They've been doing drone evacuations for years. What makes this different is the drone is flying.
DoingIsLearning 7 hours ago [-]
I wonder what is the risk analysis here?
Without knowing more details it would seem to be a lot less risk to transport wounded soldiers in those MAUL armored sarcophagus type of containers, than to be airborne and exposed to enemy fire.
edukite 7 hours ago [-]
It's not. Ukraine roads are filled with armoured vehicles which needed only 1 hit to become roadblocks. To be functional Ukrainian army is transforming them into Mad Max like vehicle before sending to fight and they still are a little more safer because if drone pilot is skilled enough and adjust both vehicle and drone speed he might succeed in hitting weak spot. Changing direction to left or right on bumpy road when you chasing with max it's possible can be death sentence plus you must take in the equation all trash on the road with may destroy weals
In other hand you have 3 axis plus if you reduce proportion you can at any moment without adding any power dodge enemy. Skilled operator may be able to hit and this is why they added swarm of suicide drones to protect carrier
spwa4 3 hours ago [-]
Apparently a big concern is mines.
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
And Mud
simonh 55 minutes ago [-]
And I imagine time. A significant issue for a lot of medical situations.
laughing_man 50 minutes ago [-]
The Russians target the ground vehicles with drones and artillery. From what I understand, in some areas they've been completely unable to evacuate casualties. Guys are dying from infections and wounds that could easily have been treated by people with the right expertise and equipment.
egorfine 2 hours ago [-]
> I wonder what is the risk analysis here?
Simple. Soldier left as is will survive with probability=0. UAV medevac has probability of success strictly > 0.
abc123abc123 2 hours ago [-]
Now add 100s or 1000s wounded at the same time, some can heal, and go back out to fight, some cannot, some will die during transport. The drone might be shot down, some areas are cleared. Simple? Not at all.
rnd33 1 hours ago [-]
Risk calculations aside, don't forget to take into account how this could impact soldier morale. Just knowing that if injured a giant flying drone will attempt to airlift you to safety, regardless of how hopeless the situation on the ground looks like probably is a huge boost to morale.
mcintyre1994 55 minutes ago [-]
I think they mean compared to the self-driving road vehicles they've been using for evac, not compared to abandoning the soldier.
yobbo 47 minutes ago [-]
The main enemy fire here are FPV drones. The flying evacuater gets out of danger quicker, even if it is spotted by a reconnaissance drone.
random3 7 hours ago [-]
it's in the article's subtitle
> “Due to intense enemy drone activity and the presence of landmines, evacuation using conventional unmanned ground vehicles was impossible,”
ridgeguy 7 hours ago [-]
A ground target is one 50cal or smaller round, or one RPG or antitank round, from oblivion. Airborne things are harder to destroy.
BetterThanSober 1 hours ago [-]
Depends on the speed and agility, at minimum 70kg body weight before accounting for the drones mean it's quite a heavy aircraft, not necessarily agile without burning the battery
moritonal 3 hours ago [-]
Whilst I do understand your point it's hard to argue that a drone would fare any better against a 50cal round. They are infamously, very fragile.
leoedin 2 hours ago [-]
There's a video on YouTube which shows a world champion shotgun shooter try to shoot down drones before they get to him. His success rate - knowing the drones are coming, ready to go with a loaded shotgun and with elite skill - is really bad. It really opens your eyes to just how scary drones on the battlefield are. You need to hit every single one of them to survive. They just need one to get through to kill you.
Bigger drones would be slower and easier to spot, but even then - if you're not ready and waiting it'll be gone before you have time to react. The only consistent solution for anti-drone warfare is automated. Or nets.
The flying drone is more agile, as well as moving faster and less predictably. More difficult to hit than a ground vehicle.
7 hours ago [-]
dghlsakjg 7 hours ago [-]
Hitting a ground target is much easier.
MisterMunchkin 2 hours ago [-]
The entire battlefield is landmined
lifeisloving 3 hours ago [-]
Thats called a UGV, not a drone.
laughing_man 56 minutes ago [-]
Yes, it's a UGV. It's also a drone.
regnull 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
rembal 44 minutes ago [-]
I'm waiting for the first drone-carried human airbirne assault.
So far the only drone carried airborne were Ground grone drops on the back of the enemy, some with grenade launcher drones.
1970-01-01 16 hours ago [-]
If they can pull them out, they can also drop fresh ones down.
Not sure if that is better than just using a helicopter however.
traceroute66 16 hours ago [-]
> Not sure if that is better than just using a helicopter however.
Anyone who has done first responder training should have had it drilled into their skulls to remember the number one rule .... "do not add yourself to the injury list".
If you're operating in a war-zone its kind of the same thing. Send in a helicopter to drop off one or more guys and you are also sending in bare minimum of one extra person but realistically almost certainly three extra people (two at the front and one at the back to watch the people jumping out).
Also drones are probably somewhat cheaper than helicopters. Both to buy and to operate.
rembal 43 minutes ago [-]
And less noisy.
maxdo 10 hours ago [-]
Because it's not America with Vietnam/ Iraq war mindset.
Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors. With Recent developments, the an interceptor can fly up to 600 km/h. It can also wait for you on the balloon.
Overall, piloted aviation, it's almost a dead end with all the recent capabilities.
nradov 10 hours ago [-]
Piloted aviation is still very much alive. US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses. Drone capabilities will continue to improve but for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions and remote piloting doesn't work in a hostile EW environment. We'll increasingly see manned/unmanned teaming with the drones pushing forward while the manned aircraft trail behind, but close enough to exercise tight control.
maxdo 8 hours ago [-]
Missions in Ukraine Russia achive same results for 1000 times cheaper. Real war nowadays is cheap and mass produced.
As an example, Russia hits with drones a specific parts of the bridge using mesh network of ER resistant drones . Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .
What is the point of sending f-35 if Ukraine can send 5 cheap rockets? And deliver 2-3 tones of payload over the most sophisticated air protection in the world ?
aloha2436 3 hours ago [-]
> Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .
Source on the drones actually flying that far? I would assume they're forward positioned.
What is wild to me: That is more range than a state of the art Tomohawk cruise missile.
nradov 8 hours ago [-]
Those cheap drones and missiles are only effective against relatively soft, static targets. As I already explained above, manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments. Maybe that will change in a few years but not today.
Ukraine and Russia are both second-rate powers making do with what they can manage because they're too poor to afford anything better. The systems that sort of work in Eastern Europe likely won't be effective in a major conflict between the USA and China around the First Island Chain. (Let's hope we don't have to find out for sure.)
ponector 3 hours ago [-]
>>manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments.
Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary.
Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.
chmod775 7 hours ago [-]
Ukraine is already using drones that can autonomously identify and seek out even moving targets, without any operator required during the terminal phase.
Drones with that sort of capability started appearing on the battlefield more than a year ago, and it has only been refined since.
Examples are the RAM-2X, the Helsing HX2, and whatever drones they use that automatically identify and seek out stationary aircraft on Russian airfields.
krige 7 hours ago [-]
We've had this capability for years. We have had missiles that could identify a convoy, strike its front and back to block it, and then hit targets inside, all on their own.
chmod775 7 hours ago [-]
The difference is that those missiles are expensive multi-million dollar munitions, while these drones are mass produced for less than $20k/unit and yet are still capable of taking out heavy armor.
krige 6 hours ago [-]
Wrong on the first count (last I saw they were well below $200k a pop), and the second count comes with significant loss of anti-armor capability.
chmod775 5 hours ago [-]
I'd be curious to learn what advanced self-guided missile can accurately strike targets just a measly 70km away for $200k, and what the supporting infrastructure and hardware costs to buy and run.
Also you're still not remotely competetive with drones that can be carried and operated by infantry at that price point. Who's going to do reconaissance so you even know where to strike before you fire that missile? A drone provides all of that in a package that'd still be less than 1/10th the cost.
krige 4 hours ago [-]
Okay, now it's obvious you're just posting whatever to "win" a discussion without any familiarity with the subject. I suggest you start educating yourself by familiarising yourself with the Brimstone missiles, 1996 tech in service for over 20 years at this point.
chmod775 2 hours ago [-]
Brimstone meets none of the criteria, not for self-guidance, nor for range (especially not when launched surface-to-surface). Plus you'd have to bring a launch platform within range of Russian air-defense/frontlines to even use it.
busssard 3 hours ago [-]
there are quite some american defense strategists, that criticize the dependency on large contractors that have no interest in providing economical capabilities over large government contracts.
noeltock 6 hours ago [-]
Even cheaper if armor is the only goal.
bluegatty 1 hours ago [-]
Not really though
Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.
Rotary wing are 'dead' - because manpads and now drones, they are just not used. Any smart adversary can figure out the drones, as for now.
Iran is a poor country with challenging AA but even they downed like 30 predators (or equivalent). They have passive systems.
Russia doctrines is to have massive numbers of S300/400 which makes it takes weeks at minimum for US to get enough Air dominance to be able to fly, though, eventually they would be worn down as we have seen US standoff munitions are limited.
US used 30-50% of munitions against just Iran. Imagine Russia.
China has a lot of sneaky new toys up their sleeve as well - very long range capabilities for a lot of things, enough to 'deter' USN pretty hard.
Nobody doubts US would ultimately 'win' v Russia, but everything is up in the air right now.
FYI even Houthis downed US jets.
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
America is also a second rate power, just ask the Houthis and Iranians.
The Houthis have no airforce, no professional army and no navy and yet they control the red sea.
kakacik 3 hours ago [-]
it covers 99% of the need for fraction of the costs and is way more scalable in manufacturing and operations. Nobody ain't sending a single F-35 into that environment, US won't allow that (we all know why). Plus US completely destroyed trust into its products globally, they can become worse than extremely expensive paperweight on a whim of a single senile sick man.
Lets be a bit clear - F-35 in Iran are also effectively used against static targets in most if not all the cases. School, intersections full of civilian traffic and some underground tunnel here and there or a parked truck, we've seen the videos its not like they are hiding them.
Era of hunt for expensive sophistication at all costs is coming to an end, no point if one can overwhelm any adversary including US by just sending one cheap wave after another, and it doesn't even take long. How long is the backlog for US patriot missiles? Plus Ukraine can do same type of missiles 80% cheaper soon.
This overwhelming already happened numerous times in recent months, US is just not bragging about it on fox news for obvious reasons.
squidmaster 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
estearum 7 hours ago [-]
The US - Iran capability gap is orders of magnitude larger than the Ukraine - Russia gap.
Silly nonsense comment.
The US would absolutely not be sending manned helicopters into the same situations. Zero chance.
The US is failing to decisively win a war against a third world country. Ukraine is failing to decisively win (but gradually winning) a war against an adversary several multiples its size and economic strength.
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
The USA is unable to support ground troops in either sphere be it Houthi territory or Iran.
The Osprey is dead, the mission it was built for was Iran, and today they are limited to 15 min from base missions, aka they are effectively retired.
Those new Littoral combat ships are decommissioned.
Russia has almost no tanks or armoured vehicles to deliver troops in Ukraine, and the USA is no different. It cant support troops on the ground in either area. Any troops dropped there would be abandoned in a very harsh terrain.
derektank 2 hours ago [-]
The US is more than capable of deploying and supporting a Marine Expeditionary Brigade in either Iran or Yemen. That it has not is a political decision.
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
The Russians also tell themselves the same.
derektank 1 hours ago [-]
That’s a red herring
kelipso 6 hours ago [-]
Right...even Ukranians are now saying that they hope they won't be in a too disadvantageous position during the eventual negotiations. So that's where the war is at right now.
noeltock 6 hours ago [-]
I've never seen a helo anywhere near UA frontlines. Would be over in seconds.
ponector 3 hours ago [-]
There are multiple occasions when drones were hunting russian helicopters. Tough target to kill with one FPV drone.
tim333 1 hours ago [-]
They had them in the first months of the war but a lot got shot down.
varjag 4 hours ago [-]
The very reason Trump and his drill sergeant in Pentagon refuse to commit boots on the ground is even they realize how it's going to be. ISR footage of American servicemen dying with no chance of rescue would be bad for ratings.
jefftk 9 hours ago [-]
> for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions
I give it 1-2y.
paganel 5 hours ago [-]
> US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses.
It didn't win the Americans and the Israelis the war, to the contrary, it gave them (the Americans and the Israelis) the illusion that they could win it based on air power alone as a result of the Douhet doctrine.
Gud 6 hours ago [-]
Ukraine is not Iran.
ajuc 4 hours ago [-]
Old-school piloted aviation is good for the first 3 months because you have missile stocks that you can launch from further away with basically 0 risk.
If you have to fight longer than that even US runs out of the expansive stuff and then drones win.
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
American aviation also lost the war.
6 hours ago [-]
morkalork 9 hours ago [-]
Piloted aviation is alive and well in Russia/Ukraine for missle trucks lobbing glide bombs from BVR
tim333 59 minutes ago [-]
Also Ukr uses them to shoot down incoming drone/missiles.
laughing_man 10 hours ago [-]
>Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors.
Do we have evidence even a single helicopter has been shot down by a drone?
And just to be clear, there were previous videos of interceptions and near interceptions that just didn't look so photogenic so weren't widely distributed. This video was not where things changed.
laughing_man 58 minutes ago [-]
Did the helicopter go down?
MiroslavPokorny 2 hours ago [-]
There are zero American helicopters that are even able to fly from any friendly base or ship to either Houthi or Iran. All american ships that could support a landing are thousands of kms away. The Carriers are thousands of kms away in the Indian because of drones and missiles have pushed them back.
Paratroopers and similar troops could be dropped but it would be a suicide mission in an extremely harsh land, with no water and no food.
laughing_man 32 minutes ago [-]
But that's because of IAD, not drones.
jacquesm 8 hours ago [-]
Multiple and two in the last month.
timcobb 9 hours ago [-]
Do we have evidence there's even a war going on there?! I've never seen a single video, but they keep shipping money and weapons over there.
/s
laughing_man 57 minutes ago [-]
Did you respond to the right comment?
ponector 3 hours ago [-]
How there could be a war if Trump had finished it in 24 hours?
xmcp123 9 hours ago [-]
There’s no way anyone is getting a helicopter anywhere near that front line.
Transporting wounded soldiers has become a significant problem in recent years.
tim333 1 hours ago [-]
They can't really use helicopters because they get shot down. It's partly economics. A heli is ~$10m, a stinger like missile ~$100k so they shoot it. If a drone is ~1-10k they tend not to.
zenyc 4 hours ago [-]
As of a couple of weeks ago, they’ve been using drones to deploy remote-controlled robots that fire rockets behind enemy lines.
Ukraine in recent days destroyed bombers with drones. They were faster and dodger than any heli you could send. Also drone can go low but still in the air, heli most either land or stay relatively high.
Also heli is much laughter and easier to spot
And the lost of why would you not send it goes on and on
zardo 16 hours ago [-]
Probably harder to hit six single-soldier carrying drones than one helicopter.
newsclues 11 hours ago [-]
A lot of the wounded soldiers that are getting these heroic evacuations have lost weight, months of combat and limited nutrition, blood and limb loss.
Fresh soldiers, with a combat load, might be too heavy. Or simply risky
brohee 7 hours ago [-]
Heavy lift drones are pretty common, a 150kg or more payload is enough for a soldier with his individual equipment. The are pretty short ranged but they only need to reach to a few kms into the grey zone and back.
See e.g. the KF 150 multi copter. And it's sub $50k
wombat-man 11 hours ago [-]
You could have separate drones bring the gear.
andrewflnr 10 hours ago [-]
If you weren't improvising with a bomber, you could also just build a slightly larger drone.
pletnes 16 hours ago [-]
Can not see the drone and shoot it down using thermal camera or ir seeking missile
esseph 8 hours ago [-]
You can definitely see the drone and person with thermals, and can engage with thermal or electro optical tracking.
Haven880 2 hours ago [-]
Basically like during nam with helicopter. And many were destroyed mid flight. Plus this is PR stunt. Do OSINt how many drones needed by Ukrainian side per month. That means that many destroyed EVERY MONTH. Now imagine one of them carry wounded soldier.
Retric 2 hours ago [-]
Drones are not at equal risk in all missions and neither are wounded soldiers in equal need for evacuation. A long list of Americans have died in helicopter accidents while receiving medical transport but a much longer list had their lives saved by those same basic methods.
sampullman 2 hours ago [-]
Presumably less likely to get destroyed than a suicide drone, or one sent further into enemy controlled areas.
There probably aren't a lot of scenarios where it makes sense sense to pick an injured guy up with a drone, but it seems like a plausible last resort option.
Retric 2 hours ago [-]
I’d expect there’s many situations where sending a helicopter would be considered too dangerous for the crew, but the lack of medical care on a drone seems like a big limitation.
hacker_88 5 hours ago [-]
People trapped in Floods have been rescued by drones
MisterMunchkin 2 hours ago [-]
Are the floods a battlefield? Were the people soldiers?
vzaliva 16 hours ago [-]
It reaffirms that Ukrainians are:
1. very advanced with drones
2. caring about their soldiers
Disclaimer: I am a proud Ukrainian.
AndrewKemendo 9 hours ago [-]
The stuff the front line hackers are doing is incredibly impressive
Bassilisk 6 hours ago [-]
Do you have more information about that, an article or something?
AndrewKemendo 5 hours ago [-]
You kind of just need to follow the drone news like this article and you can see over the course of the last few years the kind of wild stuff they figure out.
Thanks. The fault is mine though. Thought you were
talking about "hackers" in the breaching networks sense, not in the sense of engineering innovative mechanical solutions. Either way, impressive what Ukraine is capable of coming up with.
theonething 7 hours ago [-]
Slava Ukraini!
anticodon 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
varjag 3 hours ago [-]
Refugees and immigrants can be proud of their heritage just fine dear.
mipsi 3 hours ago [-]
What's the convenience in knowing where a proud Ukrainian lives?
anticodon 3 hours ago [-]
Because male citizen of Ukraine, hiding from TCK, that avoids walking on the streets for four years already, unlikely would write such a comment.
lukan 2 hours ago [-]
Ukraine is a pretty big land and not all of it a frontline.
defraudbah 3 hours ago [-]
lol, how to spot a citizen of pidarstan
SSLy 2 hours ago [-]
I have to steal the name, cheers.
d5lt5 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
PorciiVorbesc 1 hours ago [-]
>Disclaimer: I am a proud Ukrainian.
Easy to do when you're in California with no risk of getting conscripted to the front line.
skeledrew 16 hours ago [-]
NGL, reading this gave me the feels...
Also, next wartime invention: air mines.
andrewflnr 11 hours ago [-]
Loitering munitions are already a thing. You just need to combine that concept with interceptor drones. Actually I'm not sure autonomous interceptors are a thing yet, so that might be the blocker.
esseph 8 hours ago [-]
600km/h autonomous interceptors are around...
andrewflnr 5 hours ago [-]
...hmm, yeah, now that you mention it. Those generally have pretty big targets though, with IR signatures. I'm not sure how much of that translates directly to subsonic drone-on-drone violence. (In general it's just a matter of time, of course.)
collingreen 10 hours ago [-]
This is a thing already
andrewflnr 5 hours ago [-]
Do you have a link with details?
walrus01 16 hours ago [-]
The German company Avilus has shown a medevac drone, I don't know if it's been used to transport a live human (even uninjured) for a test yet.
Seems odd to make a purpose-specific drone like this. The modular ones give much larger breadth, especially when you are constrained to being underground, etc.
walrus01 4 hours ago [-]
It also seems suitable as a general purpose cargo delivery UAV for military purposes. Likely its utility is somewhat limited by endurance and range with current battery tech. As I recall from when I first saw that design about 1.5 years ago they're marketing the same thing for many purposes. It just happens to be large enough to theoretically carry one man on a litter.
tokai 17 hours ago [-]
Was it two years ago, or even longer, that Akhmat troops claimed Ukrainian drones tried to abduct their men in the field? Who knows, it might end up actually happen one day. Wild.
gaiagraphia 16 hours ago [-]
Pretty horrifying prospect really. Imagine the buzzing of a huge drone descending upon you from nowhere, before it just grabs you with its metal arms, and whisks you away into the sky, lol.
Guess it's better than dropping nades on top of you, maybe :/
froh42 3 hours ago [-]
Instead of grabbing anyone this could be a real game changer. Enemy soldiers could surrender even deep behind enemy lines, signal their intentions with a white flag, and be evacuated to safety. It could also make taking prisoners much easier and safer, since there would be no need to send troops into hostile territory to retrieve them.
The basis is that it became known that POWs are treated fairly and decently.
doubled112 16 hours ago [-]
It wouldn't need to drop grenades. It could pick you up, fly high enough, and drop you to your death. Never runs out of ammo, just batteries.
This is pretty horrifying. Bonus points if you hit somebody on the way down?
nostrademons 15 hours ago [-]
If a drone wanted to kill you, it would use a bullet. Cheapest and easiest way, with the least risk to the drone.
The extraction case would only be for high-value targets (enemy military/economic/political leaders), where having them alive would give leverage on having them order their organizations to do something useful for the drone owner.
smackeyacky 5 hours ago [-]
Cheapest and easiest way to kill people is starvation and disease. Bullets are quick but relatively expensive compared to that
joedwin 3 hours ago [-]
Slow which makes it costly in terms of active war
Muromec 2 hours ago [-]
Cutting supply lines is a legitimate and very much used tactic.
bluegatty 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah they're not going to 'snatch and drop' gadzooks.
They're going to 'snatch' because they want prisoners to exchange, they want info, etc.
leni536 16 hours ago [-]
Bullets are probably more economical.
Muromec 5 hours ago [-]
It's usually an fpv with some explosives up their bearded ass.
tim333 52 minutes ago [-]
could do with some for the phone snatchers in London
bluegatty 2 hours ago [-]
It's coming soon.
Ukraine will be grabbing Russian soldiers off the field within 12 months, I predict.
Edit: they've already been trying.
renegade-otter 4 hours ago [-]
Wasn't that Terminator: Salvation?
16 hours ago [-]
toss1 15 hours ago [-]
for the Russian soldiers, it would certainly be a better fate than remaining on the field for a few more tens of minutes before they die (on average). AFAICT, they are treated better in Ukrainian POW camps than in the Russian deployed positions
holoduke 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
phatfish 2 hours ago [-]
If Ukraine was carrying out offensive actions at the same rate as Russia I might agree. But they are defending and slowly loosing territory apart from specific areas where Ukrainian offensive actions have an outsize strategic effect.
Are you suggesting that by defending 95% of the front line Ukraine has the SAME losses in manpower as Russia which is carrying out offensive actions over probably 40-50% of the front line?
Right, highlight the one incident on the Ukrainian side vs the standard war-crimes treatment by the Russians, and yes, there are also a number of incidents during capture on the both sides.
Also note the mismatch in POWs died in captivity returned by Ukraine (14) vs by Russia (>1000, as of [0]).
And note the overall condition of Russian soldiers returned is well-fed, and Ukrainians returned are barely walking.
It has been some 400 years since Cardinal Richelieu said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." [1] We can always find an exception to condemn someone.
Our task is instead to try to get a fair grasp on what is happening. Highlighting the exceptional event out of context is not helpful
edit: completed last paragraph; accidentally posted incomplete
senderista 13 hours ago [-]
There are actually quite a few more documented incidents of POW abuse on the Ukrainian side than the one I linked to, but I think I would agree that there's probably more on the Russian side. I don't consider the amount of POW abuse on the Ukrainian side to be negligible though, nor would I expect it to be given how bitter this war is.
toss1 13 hours ago [-]
Yes, I'm sure it is not negligible, since it never is, even with the best-disciplined military. Adrenalin runs pretty high when people are trying their best to kill you and all your family, friends, and countrymen.
But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.
somenameforme 3 hours ago [-]
'The Basic Principles of War Propaganda' [1] might be worth a read to you. Wiki offers its ten key points:
---
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
9. Our cause is sacred
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
---
Sound familiar? It was written 25 years ago. There's a reason in war that it often seems that it's only the losers that commit war crimes.
The Russians certainly read their war propaganda textbooks. They have that list well covered.
somenameforme 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, every side in every war says essentially the exact same things dating back at least many decades, and I suspect centuries, if not millennia.
bluegatty 1 hours ago [-]
Not really though.
This notion of 'defending the homeland' is in many ways a modern concept.
Plebes did not view the local principality as 'theirs' - another prince coming to take over just means a 'choice between lords'.
Obviously, it's different if the Romans are coming into German tribal areas, but, 'state nationalism' as we undertstand it is a modern concept.
Invading people to 'spread an idea' was mostly an Islamic/Arabic thing, and then Napoloenic in modern era. Very rare in history.
And propaganda is usually pointless, it's obvious who is invading who - there is no 'media' to control the narrative within, obviously, the local folks in towns were instructed what to say but this is low-grade propaganda.
Muromec 1 hours ago [-]
Not everything is reducible to "both sides" every time
senderista 12 hours ago [-]
Dude, the guys in the Tornado Battalion, who were convicted of absolutely horrifying sexual violence and other atrocities during the 2014 war, were pardoned and released from prison shortly after the war started. What kind of signal was that supposed to send?
varjag 3 hours ago [-]
That you had to dig all the way back to the crimes of an irregular unit in 2014 is telling.
toss1 9 hours ago [-]
Not great, but are you equating the turmoil right after Yanukovych was deposed, Crimea was invaded and occupied by Russia, and there were serial interim governments with a the more stable govt that came after?
Again, is this a horrible exception, or is it the standard way they operate. For UKR it is the exception, for Russia, it is the way they operate, right up to human safari FPV drone hunting and killing of civilians posted on social media by the perpetrators.
senderista 8 hours ago [-]
Sorry I wasn't clear, the crimes happened in the 2014 war, the pardon was in 2022 a few months after Russia attacked IIRC.
kakacik 3 hours ago [-]
Well since you enjoy whataboutism so much, russia sent all mass murderers it had in prisons that actually volunteered right into the battles (given their sentences vs 6 months of service its not illogical choice from certain perspective). And many of those (given, often just murderers, not mass murderers) that survived walked free after required service period. This reportedly included some cannibals.
Then one reads stories from russian newspapers how those folks continue their murdering hobby after coming back. Or how some are sent to primary schools to talk with small kids about the glory of war.
Making Ukraine seen on same moral level overall as russia is a classic russian propaganda trick and very far from truth for those who follow whats happening on the ground and higher up.
senderista 13 hours ago [-]
I think ideologically extreme volunteers on either side are more likely to commit war crimes than regular troops. The incident I linked above was perpetrated by the Kraken Battalion, which is basically the Kharkiv chapter of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment (formerly based in Mariupol). Similarly, the horrific video of the castration/execution of a Ukrainian POW seemed to be related to Rusich, the Russian neo-Nazi volunteer unit.
fellowniusmonk 14 hours ago [-]
A net shooting drone that pops an expanding weather balloon would get anyone you need off the ground and then plenty of time to collect then while they are floating around
9 hours ago [-]
expedition32 11 hours ago [-]
I hope in the future all wars are fought by drones. Just don't make them unstoppable like in that Horizon videogame.
bickfordb 10 hours ago [-]
I hope not. This looks like a nightmare world constrained only by basic manufacturing.
schiffern 8 hours ago [-]
World War I called. It wants its "horror at the concept of industrialized warfare" back.
estearum 7 hours ago [-]
In World War 1, countries had to contend with the political unsavoriness of sending their youth to go die in droves.
In asymmetric drone warfare stronger economies can nearly “costlessly” conquer less wealthy economies.
pjc50 3 hours ago [-]
Materiel isn't free! Had everyone forgotten the "cross of iron" speech from Eisenhower?
It also doesn't seem to be working all that well in the Middle East, which looks more like a standstill. Even in Ukraine the actual holding of ground is mostly manned.
Muromec 1 hours ago [-]
Hold is, but attacking often isn't
MentalM 5 hours ago [-]
> In asymmetric drone warfare stronger economies can nearly “costlessly” conquer less wealthy economies.
Iran vs US shows the opposite. Stronger economy is a huge vulnerability, low human life cost is a big advantage. Economy matters a lot, but if one country can allow itself to lose 80% of it's resources in the war, and another will capitulates long before 5% loss, the first will win no matter the size of the economy.
somenameforme 3 hours ago [-]
And I think this generalizes. War is basically a game of morale. Whoever's morale breaks first, loses - in both battles and wars. This is precisely why Afghanistan managed to defeat both the USSR and the USA. They will fight you to the very last man without even having a hint of morale issues. And then after they're all dead their children will do the exact same. And then their children's children. They simply will never surrender, and that makes them practically impossible to defeat. Iran is showing themselves capable of the exact same.
It's interesting to imagine a parallel WW2 where the Japanese emperor did not tell the war council to end the war, and they just continued to fight, as the council wanted. It seems that surely Japan would have lost, but the shape this would take when you have a people, and not just a leadership, unwilling to surrender is not at all clear.
neltnerb 5 hours ago [-]
From the point of view of "the market" I imagine that it's profitable rather than merely costless.
sigh
tantalor 9 hours ago [-]
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In any case, most actual fighting will be done by small robots, and as you go forth today remember your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots.
bamboozled 11 hours ago [-]
I hope there are no future wars.
The point of war is to kill people.
halfmatthalfcat 10 hours ago [-]
That's not necessarily true. The point of war is to force control. You can force control without killing people. Economically, psychologically, digitally, etc. Killing people is one of the ways but not the only way to wage war.
lazyasciiart 7 hours ago [-]
Indeed - anti-personnnel mines are intended to maim, not kill, because severely wounded soldiers or civilians are a greater drain on enemy resources and morale than a quick death.
Aeolun 10 hours ago [-]
The point of war is enforcing your will through violence. You can skip the violence, but then bullies would essentially be unrestricted.
megous 10 hours ago [-]
There's no single point to war. It can be anything from enjoying the destruction and killing and torture and lack of rules, to "retribution" (for people who are into thinking of other people in terms of arbitrarily and vaguely defined groups), though creating chaos to get political advantage, to distraction from political issues, or really whatever...
swat535 10 hours ago [-]
"War" for the sake of "war" is pointless. It should be tied to a political objective for some kind of gain.
Ideally, it would be the last resort in limited capacity when diplomacy fails.
Otherwise you're unleashing horrors on humanity.
bamboozled 10 hours ago [-]
Do you think there is a difference between killing people and violence ?
pixl97 10 hours ago [-]
You can have violence without killing people, for example in torture the goal is generally not to kill the recipient.
And if a doctor has a surgery that goes bad and the patient died, they may have killed someone, but there was no violence.
bamboozled 9 hours ago [-]
But you can't have killing without violence.
lazyasciiart 7 hours ago [-]
Smallpox, radiation leaks, freezing to death etc are all causes of death that can be engineered but not generally labeled as violence. What definition are you using?
esseph 8 hours ago [-]
I guess if you get extremely broad with the term but starvation isn't often classified as violence.
Dylan16807 10 hours ago [-]
> The point of war is to kill people.
You could have a war that's entirely based around infrastructure damage, and you could warn people away from incoming attacks.
megous 10 hours ago [-]
Never happened.
10 hours ago [-]
Dylan16807 10 hours ago [-]
Even if it hasn't happened, it would still be a relatively normal war if it happened.
The point of wars usually isn't death.
krashidov 10 hours ago [-]
ah right, good point. Let's have more wars then.
Dylan16807 10 hours ago [-]
Do you think that's what I was arguing?
Well I'll quote the sentence to make it clearer, I guess.
8note 9 hours ago [-]
the point of war is to get past bargaining frictions and make it clear what a mutually acceptable settlement looks like
helterskelter2 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomhow 15 hours ago [-]
Please don't post political/ideological rhetoric on HN. It doesn't matter how correct your position is or how correct you feel it is; it only leads to back and forth arguments between people on opposing sides, and that's just what we're trying to avoid. Please aim for curious conversation at all times here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Setting aside the politics and the personalities, if we focus on the technology and the lessons in how to produce, iterate, and deploy I think there's enormous value in looking at what Ukraine has to offer from a tactical and strategic standpoint. It's a fact that countries and organizations are rushing to benefit from that aspect of this war, from NATO states to organized crime. Unless we imagine that data from this war isn't being actively pursued by any party that thinks they have the ability to adapt their local conflicts to a "new way of fighting", it's a matter of intense intellectual curiosity.
Doubly so when we recall that drones and ML are inextricably linked on the modern battlefield, and the technology we routinely discuss here is already being used in kill chains, ISR, SAR, and it's evolving on a weekly basis.
tomhow 11 hours ago [-]
Sure, and there's a place for discussion about that (though whether HN can host such a discussion without it spiraling into a hellish flamewar is not something we can be confident about).
That aside, in this context the issue is that the comment very much didn't set aside the politics and the personalities.
EA-3167 11 hours ago [-]
Of course, I was just trying to extract a bit of good from the bad.
cisc 15 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomhow 14 hours ago [-]
That’s an issue that can be debated at the appropriate time and place, but it’s not the topic of this article, so it’s a generic tangent and flamebait, which the guidelines specifically ask us to avoid.
cisc 14 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomhow 14 hours ago [-]
The article is about the use of a drone to evacuate an injured soldier from a battlefield. It’s not an article about geopolitics, and if it was, it would definitely not belong on the front page, because the guidelines clearly state that mainstream news is usually off topic here.
> Have the curiosity to be serious.
Excuse me. This site and its guidelines have existed in a largely constant form for almost two decades and your account is a couple of months old. Of course we welcome new participants here, but this is only a place where people want to come to discuss important topics because we have guidelines and uphold them daily. Please respect the guidelines and the community expectations if you want to participate here.
cisc 14 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomhow 13 hours ago [-]
Please stop acting like a jerk, thanks. There’s nothing new or clever about people playing games with words or logic to make the case that the guidelines should be reinterpreted or changed to allow the thing they want.
Off-topic tangents and political/ideological battle are always forum-killers. HN is only here after two decades because we work so hard to avoid it.
If you have an actual new idea on how to make HN more interesting, you’re welcome to share it. Otherwise, please stop wasting everyone’s time.
cisc 13 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
apercu 15 hours ago [-]
I wish “even Republicans” but that party stands for nothing any more, it isn’t even conservative. It’s the most bizarre and morally bankrupt thing I’ve seen in American politics and I’ve been paying attention since the 80s.
Do you really think there's anything Trump is afraid of any secret that could be worse than what we already no? There's not. The idea that he's manipulated by Russia is just stupid.
usefulcat 15 hours ago [-]
> even Republicans are beginning to wonder what dirt Putin has on Trump.
What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?
Not trolling or rhetorical; that's a completely sincere question. Even if something "bad" were to surface, his supporters would simply deny it and/or ignore it, same as they've done for all the other things he's done that are already known.
You can pretty much divide American voters into two camps right now: the ones who loathe him and the ones who DGAF (non-voting voters being in the latter category).
helterskelter2 15 hours ago [-]
> What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?
Some segment will always deny any dirt that comes out but I think most would become fairly adverse to him if, say, conclusive evidence of child sexual abuse surfaced.
s5300 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
lawn 15 hours ago [-]
No need for dirt. Putin simply funnels money to Trump and that's enough.
Confusing comment. What foreign dictator are you referring to?
vardump 16 hours ago [-]
Well, there's just one dictator involved, Putin. Trump is supporting him right now.
jazzyjackson 15 hours ago [-]
Russia apologists consider Zelensky a dictator installed by “The West” and use the same verbiage of stolen elections as Trumpists
pohl 15 hours ago [-]
Supporting Ukraine’s defense against invasion has had better ROI than most domestic defense spending. For a pittance we’ve let a major adversary weaken itself considerably. We should do more.
midtake 10 hours ago [-]
Weakened only in the personnel sense. In terms of industrialization for war and acquisition of modern warfare tactics, we have made them considerably stronger.
Marha01 6 hours ago [-]
Nope. Russians have improved in some areas (experience), but they lost a tremendous amount of war materiel, and the economy suffered significant damage.
helterskelter2 16 hours ago [-]
They probably will, but they won't get the votes to override a presidential veto (2/3 of both chambers). The very best case scenario is that Trump is impeached and Vance doesn't have any serious kompromat.
chasd00 16 hours ago [-]
isn't impeachment without removal just a bullet point on a wikipedia page? i don't see it being very much of a deterrent.
helterskelter2 15 hours ago [-]
It's possible that enough Republicans will be looking for a clean break with Trump and may be willing to get Vance in his place, especially with Trump's recent dealings with Russia and Ukraine. The MAGA voting base is looking less devoted with the recent economic developments as well and might not be so keen on his candidates in 2029. Also, if dems get the majority we may be seeing more Epstein revelations in the news.
But like I said, this is the very best case scenario. Most likely Trump will just be to busy handling an investigation and an adversarial Congress to do much but make noise on social media.
TFNA 16 hours ago [-]
Vance is of a generation where he lived a good chunk of his life on social media and his mobile phone, so embarassing secrets could be picked up more easily by nation-level actors. It's possible that any politician of this generation in any country in any political party might be more susceptible to blackmail than the geriatric generation represented by Trump.
helterskelter2 15 hours ago [-]
There are degrees to kompromat. He probably wasn't close friends with Epstein for instance.
wood_spirit 15 hours ago [-]
Vance is very isolationist and anti-Europe. He has said his proudest achievement is stopping aid to Ukraine. He says he wants peace but the implication is through the surrender of Ukraine. He is seen as worse than Trump.
apercu 15 hours ago [-]
I’m not sure anything is worse than Trump. He’s an amazing case study of a complete incompetent that somehow has a solid base of supporters. It’s baffling to me as I’ve always thought he was a crass blowhard and I fundamentally cannot understand his appeal.
derriz 16 hours ago [-]
“Back on”? When did it stop?
consumer451 16 hours ago [-]
What do you mean "The Ukraine war is back on for Europe?"
16 hours ago [-]
toss1 15 hours ago [-]
You aren't deadlast, you are dead wrong. On every point.
The Ukrainian war never stopped. Russia has never paused attacking for even one day, in more years than WWI. The War on Ukraine never went away and so can't "come back"
No one supporting Ukraine is supporting a foreign dictator. Zelenskyy was elected in a free and fair election, and elections have been involuntarily suspended while the country is under continuous bombardment targeting civilians. Holding an election would be literal suicide and condemning voters to death by announcing every time and place where people would gather, just to make it easy for Russia to target them. And there is ZERO question — Ukrainian civilian casualties are NOT collateral damage, they are deliberately targeted by Russian missiles, long-range drones, and individual civilians are even hunted by FPV drones in "human safari" incidents posted by Russians themselves.
Ukrainians are only defending their own right to live on their own land under their own government, and not have their children kidnapped and their neighbors and themselves tortured and slaughtered, which has happened in EVERY city Russia occupied. Russia is doing what Russia has always done — invade and genocide a neighbor, then say "this was always Russia".
It is absolutely disgusting that you come here to post such lies and characterize any support for Ukraine as if it were support for an autocracy, when YOU are the one supporting Russia's autocracy. You are factually wrong and morally abhorrent. Rethink your life.
walrus01 15 hours ago [-]
I think the European countries' leadership are well aware that if Russia is not decisively defeated in Ukraine now, returning every square meter of UA territory back to Ukrainian control, they'll be fighting the Russian army in actual NATO locations even further west in 2, 5 or 7 years from now.
wiseowise 7 hours ago [-]
That’s just not true. If anything the rhetoric is to avoid Russia being decisively defeated in Ukraine.
walrus01 4 hours ago [-]
Because, what? They're worried about Russia breaking apart into civil war if the army is decisively defeated and some general decides to put a 9x18 Makarov round into Putin's cranium?
wiseowise 3 hours ago [-]
Because look what happened with Germany after WW1. Now stretch it, multiply economy multiple times, and add nukes. Russia is already revanchist after collapse of Soviet Union, if they are to lose war vs Ukraine it would spiral out of control.
toss1 15 hours ago [-]
Europe are already fighting Russia. Russia has made scores of "hybrid war" attacks throughout Europe and GB, including attempted bomb-laden drones at Leipzeig airport, cutting numerous undersea cables, and even "errant" drone attacks. They are also likely behind amplifying the current unrest in France.
EU politicians don't want to acknowledge the ongoing war because they think it would be an escalation and they also have a fear of 'Russia breaking up'. Other than the Baltic states, they don't realize the only way to stop it is push back, hard and fast, as Ukraine is doing. The Russian military is low-capability and declining, reliant now on North Korea and Iran, and the economy is sliding. The reality is little could be better than Russia breaking up and finally abandoning it's imperial ambitions, which are still active today.
consumer451 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tintor 10 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
_heimdall 10 hours ago [-]
I have to assume the Israelis would also evacuate the soldier if they believed it could be done with a good enough success rate. If one wanted to follow a "no captures" approach you could send both, if they can't rescue via drone then you follow up with the muchbworse option.
That said, I personally disagree with the idea of killing your own to avoid capture.
bushbaba 9 hours ago [-]
Why must every thread bring up Israel? This has nothing to do with it.
However Israel has and does evacuate soldiers.
Waterluvian 10 hours ago [-]
The maths change entirely if you don’t value individual human life. Wounded and captured become liabilities. It reminds me of what I’ve seen with how the Russians prosecute a war. Humans can be a cheap renewable resource.
gboss 9 hours ago [-]
Russia is in for world of economic pain for suffering over 1.5 million casualties (injured or dead) and counting. When Putin’s gone there’s sure to be a reckoning, or he’ll be gone because of it.
idiotsecant 10 hours ago [-]
That link says they haven't done this for more than a decade at least, but nice dog whistle I guess
rajamaka 9 hours ago [-]
The link says that both the UN and Haaretz independantly concluded the Hannibal Directive was used on October 7
shrubble 9 hours ago [-]
October 7th, 2023, so a bit more than 3 years ago, according to Yoav Gallant, former defense minister.
egorfine 17 hours ago [-]
As a Ukrainian, I really wish my country could innovate in areas other than evacuation of wounded people from our own soil.
And the recent drone tech is saving many lives and lots of money.
barbazoo 16 hours ago [-]
From outside it seems that Ukraine is not really given a choice right now but to defend itself. I wish for a soon end to the war so your beautiful country can prosper again and your people can start healing.
squidbeak 15 hours ago [-]
I think the poster's point was, "Imagine what we could be applying our ingenuity to if the bastards invading us would only piss off."
wiseowise 7 hours ago [-]
> "Imagine what we could be applying our ingenuity to if the bastards invading us would only piss off."
As someone who lived through Ukraine’s 90s and early 00s, “we” wouldn’t apply it that much.
jacquesm 8 hours ago [-]
Indeed. Ukraine is - and always was - a tech and innovation powerhouse and it is very sad to see the continued degree of distraction caused by russia. Let's hope the midterms will at least muzzle trump to the point that the tide will turn. I can't believe it is almost 5 years now. Very frustrating.
mrheosuper 9 hours ago [-]
Could you be elaborating more? What is better than evacuating the injured ?
Muromec 5 hours ago [-]
Not having shit neighbours that invade you would be nice
ChrisRR 2 hours ago [-]
It's not like they can up and move their country
dgunay 16 hours ago [-]
Doesn't this have potential applications in disaster relief?
A woman wrote "I ask for bread" in the snow in front of her house. A passing drone photographed it. This led to a later mission to air drop food to her.
Ancalagon 17 hours ago [-]
is this not a good innovation?
egorfine 13 hours ago [-]
It's a good innovation.
The whole situation that required that innovation is not.
Y-bar 16 hours ago [-]
It is a good innovation in the same way a shield is a good innovation. Perhaps people do not always want to innovate in the area of war, but instead doing something else, but they are forced to innovate like this.
8note 15 hours ago [-]
it also feels like it could be a replacement to the electric scooter at some point?
drone pickup is basically a jet pack
dgudkov 12 hours ago [-]
Another Ukrainian innovation using drones: transporting transplant organs.
I'd actually assumed it'd be commonplace by now, but I can't find too many stories about it.
atlasunshrugged 11 hours ago [-]
Not exactly the same but Zipline has been transporting medical supplies in Africa for almost a decade (in the US I think they're mostly focused on food delivery which is more profitable)
https://time.com/5295821/ziplines-drones-are-saving-lives/
dgudkov 11 hours ago [-]
To be precise, innovation doesn't mean invention. I never claimed that Ukraine was the first to invent organ delivery, but it definitely keeps innovating in this field.
Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of interesting/innovative going on with regards to drones in Ukraine.
Without knowing more details it would seem to be a lot less risk to transport wounded soldiers in those MAUL armored sarcophagus type of containers, than to be airborne and exposed to enemy fire.
In other hand you have 3 axis plus if you reduce proportion you can at any moment without adding any power dodge enemy. Skilled operator may be able to hit and this is why they added swarm of suicide drones to protect carrier
Simple. Soldier left as is will survive with probability=0. UAV medevac has probability of success strictly > 0.
> “Due to intense enemy drone activity and the presence of landmines, evacuation using conventional unmanned ground vehicles was impossible,”
Bigger drones would be slower and easier to spot, but even then - if you're not ready and waiting it'll be gone before you have time to react. The only consistent solution for anti-drone warfare is automated. Or nets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mORdXxZ2uKU
So far the only drone carried airborne were Ground grone drops on the back of the enemy, some with grenade launcher drones.
Not sure if that is better than just using a helicopter however.
Anyone who has done first responder training should have had it drilled into their skulls to remember the number one rule .... "do not add yourself to the injury list".
If you're operating in a war-zone its kind of the same thing. Send in a helicopter to drop off one or more guys and you are also sending in bare minimum of one extra person but realistically almost certainly three extra people (two at the front and one at the back to watch the people jumping out).
Also drones are probably somewhat cheaper than helicopters. Both to buy and to operate.
Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors. With Recent developments, the an interceptor can fly up to 600 km/h. It can also wait for you on the balloon.
Overall, piloted aviation, it's almost a dead end with all the recent capabilities.
As an example, Russia hits with drones a specific parts of the bridge using mesh network of ER resistant drones . Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .
What is the point of sending f-35 if Ukraine can send 5 cheap rockets? And deliver 2-3 tones of payload over the most sophisticated air protection in the world ?
Source on the drones actually flying that far? I would assume they're forward positioned.
3000 km or around 1864 miles.
Ukraine and Russia are both second-rate powers making do with what they can manage because they're too poor to afford anything better. The systems that sort of work in Eastern Europe likely won't be effective in a major conflict between the USA and China around the First Island Chain. (Let's hope we don't have to find out for sure.)
Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary. Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.
Drones with that sort of capability started appearing on the battlefield more than a year ago, and it has only been refined since.
Examples are the RAM-2X, the Helsing HX2, and whatever drones they use that automatically identify and seek out stationary aircraft on Russian airfields.
Also you're still not remotely competetive with drones that can be carried and operated by infantry at that price point. Who's going to do reconaissance so you even know where to strike before you fire that missile? A drone provides all of that in a package that'd still be less than 1/10th the cost.
Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.
Rotary wing are 'dead' - because manpads and now drones, they are just not used. Any smart adversary can figure out the drones, as for now.
Iran is a poor country with challenging AA but even they downed like 30 predators (or equivalent). They have passive systems.
Russia doctrines is to have massive numbers of S300/400 which makes it takes weeks at minimum for US to get enough Air dominance to be able to fly, though, eventually they would be worn down as we have seen US standoff munitions are limited.
US used 30-50% of munitions against just Iran. Imagine Russia.
China has a lot of sneaky new toys up their sleeve as well - very long range capabilities for a lot of things, enough to 'deter' USN pretty hard.
Nobody doubts US would ultimately 'win' v Russia, but everything is up in the air right now.
FYI even Houthis downed US jets.
The Houthis have no airforce, no professional army and no navy and yet they control the red sea.
Lets be a bit clear - F-35 in Iran are also effectively used against static targets in most if not all the cases. School, intersections full of civilian traffic and some underground tunnel here and there or a parked truck, we've seen the videos its not like they are hiding them.
Era of hunt for expensive sophistication at all costs is coming to an end, no point if one can overwhelm any adversary including US by just sending one cheap wave after another, and it doesn't even take long. How long is the backlog for US patriot missiles? Plus Ukraine can do same type of missiles 80% cheaper soon.
This overwhelming already happened numerous times in recent months, US is just not bragging about it on fox news for obvious reasons.
Silly nonsense comment.
The US would absolutely not be sending manned helicopters into the same situations. Zero chance.
The US is failing to decisively win a war against a third world country. Ukraine is failing to decisively win (but gradually winning) a war against an adversary several multiples its size and economic strength.
The Osprey is dead, the mission it was built for was Iran, and today they are limited to 15 min from base missions, aka they are effectively retired.
Those new Littoral combat ships are decommissioned.
Russia has almost no tanks or armoured vehicles to deliver troops in Ukraine, and the USA is no different. It cant support troops on the ground in either area. Any troops dropped there would be abandoned in a very harsh terrain.
I give it 1-2y.
It didn't win the Americans and the Israelis the war, to the contrary, it gave them (the Americans and the Israelis) the illusion that they could win it based on air power alone as a result of the Douhet doctrine.
If you have to fight longer than that even US runs out of the expansive stuff and then drones win.
Do we have evidence even a single helicopter has been shot down by a drone?
Paratroopers and similar troops could be dropped but it would be a suicide mission in an extremely harsh land, with no water and no food.
/s
Transporting wounded soldiers has become a significant problem in recent years.
https://youtu.be/tIJy0sLzfl4?is=fJfZkiC1vVvtkgiR
Also heli is much laughter and easier to spot
And the lost of why would you not send it goes on and on
Fresh soldiers, with a combat load, might be too heavy. Or simply risky
See e.g. the KF 150 multi copter. And it's sub $50k
There probably aren't a lot of scenarios where it makes sense sense to pick an injured guy up with a drone, but it seems like a plausible last resort option.
1. very advanced with drones 2. caring about their soldiers
Disclaimer: I am a proud Ukrainian.
this was a favorite of mine when I first saw it: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/9/9/what-are-dragon-...
Easy to do when you're in California with no risk of getting conscripted to the front line.
Also, next wartime invention: air mines.
https://www.xponential-europe.com/en/Media_News/Magazine/Art...
https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=firefox-b-d&hs=p...
Guess it's better than dropping nades on top of you, maybe :/
The basis is that it became known that POWs are treated fairly and decently.
This is pretty horrifying. Bonus points if you hit somebody on the way down?
The extraction case would only be for high-value targets (enemy military/economic/political leaders), where having them alive would give leverage on having them order their organizations to do something useful for the drone owner.
They're going to 'snatch' because they want prisoners to exchange, they want info, etc.
Ukraine will be grabbing Russian soldiers off the field within 12 months, I predict.
Edit: they've already been trying.
Are you suggesting that by defending 95% of the front line Ukraine has the SAME losses in manpower as Russia which is carrying out offensive actions over probably 40-50% of the front line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_of_Russian_soldiers_in...
Also note the mismatch in POWs died in captivity returned by Ukraine (14) vs by Russia (>1000, as of [0]).
And note the overall condition of Russian soldiers returned is well-fed, and Ukrainians returned are barely walking.
It has been some 400 years since Cardinal Richelieu said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." [1] We can always find an exception to condemn someone.
Our task is instead to try to get a fair grasp on what is happening. Highlighting the exceptional event out of context is not helpful
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_Russo-...
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
edit: completed last paragraph; accidentally posted incomplete
But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.
---
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
9. Our cause is sacred
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
---
Sound familiar? It was written 25 years ago. There's a reason in war that it often seems that it's only the losers that commit war crimes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Pr...
This notion of 'defending the homeland' is in many ways a modern concept.
Plebes did not view the local principality as 'theirs' - another prince coming to take over just means a 'choice between lords'.
Obviously, it's different if the Romans are coming into German tribal areas, but, 'state nationalism' as we undertstand it is a modern concept.
Invading people to 'spread an idea' was mostly an Islamic/Arabic thing, and then Napoloenic in modern era. Very rare in history.
And propaganda is usually pointless, it's obvious who is invading who - there is no 'media' to control the narrative within, obviously, the local folks in towns were instructed what to say but this is low-grade propaganda.
Again, is this a horrible exception, or is it the standard way they operate. For UKR it is the exception, for Russia, it is the way they operate, right up to human safari FPV drone hunting and killing of civilians posted on social media by the perpetrators.
Then one reads stories from russian newspapers how those folks continue their murdering hobby after coming back. Or how some are sent to primary schools to talk with small kids about the glory of war.
Making Ukraine seen on same moral level overall as russia is a classic russian propaganda trick and very far from truth for those who follow whats happening on the ground and higher up.
In asymmetric drone warfare stronger economies can nearly “costlessly” conquer less wealthy economies.
It also doesn't seem to be working all that well in the Middle East, which looks more like a standstill. Even in Ukraine the actual holding of ground is mostly manned.
Iran vs US shows the opposite. Stronger economy is a huge vulnerability, low human life cost is a big advantage. Economy matters a lot, but if one country can allow itself to lose 80% of it's resources in the war, and another will capitulates long before 5% loss, the first will win no matter the size of the economy.
It's interesting to imagine a parallel WW2 where the Japanese emperor did not tell the war council to end the war, and they just continued to fight, as the council wanted. It seems that surely Japan would have lost, but the shape this would take when you have a people, and not just a leadership, unwilling to surrender is not at all clear.
sigh
The point of war is to kill people.
Ideally, it would be the last resort in limited capacity when diplomacy fails.
Otherwise you're unleashing horrors on humanity.
And if a doctor has a surgery that goes bad and the patient died, they may have killed someone, but there was no violence.
You could have a war that's entirely based around infrastructure damage, and you could warn people away from incoming attacks.
The point of wars usually isn't death.
Well I'll quote the sentence to make it clearer, I guess.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50156201 and marked it off topic.
Doubly so when we recall that drones and ML are inextricably linked on the modern battlefield, and the technology we routinely discuss here is already being used in kill chains, ISR, SAR, and it's evolving on a weekly basis.
That aside, in this context the issue is that the comment very much didn't set aside the politics and the personalities.
> Have the curiosity to be serious.
Excuse me. This site and its guidelines have existed in a largely constant form for almost two decades and your account is a couple of months old. Of course we welcome new participants here, but this is only a place where people want to come to discuss important topics because we have guidelines and uphold them daily. Please respect the guidelines and the community expectations if you want to participate here.
Off-topic tangents and political/ideological battle are always forum-killers. HN is only here after two decades because we work so hard to avoid it.
If you have an actual new idea on how to make HN more interesting, you’re welcome to share it. Otherwise, please stop wasting everyone’s time.
>Use of kompromat has been common in the politics of Russia[7] and other post-Soviet states
Surely they wouldn't do the things that they usually do with Trump, who visited Russia in 1987 upon invitation by, more or less clearly, the KGB?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?
Not trolling or rhetorical; that's a completely sincere question. Even if something "bad" were to surface, his supporters would simply deny it and/or ignore it, same as they've done for all the other things he's done that are already known.
You can pretty much divide American voters into two camps right now: the ones who loathe him and the ones who DGAF (non-voting voters being in the latter category).
Some segment will always deny any dirt that comes out but I think most would become fairly adverse to him if, say, conclusive evidence of child sexual abuse surfaced.
But like I said, this is the very best case scenario. Most likely Trump will just be to busy handling an investigation and an adversarial Congress to do much but make noise on social media.
The Ukrainian war never stopped. Russia has never paused attacking for even one day, in more years than WWI. The War on Ukraine never went away and so can't "come back"
No one supporting Ukraine is supporting a foreign dictator. Zelenskyy was elected in a free and fair election, and elections have been involuntarily suspended while the country is under continuous bombardment targeting civilians. Holding an election would be literal suicide and condemning voters to death by announcing every time and place where people would gather, just to make it easy for Russia to target them. And there is ZERO question — Ukrainian civilian casualties are NOT collateral damage, they are deliberately targeted by Russian missiles, long-range drones, and individual civilians are even hunted by FPV drones in "human safari" incidents posted by Russians themselves.
Ukrainians are only defending their own right to live on their own land under their own government, and not have their children kidnapped and their neighbors and themselves tortured and slaughtered, which has happened in EVERY city Russia occupied. Russia is doing what Russia has always done — invade and genocide a neighbor, then say "this was always Russia".
It is absolutely disgusting that you come here to post such lies and characterize any support for Ukraine as if it were support for an autocracy, when YOU are the one supporting Russia's autocracy. You are factually wrong and morally abhorrent. Rethink your life.
EU politicians don't want to acknowledge the ongoing war because they think it would be an escalation and they also have a fear of 'Russia breaking up'. Other than the Baltic states, they don't realize the only way to stop it is push back, hard and fast, as Ukraine is doing. The Russian military is low-capability and declining, reliant now on North Korea and Iran, and the economy is sliding. The reality is little could be better than Russia breaking up and finally abandoning it's imperial ambitions, which are still active today.
That said, I personally disagree with the idea of killing your own to avoid capture.
However Israel has and does evacuate soldiers.
https://ukraine.ua/invest-trade/ukrainian-inventions-that-ch...
And the recent drone tech is saving many lives and lots of money.
As someone who lived through Ukraine’s 90s and early 00s, “we” wouldn’t apply it that much.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ukrainian+woman+writes+i+ask+for+b...
A woman wrote "I ask for bread" in the snow in front of her house. A passing drone photographed it. This led to a later mission to air drop food to her.
The whole situation that required that innovation is not.
drone pickup is basically a jet pack
https://ukrspecsystems.com/blog/pd-2-uav-tested-for-organ-de...
I'd actually assumed it'd be commonplace by now, but I can't find too many stories about it.
Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of interesting/innovative going on with regards to drones in Ukraine.