UKR almost feels like yesterday's drone war. It seems pretty obvious purpose built murder bots by technologically capable powers like PRC would be fully autonomous and expendable like actual munitions. Image fuse some cheap rgb/ir/thermo with edge compute to maim any warm bodies at 100km+ speeds. Don't even bother to reusable / save material. Just send them out to indiscriminately detonate like cheap smart munitions that they should be.
Strategic depth is a factor. In the Israel/Iran war, Iran's Shahed drones weren't useful due to the large distance. They could be shot down at a leisurely pace. If Iran was fighting a nearby country like Iraq, it would be a very different story. On the other hand, Israel made use of surveillance drones inside Iran, but only due to methods employed to shrink the strategic depth, either by smuggling them into Iran, or doing a clandestine launch from allies like Azerbaijan. But obviously, such tactics are not durable in a war of attrition, and they're not applicable to high-volume Shahed-like suicide attacks.
In the Pacific theatre, Taiwan is very close to China, so possibly, attack drones will be useful similar to the Ukraine/Russia war.
There are also many different types of drones being employed. The short-range small quadcopters, all the way up to large Predator drones. Shaheds are kind of in the middle in terms of size. The boundary can be blurred too between loitering munitions (Switchblade) and drones.
For the suicide quadcopter drones, there is a realization that Skynet is the next step in the arms race. Full edge autonomy over the kill chain. No need for data link (susceptible to electronic warfare) or trained pilots or added round-trip latency.
Anti-drone tech is also changing. Interceptor drones, net-dropping drones, ground-based laser, electronic warfare, and small guided ground- or air-launched interceptors.
Also have to consider the combined arms picture, none of this can be reasoned about in a vacuum.
But I suppose my main takeaway is - no two theatres are the same, AND there is a diversity in drones. So to collectivize a takeaway around "drones" would be a reasoning error.
One thing will be certain when it comes to wars between nearby countries. You need to knock out the enemy's industrial production quickly with bombers. Or have your own industrial production that can maintain pacing and avoid culmination in a war of attrition.
I've been trying to judge this impact on doctrine and procurement but these things are hard to judge when it's happening. Hindsight is cheating ;)
It's huge, though. Many tiers of equipment, doctrine, vehicles, product time to market improvements, RF equipment, radars, stealth tech, software, battle drills, and even new job specializations of various levels. It's intense, and a constant iteration cycle at a pace we haven't seen for at least a long time, but possibly forever.
One possible future is that wartime casualties decrease because humans in the field are just completely useless. Accompanying this positive development will be the negative tail risk of exinction.
I don’t know if that would matter in an actual war between china and the US but sending explosives at anything that’s warm sounds like a war crime. That would probably violate proportionality.
American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that you will always have the manufacturing capacity and the supply lines to get all the materiel you need to the front, that you'll be bottlenecked by something else like manpower.
This works pretty well for fighting limited wars where part of the justification is to develop and maintain military readiness. Would it still be true in a large scale war against China - could you pump out a million drones a day - or would you wish for a doctrine that included reusable drones?
I think something to keep in mind, the US hasn't fought a war on the home front since 1865. The Spanish American war, WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf war, Afghanistan, Iraq - none of these were fought on American soil, with the exception of Pearl harbor, which was a navy base, not a major manufacturing site. So we haven't really had to reckon with what happens if our homeland is under fire - sure, we drilled for it during WWII, worrying about Nazi bombers and Japanese sabotage but neither actually happened.
It doesn't look like our wars are going to get closer anytime soon, but modern planes and rocketry have much greater range than in the 1940s the last time we were at war with countries with significant resources. If we ever come head to head with China, their missile capabilities could be a real concern.
(That I know of, their awareness of high-capacity supply line issues goes back to at least the Civil War.)
Historically, the US military had a considerable industrial base of its own - arsenals, navy yards, etc. - which could manufacture anything from a pistol cartridge up to an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, Congress shut all of that down in the later 1900's, in favor of defense contractors. Gov't-owned facilities just couldn't compete at greasing Congressional palms.
r/ukrainewarvideoreport has been full of it for three years, but mind the survivorship (well, opposite of that) bias - the Ukranian war propaganda / media machine only publishes successes, the Russian one is suppressed or simply not posted on Reddit. Just because you don't see failed strikes doesn't mean they don't happen. The vehicles have drone shields, the roads have nets, and there's heaps of electronic countermeasures in place.
That said, if you're out in the field and there's one above you, you're boned. Can't imagine the horrors of vibing, then having a grenade plop down next to you.
I don’t know how you would actually defend but there is probably some selection bias too. The videos are published by the drone operators, they probably have an interest in publishing videos of successful strikes.
For infantry it is now as indispensable as an automatic rifle, grenades, radios, and so on. Fighters in Ukraine without drone support are at significant disadvantage.
Even bubba's pissin hot 3.5 magnum bird shot is probably not getting above 300 or 400 feet vertical for starters, and then you've either got to deal with hitting it dead on with a tight pattern wad or accepting that the shot is going spread enough to make it unlikely to hit it. So far as I have ever seen the energy in a shot shell wad dissipates much faster than a regular bullet, and I think you're better off trying to hit it with a regular old 556.
Following on to this, I would not be remotely surprised if drones continue to be a threat to see something like a man portable gepard hooked up to an EW system, as given the speed those things move and how hard even hitting regular old Canadian Geese or errant clays under non-combat situations, I don't know how you would economically fight drone swarms short of a mini Phalanx CIWS or something.
Maybe ironically, I wonder if we won't see things like the Bofors 40mm guns continue to be prolific if they get successfully retasked to fighting drones (and they would end up like the M2, fighting long after it was initially conceived).
For the smaller drones it's an even more rapidly evolving, high-tech arms race. AFAIU, over the past year most of the battlefield drones have switched to kilometers-long fiber optic tethers to avoid electronic jamming. I dunno what all the defensive measures are, but one is using other drones to cut the cable. I think they may also be using directed energy weapons, now, though not sure how widespread that is.
Current method from public posts seems to be run on GPS and remote data link until jamming bubble is hit, then transition to visual/thermal/radar recognition of target for terminal approach.
Jamming only covers a small area (yes, some areas will have overlap), or a narrow movable cone. Both systems can be overran by the above method, or by swarms overriding directional electronic attack
EOS (Aust) sent 160 of these to Ukraine to be mounted on M113 carriers and Kozak MRAPs. Could also be put on the back of a Toyota Hilux or other technicals.
They use a Bushmaster 30mm cannon with proximity fuse HE rounds so they don't need to hit the drone dead on.
Drones are most effective as tools of psychological warfare I think. Infantry in a trench can maybe disable a wave or two of drones before becoming overwhelmed, but the drone operator can remain safe and calm in their bunker kilometers away. Most drones don’t make it on target or even inflict lethal injury but their presence or the threat of their presence constantly draws the enemy’s attention away from your units. In Ukraine soldiers seem to worry much more about drones more than small arms or indirect fire. And both sides use this to influence the tactical decision making of their enemies.
The Ukrainians report that about 70% of their kills are now by drones.
Current Ukrainian drone production rate was 1.7 million last year. Target for this year is above 4 million.[1] Russian comment: “Their reconnaissance drones are in the sky 24/7, and any movement on our part is immediately met with a massive wave of [first-person-view] drones.”
Tactics when you have large numbers of expendable drones are totally different from the old days of snooping around with a few drones.
There are entire subreddits dedicated to actual footage of drone effectiveness on the front lines... It's definitely not just psychological warfare. In some cases, the fiber optic lines crisscross fields so densely it looks like spider webs.
Or subreddit DroneCombat for drone specific posts, very NSFW too. And then UkraineWarVideoReport has a bit wider range or reports and links, so unlike those other two it's not combat footage only.
Combatfootage is invested with pro Ukrainian warmongering people that enjoy seeing people dying in the most brutal ways. Better not visit this subreddit. Or report them. Sick people there.
Is there a pro-Russian one? Any reporting or combat footage, at least what's been posted on Reddit, has been pro-Ukranian, and the Ukranian losses are underreported.
It's not warmongering though; Ukraine never asked for it, it's a war of aggression from the Russian side. I also don't think the soldiers depicted asked for any of that, but I doubt they were offered much of a choice in the matter.
I would think drones carrying cluster bombs would be effective. More targeted in their destruction. No need to scatter bomblets over a quarter of a mile, just 10 or so around a tank.
If you have seen videos from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially over time, you can see the evolution of tactics.
For example with tanks, they...
- strap artillery shell to the drone and fly it into the tank
- drop a standard grenade into the hatch after the crew has fled
They don't need to drop munitions like cluster, they strap several on and drop them one at a time. They have become quite skilled and accurate, even from 100+ meters up in wind
There are places in Ukraine where it looks like giant spiders live there, due to all the fiber optic cables from drones left on the battle fields
The fact that we have not yet seen a high-profile political assassination by drone, particularly from the "death from above" method, absolutely _boggles_ my mind, and I don't think we get out of this decade without that occurring, and I'm not particularly sure what sort of counter-measure you could reasonably put in place to stop that. The 2030s are going to be messy.
It's a matter of time; that said, all high profile open air whatsits have anti-drone detection and countermeasures in place. The Ukranian invasion is one of attrition, where both sides try to limit expenses; this isn't the case for e.g. the US president's protection, where they can afford to deploy millions in countermeasures.
Yup, apparently some of these carry 50 kilometers of fiber optic cable. Max range limits their payload capacity though, but then, they can do reconnaisance and target painting with one, then send an automated jamming-resistant swarm to do damage.
Seen this a few times and am surprised it's actually a viable solution. Used to be heavily into fpv a long time ago and remember MIT(?) had autonomous CV software that could easily navigate through thick forests that was open sourced, I think the only real use of onboard GPS there was "go from point A to B"
This was perhaps a decade ago mind you, people rocking DIY setups had fairly limited computing compared to what you can buy today. The PID needed for quads/hex/octos to stay aloft has trivial compute requirements.
They have strapped so many things to drones, you'd think they've tried about everything, then some new video comes out
Drones have evolved rapidly and come in all shapes and sizes now. The DJI Maverick image in people's head is only one modality, though by far the most common form factor
Those must be HEAT rounds. An AP round would not have the velocity to do anything, anti-personnel would not penetrate tanks armor but would kill crew if dismounted or a hatch is left open
Old rpg rounds are cheap and top-down doesn't require much pen, making older stock more effective. Newish stock are tandem and would be even worse to try and counter from above (PG-7VR).
Because they're incredibly fast, exceeding 40 meters per second. You can't fire a shotgun at 80 meters. A typical shotgun's effective range is only 40 meters, and once it's within range, you only have one second to fire.
Furthermore, drones are generally difficult to detect at 400 meters unless you're using a synthetic detection system. By the time you spot them, it's too late.
My experience is only with consumer drones, but you could fly over a target area and release an explosive before anyone heard that it was there, especially in a noisy environment. Above 100m, unless you're at high speed/power, most people won't notice a drone at all. It's often a change in speed/direction that gives them away, otherwise it will be past you before you first notice the sound.
Large scale swarms will probably never be a major issue for infantry. You have a finite number of drones, even at extremely high rates of production, spread across all things you want to target. Sending a swarm at individual infantry, or even platoons is just wasteful. At scale that's thousands of drones, per day, that you could have instead sent towards more valuable targets.
This, btw, is also why claims that some side is targeting civilians in otherwise 'productive' warfare (e.g. actually achieving things instead of bombing for the sake of fear/terrorism/headlines/photo ops) is usually just lying propaganda. Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
The amount of money spent on training high level US infantry goes into the hundreds of thousands, and millions upon millions for Special Forces, Ranger/Ranger Recon/Tier 1 units/CIA SAC/SOG, etc.
A drone that can carry a payload can be built for under $200 USD. A swarm could be as few as say 10. Let's say 50, just for you example. 50x$200=$10,000.
If you take out an SF Team for example, that's 12 people. Let's say they were very new and they were only $800,000 into training so far in their career. 12x$800,000= $9.6mil USD.
Let's revise that calculation, with a 6 man infantry fire team young troops, $100,000 into training, each. $600,000/$10,000 = 60x more economically efficient even if all drones were lost in the operation, as long as the target was killed. You could still have 59 more tries with 50 drones per swarm to hit cost parity.
Oh yeah and some of those drones have thermals and high quality glass optics now, so they can see you and your squad as white dots moving across the landscape from miles and miles away.
People really don't understand the impact drones are having on the battlefield. It's nuts.
Edit:
I think this level of drone warfare will end up having a larger impact on warfare than both gunpowder and later the machine gun, but probably not as big as WWII large scale air campaigns.
As I understand it, currently all drones require a human operator who can only operate one at a time. And except for some special operations behind enemy lines, you must be fairly close to the target, as within a few km. The fiber optic ones, even closer
So your 50 drone swarm is going to need 50 operators, fairly close to the front. Who are also vulnerable to enemy counter drones and glide bombs - the latter is a real problem for Ukraine
I haven’t seen any evidence of a “swarm” on combat footage from Ukraine war, I have seen a few drones hitting a single target, especially armored vehicles in fairly quick succession, like a few seconds, It looked like independent operators all picking the obvious high value target, not some intentional “swarm”
Tech may change this in the future but we’re not there quite yet
First, you don't need AI operators, you just need a swarm. The operators are reusable!
>Ukraine reported the largest single-day drone attack by Russia on July 9, 2025, where Russia targeted Ukraine with a record 728 drones. This surpasses earlier attacks, including one on May 26, 2025, when Russia launched 355 drones.
With that many pilots, that is a swarm.
Next, analysis of last months AI driven attack was performed by many drones with no human terminal guidance - they were jammed and expected to be!
>“Our models are being trained to recognise targets to understand target prioritisation,” he says. “We do not have full autonomy yet. We use the human factor where we need to, but we are developing different scenarios for taking autonomy further.
> “We are also testing some autonomous drones, which we have not announced and are probably not planning to announce, but they have a high degree of autonomy, and they can potentially combine themselves into swarms. We are still facing technical problems and hurdles, but we already see a path forward on this.”
One Final Note - Most of the info you ever hear about military tech is only the things people are allowed to discuss publicly. The battlefield is also a hell of a lab, and 3d printers and open source flight software (and open source AI models) are amazing.
The drone cost in hundreds of dollars , low hundreds , even optic one cost $300-400 at manufacturing.
Train a soldier is hundreds of thousands.
Manufacturing , both Ukraine and Russia , generally speaking technological midgets, producing as of today millions a year. Ukraines projected output is around 4 millions in 2025
China can easily produce tens of millions. Even if 1 out 4 hit your target , that’s any army of any size in the world obliterated without new recruits.
Some lives are worth more $$$ than others... CASEVAC for a single US soldier will tie up multiple individuals + follow up costs (full logistics + medical + compensation + benefits etc) = orders of magnitude more than few 1000 drones. Estimates for fully burden costs of severely wounded is 2-5m+ for lifetime.
Also, drones are currently being flown by soldiers in fpv goggles so swarm is not very practical. It will change once we have swarm software and there is a need for it.
Or just extend the logic to materiel instead of personnel, like Ukraine did with the airbase attacks earlier this year: for the price of a few dozen < $1k drones, you can eliminate $50M-$150M+ aircraft? The asymmetry is insane.
There's also nothing that practically stops those same tactics from being aimed at other soft infrastructure targets: electrical substations, telco facilities, water treatment facilities... the nightmare scenario is taking down transmission lines and switching stations outside, say, a large nuclear power plant during a heat wave. The nuke itself is hardened, obviously, but who cares if it can't transmit the power it's generating to the people that need it?
>This, btw, is also why claims that some side is targeting civilians in otherwise 'productive' warfare (e.g. actually achieving things instead of bombing for the sake of fear/terrorism/headlines/photo ops) is usually just lying propaganda. Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
Dude, Russians literally post this stuff on their own social media accounts. The "munitions" in question are no more expensive than a basic frag grenade.
And what part of the Russian war effort has led you to the conclusion that they value productivity over terrorism and photo ops? The incentive structures of the Russian military are just oceans apart from anything a westerner would consider a proper functional military.
I have some clips for you. Does this look like the operations of a productive military to you? You have no clue, absolutely none at all. They do this shit kind of to their own soldiers, and you think they're above trying to terrorize Ukrainians into compliance?
Note: that last clip is very, very NSFL. For reference, naked and bound deserters were thrown into a dirt pit and fired upon with rifles (not killed, at least not in the video, but threatened essentially)
I can understand how a westerner who has never seen, even by proxy, the dregs of the Russian internet could conceive of just how fucked up Russian military culture is. But, like, none of this stuff is hidden. The brutality of what happens to people who disobey them is genuinely part of the image they want to portray to the world (and to themselves). And in this way they feel the need to make an example of the Ukrainians - who by the way Russian state media isn't shy about portraying as basically subhumans.
And there is far, far worse shit than this that never makes it out of Russian-language telegram channels.
Man. You sound diluted. Go see one month of Gaza and see how a real civilian targeted war would look like. If Russia would want to see terror they could create more civilian casualties in one evening than the entire war. In Ukraine civilians are not the target. In Gaza they are. Sponsored by the west.
>This, btw, is also why claims that some side is targeting civilians in otherwise 'productive' warfare (e.g. actually achieving things instead of bombing for the sake of fear/terrorism/headlines/photo ops) is usually just lying propaganda. Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
The issue in your logic is assuming Ruzzia/Kremlin uses same natural logic as the rest of the world, I talked with many Zed patriots, that country uses a non natural logic, Zed Logic. Add on top of the unatural logic, the brainwashing and the fact that most of thye soldiers are murderers and rapists from prisons and you get a lot of civilians killed or abused by this asshols for fun or other reasons that make no sense in a natural logic.
An example of Zed logic
When Ruzzia attacks some civilian infrastructure in Ukraine (like grain storage) then Zeds claim it is legal, but when Ukraine strikes a military ship Zeds claim this is illegal, it is terrorism because... ... the ship was outside the SMO (special military operation) that Putin decided to be.
I am not joking, the Zeds are full of this bullshit logic, something ie legal/correct is always dependent of who makes the crime, where the crime is happening, who is the victim.
Second best Zed logic shit I heard is "USSR was the best democracy ever, in the entire human history"
They do. There's a lot of videos of them being taken out with birdshot. I also saw one video about modding underbarrel grenade launchers to fire a shotgun cartridge.
Back in 2014/2015 I was racing FPV drones. My most insane one could accelerate from stationary (on the ground) to doing 160kmh (100mph) straight up, in about 2 seconds. It wasn't much faster horizontally, but it'd top out at over 180kmh.
Even Olympic trap shooters miss their targets sometimes, and they fly ballistic trajectories after they call "pull". Expecting a soldier with 2 months training (best case) to hit an unpredictably flying drone that appeared out of nowhere with no warning as he's trying to take cover from mortar shrapnel is quite optimistic.
It probably does. But you've seen how fast these drones are right? It's the speed of aliens in the alien movie or a velociraptor from Jurassic park and much more maneuverable, smaller and can come at you from all dimensions.
Now imagine a swarm coming at you, each with explosives.
These exist and have been used by Israel in Gaza. At least for now a remote operator has to give the OK to shoot, but the drone does the targeting itself. It's very Terminator-esque, a quadcopter with an automatic rifle that can autonomously navigate streets, loiter, and identify and aim at human targets.
The manual from 2020 is available.[1] But nobody took drones that seriously back then. In that document, they're treated mostly as recon assets, not primary attack weapons.
The US military had almost exclusively considered drones as expensive systems like the Predator used for standoff ground fire support much like an attack helicopter, or for use in counterinsurgency like the Switchblade
But in their defense, they never anticipated having to fight a near peer adversary on land to the extent Ukraine has. But I would argue no one really saw this coming to this degree. The Bayraktar for instance, was much along the lines of US drone philosophy, costing several million a piece, The drones used in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict were mostly used along that philosophy as well
UKR almost feels like yesterday's drone war. It seems pretty obvious purpose built murder bots by technologically capable powers like PRC would be fully autonomous and expendable like actual munitions. Image fuse some cheap rgb/ir/thermo with edge compute to maim any warm bodies at 100km+ speeds. Don't even bother to reusable / save material. Just send them out to indiscriminately detonate like cheap smart munitions that they should be.
Strategic depth is a factor. In the Israel/Iran war, Iran's Shahed drones weren't useful due to the large distance. They could be shot down at a leisurely pace. If Iran was fighting a nearby country like Iraq, it would be a very different story. On the other hand, Israel made use of surveillance drones inside Iran, but only due to methods employed to shrink the strategic depth, either by smuggling them into Iran, or doing a clandestine launch from allies like Azerbaijan. But obviously, such tactics are not durable in a war of attrition, and they're not applicable to high-volume Shahed-like suicide attacks.
In the Pacific theatre, Taiwan is very close to China, so possibly, attack drones will be useful similar to the Ukraine/Russia war.
There are also many different types of drones being employed. The short-range small quadcopters, all the way up to large Predator drones. Shaheds are kind of in the middle in terms of size. The boundary can be blurred too between loitering munitions (Switchblade) and drones.
For the suicide quadcopter drones, there is a realization that Skynet is the next step in the arms race. Full edge autonomy over the kill chain. No need for data link (susceptible to electronic warfare) or trained pilots or added round-trip latency.
Anti-drone tech is also changing. Interceptor drones, net-dropping drones, ground-based laser, electronic warfare, and small guided ground- or air-launched interceptors.
Also have to consider the combined arms picture, none of this can be reasoned about in a vacuum.
But I suppose my main takeaway is - no two theatres are the same, AND there is a diversity in drones. So to collectivize a takeaway around "drones" would be a reasoning error.
One thing will be certain when it comes to wars between nearby countries. You need to knock out the enemy's industrial production quickly with bombers. Or have your own industrial production that can maintain pacing and avoid culmination in a war of attrition.
I've been trying to judge this impact on doctrine and procurement but these things are hard to judge when it's happening. Hindsight is cheating ;)
It's huge, though. Many tiers of equipment, doctrine, vehicles, product time to market improvements, RF equipment, radars, stealth tech, software, battle drills, and even new job specializations of various levels. It's intense, and a constant iteration cycle at a pace we haven't seen for at least a long time, but possibly forever.
One possible future is that wartime casualties decrease because humans in the field are just completely useless. Accompanying this positive development will be the negative tail risk of exinction.
Somebody has to build the factories that build the robots, for at least a short time...
All for a reduction in casualties, though I'm terrified of a nation not having a Cost To Pay for war that isn't just in slightly hire taxes.
I don’t know if that would matter in an actual war between china and the US but sending explosives at anything that’s warm sounds like a war crime. That would probably violate proportionality.
lol
American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that you will always have the manufacturing capacity and the supply lines to get all the materiel you need to the front, that you'll be bottlenecked by something else like manpower.
This works pretty well for fighting limited wars where part of the justification is to develop and maintain military readiness. Would it still be true in a large scale war against China - could you pump out a million drones a day - or would you wish for a doctrine that included reusable drones?
Good question.
I think something to keep in mind, the US hasn't fought a war on the home front since 1865. The Spanish American war, WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf war, Afghanistan, Iraq - none of these were fought on American soil, with the exception of Pearl harbor, which was a navy base, not a major manufacturing site. So we haven't really had to reckon with what happens if our homeland is under fire - sure, we drilled for it during WWII, worrying about Nazi bombers and Japanese sabotage but neither actually happened.
It doesn't look like our wars are going to get closer anytime soon, but modern planes and rocketry have much greater range than in the 1940s the last time we were at war with countries with significant resources. If we ever come head to head with China, their missile capabilities could be a real concern.
> American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that ...
Since at least WWI, the US military has been very aware of their dependence on the industrial base:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_School_fo...
(That I know of, their awareness of high-capacity supply line issues goes back to at least the Civil War.)
Historically, the US military had a considerable industrial base of its own - arsenals, navy yards, etc. - which could manufacture anything from a pistol cartridge up to an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, Congress shut all of that down in the later 1900's, in favor of defense contractors. Gov't-owned facilities just couldn't compete at greasing Congressional palms.
That's an artillery shell. You're describing an artillery shell. What kills cheaply and indiscriminately is an airburst artillery shell.
Judging by /r/CombatFootage/ you can't really do anything against them unless you wear a full EOD suit. Once you hear it you are already dead.
r/ukrainewarvideoreport has been full of it for three years, but mind the survivorship (well, opposite of that) bias - the Ukranian war propaganda / media machine only publishes successes, the Russian one is suppressed or simply not posted on Reddit. Just because you don't see failed strikes doesn't mean they don't happen. The vehicles have drone shields, the roads have nets, and there's heaps of electronic countermeasures in place.
That said, if you're out in the field and there's one above you, you're boned. Can't imagine the horrors of vibing, then having a grenade plop down next to you.
I don’t know how you would actually defend but there is probably some selection bias too. The videos are published by the drone operators, they probably have an interest in publishing videos of successful strikes.
We produce drones in Ukraine, yes, hit-rate is lower, but still worth it given cost.
For infantry it is now as indispensable as an automatic rifle, grenades, radios, and so on. Fighters in Ukraine without drone support are at significant disadvantage.
Why doesn't duckshot make short work of these things?
Even bubba's pissin hot 3.5 magnum bird shot is probably not getting above 300 or 400 feet vertical for starters, and then you've either got to deal with hitting it dead on with a tight pattern wad or accepting that the shot is going spread enough to make it unlikely to hit it. So far as I have ever seen the energy in a shot shell wad dissipates much faster than a regular bullet, and I think you're better off trying to hit it with a regular old 556.
Following on to this, I would not be remotely surprised if drones continue to be a threat to see something like a man portable gepard hooked up to an EW system, as given the speed those things move and how hard even hitting regular old Canadian Geese or errant clays under non-combat situations, I don't know how you would economically fight drone swarms short of a mini Phalanx CIWS or something.
Maybe ironically, I wonder if we won't see things like the Bofors 40mm guns continue to be prolific if they get successfully retasked to fighting drones (and they would end up like the M2, fighting long after it was initially conceived).
For the larger drones, yes, Ukraine is seeing success with SPAAGs: https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/07/20/ukraine-drone-defense...
For the smaller drones it's an even more rapidly evolving, high-tech arms race. AFAIU, over the past year most of the battlefield drones have switched to kilometers-long fiber optic tethers to avoid electronic jamming. I dunno what all the defensive measures are, but one is using other drones to cut the cable. I think they may also be using directed energy weapons, now, though not sure how widespread that is.
Not all, long range attacks can't use that.
Current method from public posts seems to be run on GPS and remote data link until jamming bubble is hit, then transition to visual/thermal/radar recognition of target for terminal approach.
Jamming only covers a small area (yes, some areas will have overlap), or a narrow movable cone. Both systems can be overran by the above method, or by swarms overriding directional electronic attack
EOS (Aust) sent 160 of these to Ukraine to be mounted on M113 carriers and Kozak MRAPs. Could also be put on the back of a Toyota Hilux or other technicals.
They use a Bushmaster 30mm cannon with proximity fuse HE rounds so they don't need to hit the drone dead on.
https://eos-aus.com/defence/counter-drone-systems/slinger/
The US Army has this under development
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSETxYGrxVw
Drones are most effective as tools of psychological warfare I think. Infantry in a trench can maybe disable a wave or two of drones before becoming overwhelmed, but the drone operator can remain safe and calm in their bunker kilometers away. Most drones don’t make it on target or even inflict lethal injury but their presence or the threat of their presence constantly draws the enemy’s attention away from your units. In Ukraine soldiers seem to worry much more about drones more than small arms or indirect fire. And both sides use this to influence the tactical decision making of their enemies.
The Ukrainians report that about 70% of their kills are now by drones. Current Ukrainian drone production rate was 1.7 million last year. Target for this year is above 4 million.[1] Russian comment: “Their reconnaissance drones are in the sky 24/7, and any movement on our part is immediately met with a massive wave of [first-person-view] drones.”
Tactics when you have large numbers of expendable drones are totally different from the old days of snooping around with a few drones.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/12/45-million-...
There are entire subreddits dedicated to actual footage of drone effectiveness on the front lines... It's definitely not just psychological warfare. In some cases, the fiber optic lines crisscross fields so densely it looks like spider webs.
NSFW - https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/
Or subreddit DroneCombat for drone specific posts, very NSFW too. And then UkraineWarVideoReport has a bit wider range or reports and links, so unlike those other two it's not combat footage only.
Combatfootage is invested with pro Ukrainian warmongering people that enjoy seeing people dying in the most brutal ways. Better not visit this subreddit. Or report them. Sick people there.
Is there a pro-Russian one? Any reporting or combat footage, at least what's been posted on Reddit, has been pro-Ukranian, and the Ukranian losses are underreported.
It's not warmongering though; Ukraine never asked for it, it's a war of aggression from the Russian side. I also don't think the soldiers depicted asked for any of that, but I doubt they were offered much of a choice in the matter.
I would think drones carrying cluster bombs would be effective. More targeted in their destruction. No need to scatter bomblets over a quarter of a mile, just 10 or so around a tank.
If you have seen videos from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially over time, you can see the evolution of tactics.
For example with tanks, they...
- strap artillery shell to the drone and fly it into the tank
- drop a standard grenade into the hatch after the crew has fled
They don't need to drop munitions like cluster, they strap several on and drop them one at a time. They have become quite skilled and accurate, even from 100+ meters up in wind
There are places in Ukraine where it looks like giant spiders live there, due to all the fiber optic cables from drones left on the battle fields
The fact that we have not yet seen a high-profile political assassination by drone, particularly from the "death from above" method, absolutely _boggles_ my mind, and I don't think we get out of this decade without that occurring, and I'm not particularly sure what sort of counter-measure you could reasonably put in place to stop that. The 2030s are going to be messy.
It's a matter of time; that said, all high profile open air whatsits have anti-drone detection and countermeasures in place. The Ukranian invasion is one of attrition, where both sides try to limit expenses; this isn't the case for e.g. the US president's protection, where they can afford to deploy millions in countermeasures.
Less than 5 years is my guess, somewhere in the world.
> all the fiber optic cables from drones left on the battle fields
Are they tethered? I thought these were all radio controlled
Yup, apparently some of these carry 50 kilometers of fiber optic cable. Max range limits their payload capacity though, but then, they can do reconnaisance and target painting with one, then send an automated jamming-resistant swarm to do damage.
Tethered to avoid jamming
Here's an post with a few pictures of the tangled mess left behind
https://bou.org.uk/blog-moreland-fibreoptic-drones/
Seen this a few times and am surprised it's actually a viable solution. Used to be heavily into fpv a long time ago and remember MIT(?) had autonomous CV software that could easily navigate through thick forests that was open sourced, I think the only real use of onboard GPS there was "go from point A to B"
This was perhaps a decade ago mind you, people rocking DIY setups had fairly limited computing compared to what you can buy today. The PID needed for quads/hex/octos to stay aloft has trivial compute requirements.
They switched to fiber optic tethers to avoid being jammed.
as far as i know, they don't strap artillery shells to drones, they too heavy. they strap shaped charges.
100s of videos of drones with arty shells can be seen on https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/
They have strapped so many things to drones, you'd think they've tried about everything, then some new video comes out
Drones have evolved rapidly and come in all shapes and sizes now. The DJI Maverick image in people's head is only one modality, though by far the most common form factor
The typical setup I’ve seen for FPV drones is RPG warheads or small mortar shells for drops. I’d love to see one drop 152/155mm shells though.
Those must be HEAT rounds. An AP round would not have the velocity to do anything, anti-personnel would not penetrate tanks armor but would kill crew if dismounted or a hatch is left open
Old rpg rounds are cheap and top-down doesn't require much pen, making older stock more effective. Newish stock are tandem and would be even worse to try and counter from above (PG-7VR).
In some photos I have seen the charge looks like and RPG https://share.google/LUIxGYEC07ZDVMVgT
Because they're incredibly fast, exceeding 40 meters per second. You can't fire a shotgun at 80 meters. A typical shotgun's effective range is only 40 meters, and once it's within range, you only have one second to fire.
Furthermore, drones are generally difficult to detect at 400 meters unless you're using a synthetic detection system. By the time you spot them, it's too late.
My experience is only with consumer drones, but you could fly over a target area and release an explosive before anyone heard that it was there, especially in a noisy environment. Above 100m, unless you're at high speed/power, most people won't notice a drone at all. It's often a change in speed/direction that gives them away, otherwise it will be past you before you first notice the sound.
FPV drones can hit 80mph+ / 128kmph+ , other drones can fly much higher than a shotgun can reach.
Also, swarms.
Large scale swarms will probably never be a major issue for infantry. You have a finite number of drones, even at extremely high rates of production, spread across all things you want to target. Sending a swarm at individual infantry, or even platoons is just wasteful. At scale that's thousands of drones, per day, that you could have instead sent towards more valuable targets.
This, btw, is also why claims that some side is targeting civilians in otherwise 'productive' warfare (e.g. actually achieving things instead of bombing for the sake of fear/terrorism/headlines/photo ops) is usually just lying propaganda. Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
This is not true.
The amount of money spent on training high level US infantry goes into the hundreds of thousands, and millions upon millions for Special Forces, Ranger/Ranger Recon/Tier 1 units/CIA SAC/SOG, etc.
A drone that can carry a payload can be built for under $200 USD. A swarm could be as few as say 10. Let's say 50, just for you example. 50x$200=$10,000.
If you take out an SF Team for example, that's 12 people. Let's say they were very new and they were only $800,000 into training so far in their career. 12x$800,000= $9.6mil USD.
Let's revise that calculation, with a 6 man infantry fire team young troops, $100,000 into training, each. $600,000/$10,000 = 60x more economically efficient even if all drones were lost in the operation, as long as the target was killed. You could still have 59 more tries with 50 drones per swarm to hit cost parity.
Oh yeah and some of those drones have thermals and high quality glass optics now, so they can see you and your squad as white dots moving across the landscape from miles and miles away.
People really don't understand the impact drones are having on the battlefield. It's nuts.
Edit:
I think this level of drone warfare will end up having a larger impact on warfare than both gunpowder and later the machine gun, but probably not as big as WWII large scale air campaigns.
As I understand it, currently all drones require a human operator who can only operate one at a time. And except for some special operations behind enemy lines, you must be fairly close to the target, as within a few km. The fiber optic ones, even closer
So your 50 drone swarm is going to need 50 operators, fairly close to the front. Who are also vulnerable to enemy counter drones and glide bombs - the latter is a real problem for Ukraine
I haven’t seen any evidence of a “swarm” on combat footage from Ukraine war, I have seen a few drones hitting a single target, especially armored vehicles in fairly quick succession, like a few seconds, It looked like independent operators all picking the obvious high value target, not some intentional “swarm”
Tech may change this in the future but we’re not there quite yet
You're very out of date.
First, you don't need AI operators, you just need a swarm. The operators are reusable!
>Ukraine reported the largest single-day drone attack by Russia on July 9, 2025, where Russia targeted Ukraine with a record 728 drones. This surpasses earlier attacks, including one on May 26, 2025, when Russia launched 355 drones.
With that many pilots, that is a swarm.
Next, analysis of last months AI driven attack was performed by many drones with no human terminal guidance - they were jammed and expected to be!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/ukraine-russia...
>“Our models are being trained to recognise targets to understand target prioritisation,” he says. “We do not have full autonomy yet. We use the human factor where we need to, but we are developing different scenarios for taking autonomy further.
> “We are also testing some autonomous drones, which we have not announced and are probably not planning to announce, but they have a high degree of autonomy, and they can potentially combine themselves into swarms. We are still facing technical problems and hurdles, but we already see a path forward on this.”
One Final Note - Most of the info you ever hear about military tech is only the things people are allowed to discuss publicly. The battlefield is also a hell of a lab, and 3d printers and open source flight software (and open source AI models) are amazing.
iPhones can run some AI models on device already. Expect this to change, rapidly.
>Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
It's not, it forces your enemy to waste valuable resources on defending those civilian targets.
The drone cost in hundreds of dollars , low hundreds , even optic one cost $300-400 at manufacturing.
Train a soldier is hundreds of thousands.
Manufacturing , both Ukraine and Russia , generally speaking technological midgets, producing as of today millions a year. Ukraines projected output is around 4 millions in 2025
China can easily produce tens of millions. Even if 1 out 4 hit your target , that’s any army of any size in the world obliterated without new recruits.
Some lives are worth more $$$ than others... CASEVAC for a single US soldier will tie up multiple individuals + follow up costs (full logistics + medical + compensation + benefits etc) = orders of magnitude more than few 1000 drones. Estimates for fully burden costs of severely wounded is 2-5m+ for lifetime.
Also, drones are currently being flown by soldiers in fpv goggles so swarm is not very practical. It will change once we have swarm software and there is a need for it.
Or just extend the logic to materiel instead of personnel, like Ukraine did with the airbase attacks earlier this year: for the price of a few dozen < $1k drones, you can eliminate $50M-$150M+ aircraft? The asymmetry is insane.
There's also nothing that practically stops those same tactics from being aimed at other soft infrastructure targets: electrical substations, telco facilities, water treatment facilities... the nightmare scenario is taking down transmission lines and switching stations outside, say, a large nuclear power plant during a heat wave. The nuke itself is hardened, obviously, but who cares if it can't transmit the power it's generating to the people that need it?
>This, btw, is also why claims that some side is targeting civilians in otherwise 'productive' warfare (e.g. actually achieving things instead of bombing for the sake of fear/terrorism/headlines/photo ops) is usually just lying propaganda. Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
Dude, Russians literally post this stuff on their own social media accounts. The "munitions" in question are no more expensive than a basic frag grenade.
And what part of the Russian war effort has led you to the conclusion that they value productivity over terrorism and photo ops? The incentive structures of the Russian military are just oceans apart from anything a westerner would consider a proper functional military.
I have some clips for you. Does this look like the operations of a productive military to you? You have no clue, absolutely none at all. They do this shit kind of to their own soldiers, and you think they're above trying to terrorize Ukrainians into compliance?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/28/europe/russia-deserters-ukrai...
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1937075719428780250
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1935714762664693993
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1932061484030267809
Note: that last clip is very, very NSFL. For reference, naked and bound deserters were thrown into a dirt pit and fired upon with rifles (not killed, at least not in the video, but threatened essentially)
I can understand how a westerner who has never seen, even by proxy, the dregs of the Russian internet could conceive of just how fucked up Russian military culture is. But, like, none of this stuff is hidden. The brutality of what happens to people who disobey them is genuinely part of the image they want to portray to the world (and to themselves). And in this way they feel the need to make an example of the Ukrainians - who by the way Russian state media isn't shy about portraying as basically subhumans.
And there is far, far worse shit than this that never makes it out of Russian-language telegram channels.
Man. You sound diluted. Go see one month of Gaza and see how a real civilian targeted war would look like. If Russia would want to see terror they could create more civilian casualties in one evening than the entire war. In Ukraine civilians are not the target. In Gaza they are. Sponsored by the west.
Or, they could just stretch out civilian attacks over time to keep up the pressure.
This puts pressure on Ukrainian leadership and citizens while minimizing outcry from global powers.
>This, btw, is also why claims that some side is targeting civilians in otherwise 'productive' warfare (e.g. actually achieving things instead of bombing for the sake of fear/terrorism/headlines/photo ops) is usually just lying propaganda. Civilians are a worse than 0 value target meaning you completely wasted your munitions.
The issue in your logic is assuming Ruzzia/Kremlin uses same natural logic as the rest of the world, I talked with many Zed patriots, that country uses a non natural logic, Zed Logic. Add on top of the unatural logic, the brainwashing and the fact that most of thye soldiers are murderers and rapists from prisons and you get a lot of civilians killed or abused by this asshols for fun or other reasons that make no sense in a natural logic.
An example of Zed logic
When Ruzzia attacks some civilian infrastructure in Ukraine (like grain storage) then Zeds claim it is legal, but when Ukraine strikes a military ship Zeds claim this is illegal, it is terrorism because... ... the ship was outside the SMO (special military operation) that Putin decided to be.
I am not joking, the Zeds are full of this bullshit logic, something ie legal/correct is always dependent of who makes the crime, where the crime is happening, who is the victim.
Second best Zed logic shit I heard is "USSR was the best democracy ever, in the entire human history"
Drone attacks in many ways. Some use suicide method that just ramming themself into you. Some just drop explosive from high above.
They do. There's a lot of videos of them being taken out with birdshot. I also saw one video about modding underbarrel grenade launchers to fire a shotgun cartridge.
A lot of US under barrel launchers have "factory" buckshot rounds.
M79/M203/M320/etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M576_40_mm_grenade
AK would be a different story, but Ukraine has a lot of 3d printers and those shells are one time use and not hard to make.
This is a quality discussion about this question:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1b0u0k0/how_eff...
A lot of these fpv drones are capable of 30mph. That’s not a lot of time to spot em and react.
Some of them can go 90-120mph (off the shelf). Custom FPV drones can go even faster - some fancy ones 330+ kph (200+ mph)
Back in 2014/2015 I was racing FPV drones. My most insane one could accelerate from stationary (on the ground) to doing 160kmh (100mph) straight up, in about 2 seconds. It wasn't much faster horizontally, but it'd top out at over 180kmh.
also.. detonating an explosive drone at only a few meters away is still likely to take you out...
Even Olympic trap shooters miss their targets sometimes, and they fly ballistic trajectories after they call "pull". Expecting a soldier with 2 months training (best case) to hit an unpredictably flying drone that appeared out of nowhere with no warning as he's trying to take cover from mortar shrapnel is quite optimistic.
It probably does. But you've seen how fast these drones are right? It's the speed of aliens in the alien movie or a velociraptor from Jurassic park and much more maneuverable, smaller and can come at you from all dimensions.
Now imagine a swarm coming at you, each with explosives.
Or even smaller drones with a single shot bullet, autonomous with enough intelligence to seek and target faces for their shot.
Covered in Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez
These exist and have been used by Israel in Gaza. At least for now a remote operator has to give the OK to shoot, but the drone does the targeting itself. It's very Terminator-esque, a quadcopter with an automatic rifle that can autonomously navigate streets, loiter, and identify and aim at human targets.
On the upside of drones, hopefully in the future war will just be among machines
It will just be like countries burning piles of money until one runs out.
Got to imagine there are going to be a lot of well-paid PMC jobs for Ukrainian veterans in other countries that neighbor Russia after the war.
Is the book actually available to read?
The manual from 2020 is available.[1] But nobody took drones that seriously back then. In that document, they're treated mostly as recon assets, not primary attack weapons.
[1] https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/MCPEL/Electronic-L...
The US military had almost exclusively considered drones as expensive systems like the Predator used for standoff ground fire support much like an attack helicopter, or for use in counterinsurgency like the Switchblade
But in their defense, they never anticipated having to fight a near peer adversary on land to the extent Ukraine has. But I would argue no one really saw this coming to this degree. The Bayraktar for instance, was much along the lines of US drone philosophy, costing several million a piece, The drones used in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict were mostly used along that philosophy as well
《Now