complex to innovate in war. This actually has some of my DoD colleagues worries about engaging with China, because the U.S. government can’t buy stuff that fast without breaking close to a dozen laws.Report

  3. Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    Counter-point… It’s not the effectiveness of the drones by themselves, it’s those in combination with artillery. The Ukrainians are running through about 10,000 rounds of artillery ammo per month, and would like to have much more. The Russians are, I believe, still managing to fire off about 30,000 artillery rounds per month. Both figures dwarf the number of drones. The surprises are that armor has been largely useless*, and attack helicopters as well, because one infantryman can carry a tank- or helicopter-killer.

    The war is an artillery duel at various ranges and with various means of improving accuracy.

    * Armor meaning tanks. Armored infantry vehicles have played a role. The only chance that this was going to be settled by armor was if the Russians had pulled off the initial three-day dash to Kyiv.Report

    • North in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes, the main lesson seems to be that drone and missile tech is moving us back to a World War I style of fighting where artillery (aimed with drones and protected from aircraft by missiles) dominates. Tanks are just lumbering drone/artillery targets. Infantry still struggles with all the mass-the-bullets-in-the-air technology that it has long struggled with. Airforces and navies are kept well away by missiles and the fog of war has never been thinner.

      I do wonder why a drone killing drone hasn’t been developed yet. Like, some drone that carries a weapon that can shred another drone. You can take drones down with missiles, but the cost of the missile dwarfs the drone. I’m puzzled as to what the technical challenges are for a drone that scoots up to other drones and, I don’t know, flak cannons them to death, or something, then moves on to the next one.Report

      • Philip H in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Just because you are not aware publicly of a certain system or technology, do not assume it does not exist. The U.S. Navy and Air Force have been operating all sorts of drones for all sorts of purposes for 20 plus years. Only a few have ever been declassified.Report

        • North in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Sure, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if we have some billion dollar drone killer tucked away somewhere at the DoD.

          But is a drone hunting drone really that so hard? Shouldn’t there be a dozen versions of DHD’s prowling the skies of Ukraine right now? Both sides have every reason to develope one but all I read about are ground to air anti drone devices. Jets are very fast and, accordingly, require missiles to reliably knock out of the sky but, my understanding is, that drones are much slower devices and they’re not particularly physically robust. So, outside our state-of-the-art classified field what is it about drones that makes drone-hunting drones unfeasible? I genuinely don’t know.Report

          • Philip H in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            object detection and identification require a fair amount of compute power – which is hard to physically get on a quad copter that is of the size being used. Which is why most of the ones known publicly are not on the drones themselves.

            Like these:

            https://potomacofficersclub.com/articles/10-anti-drone-weapons-used-by-the-u-s-military/Report

            • North in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              For sure, but let’s stipulate that the drones aren’t making any of the decisions about targeting. Say in the UK battlespace the UK command is going to have a pretty good idea of which of those drones up there are theirs and which ones aren’t. Why can’t they send a drone up to the loiter around near the enemy drones and, I don’t know, spray them with a cheap little flak cannon or deploy foam into their props or zap em with a laser or whatever?

              That’s my main curiosity. Why’s it gotta be a ground based manned weapon or a million-dollar missile? A manned anti-drone weapon is, itself, a drone target and all the devices on your excellent list are enormously more expensive than the drones they’re aimed at. Why can’t drones be scrapped by other drones?Report

              • Philip H in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Compute power vs. battery power vs. battle space sensor packages vs. battery power vs. comms systems vs. battery power. The systems you need to do all that on the platform take up spaces, add weight, require greater thrust and thus bigger batteries which in turn require bigger props and large motors … There are drone hunting drone that exist in the world . . . but at the moment the shoulder launched things are easier to account for.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                My guess is it will be here sooner than we think. Missile defense has already proven way more plausible than people thought it was 20 or 30 years ago. One concept might be launching waves of cheap drones once attack is detected that either jam the enemy drones or that paint themselves as diversionary targets so that instead of intercepting they are attracting the payload to them.

                You can also use things like the Gepards that are expensive (but not that expensive) as a full system but are just using a form of machine gun ammunition that isn’t.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Like I said – just because you haven’t seen in yet, don’t assume it doesn’t exist. Aerial and oceanic drone tech is a major part of my day job these days.Report

              • North in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That is a good point and I accept it. DHD’s are probably harder than I’m thinking when you factor in targeting and weight.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *