[Zhang Fei]

Ukraine ping

This is the truth seldom highlighted with all the hype surrounding drones.

---

[”Drones are just toys; they can’t damage lots of tanks or heavy equipment,” he said of the previous scale of cross-border Ukrainian operations. “But HIMARS can.”]

---

The one thing drones have going for them is dispersion. A single howitzer costs millions and can be destroyed by one well-aimed Russian JDAM-equivalent. The millions for one howitzer would buy hundreds of drones that can’t be taken out by a single bomb. Drones are less effective, but they’re a reasonable response to the Western refusal to supply Ukraine with the jet fighters needed to replace the prewar fleet’s losses to combat and wear and tear and reluctance to provide more air defense batteries to Ukraine. Without adequate protection from Russian air strikes, drones are one way to disperse Ukraine’s firepower.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Zhang Fei.

[PIF]

155mm M982 Excalibur cost 100,000 range, most other shells cost hundreds.

No planes were sent because UKR pilots could not use Western fighters, since to them it (without training and maintenance), it would be like asking the random freshman college student to fly a UFO.

F-16s look like Russia fighters in that they both have wings, tails and jet engines, but the simularity ends there.

[SauronOfMordor]

I disagree about the drones being less effective. Short term, maybe. Long term, with better software, they can deliver more explosives and more accurately on target.

The game changer would be software that would allow each to autonomously search for targets, needing just a human confirmation.

[Krosan]

Another important thing about drones is that civilians can donate them. Constant campaigns are going on with people buying or building drones and delivering these to Ukraine.