Ukraine uses Australian drones made of cardboard(aircosmosinternational.com)
aircosmosinternational.com
Ukraine uses Australian drones made of cardboard
https://aircosmosinternational.com/article/ukraine-uses-australian-drones-made-of-cardboard-3664
160 comments
The Russians were complaining that it is in most cases invisible to Radar and needs to be shot down by gunfire. It can also carry an explosive payload of 4-5 Kg. Apparently 3 out of 16 were shot down with machine gun fire using tracers but 13 got through to destroy several SU-30 and MIG aircraft along with several air defense and radar complexes at a Russian airbase in the Kursk Region.
Source please? The Russians complained? Or the Ukrainians reported that the Russians complained?
Russian Military blogger on Telegram. He spoke about the attack and the challenges, Ukraine said that 13 of the 16 made it to the intended targets. There will be video or satellite imagery released at some point. I tend to believe these reports since I understand who is providing the targeting information with precise coordinates and information. You can believe what you like.
rjzzleep(5)
For people who follow "this thing", its seriously hard to "find again" sources due to amount of information that created every day.
but just for you: https://t.me/fighter_bomber/13797 (not sure where from op got his news)
but just for you: https://t.me/fighter_bomber/13797 (not sure where from op got his news)
There was an unconfirmed report today that Ukrainian forces used drones to destroy several Russian aircraft at the Kursk airbase. I wouldn't take it seriously until we see something from an independent source, or satellite imagery.
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-kursk-airbase-suffers-major-16...
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-kursk-airbase-suffers-major-16...
Sure, check Fighterbomber's TG
This is not specific to these specific cardboard drones. These cardboard ones are cool but hardly a game changer
Easy construction; you simply need to remove the various parts from the cardboard plate with a knife and then build the drone using glue, tape and some rubber bands.
It's like reading a MacGyver script.
It's like reading a MacGyver script.
The MacGyver military-industrial complex is something you just have to see to believe. Cheap Macguyver warfare makes a lot of sense economically for an economy like Ukraine’s.
Meanwhile in the US:
On top of the $22.4 billion it cost in research and development, the USS Zumwalt, one of three Zumwalt destroyer class ships, cost over $4 billion to create….Military Watch Magazine reported issues back in 2018, saying that the USS Zumwalt “suffered from poorly functioning weapons, stalling engines and an underperformance in their stealth capabilities, among other shortcomings.”
Sometimes, worse is better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#:~:t....
https://veteranlife.com/military-news/uss-zumwalt/
Meanwhile in the US:
On top of the $22.4 billion it cost in research and development, the USS Zumwalt, one of three Zumwalt destroyer class ships, cost over $4 billion to create….Military Watch Magazine reported issues back in 2018, saying that the USS Zumwalt “suffered from poorly functioning weapons, stalling engines and an underperformance in their stealth capabilities, among other shortcomings.”
Sometimes, worse is better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#:~:t....
https://veteranlife.com/military-news/uss-zumwalt/
There's a classic 1951 science-fiction short story by Arthur C. Clarke, "Superiority" about a country that's developing an ultimate weapon, except that specifications and costs keep expanding to the point that only one can be afforded, and that of course comes too late.
Mentioned here on SE:
<https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/237557/science-fic...>
And of course Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)>.
ISFDB: <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?40897>
It's published in Expedition to Earth (1953): <https://archive.org/details/expeditiontoeart0000arth/page/90...>
Mentioned here on SE:
<https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/237557/science-fic...>
And of course Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)>.
ISFDB: <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?40897>
It's published in Expedition to Earth (1953): <https://archive.org/details/expeditiontoeart0000arth/page/90...>
Seems inspired by the Manhattan project that came too late to be used against Germany and cost unprecedented amounts.
Considering the period it's not exactly science fiction.
Considering the period it's not exactly science fiction.
The post-WWII period and beginning of the Cold War (starting dates are somewhat ambiguous, though George F. Kennan's "Long Telegram" was posted in February 1946, and the Truman Doctrine declared on 12 March 1947) also saw an arms race, particularly of increasingly-powerful nuclear weapons (the hydrogen bomb was first tested in 1951 & '52), jet-powered bombers, and work was proceeding on what would be the first intercontinental ballistic missiles (the Soviet R-7 Semyorka, first launched in 1957), as well as the still-in-operation B-52 Stratofortress long-range strategic bomber (first prototype flight in 1952).
I've seen variants of Clarke's observation such as extrapolations of combat aircraft costs which lead to a single plane being shared amongst the US Air Force, Navy, and Army, with the Marines having dibs every few weeks, something similar.
The criticism isn't entirely fair, as there is an element to which a superior weapon or capability can utterly overwhelm numerically-superior forces, given an equivalent initiative to fight, and military leadership capability. The defence-offence advantage (that is, a defender virtually always has the advantage) means that yes, a technologically inferior force can wear down a superior invader over time, though shear weight of numbers (though often at immense cost), as with China over Japan in WWII (Japan occupied portions of the country but simply lacked the personnel to control all but a small fraction of it), the Vietnam against the French and Americans in Indochina, and Afghanistan against the British, Soviets, and Americans from the 19th through the 21st centuries. But at the same time in an initial assault phase technological supremacy can offer overwhelming advantage, as with the US in both Iraq wars and initially in the Afghan conflict, Nazi Germany against France in WWII (most notably radio-equipped tanks overwhelming the noncommunicative French forces), and presently in Ukraine where more advanced Nato munitions seem to be giving a critical edge over Russian massed forces and dumb munitions, though that's been a relatively closer contest, given that Russian leadership seems to have little concern for its own forces' losses.
I've seen variants of Clarke's observation such as extrapolations of combat aircraft costs which lead to a single plane being shared amongst the US Air Force, Navy, and Army, with the Marines having dibs every few weeks, something similar.
The criticism isn't entirely fair, as there is an element to which a superior weapon or capability can utterly overwhelm numerically-superior forces, given an equivalent initiative to fight, and military leadership capability. The defence-offence advantage (that is, a defender virtually always has the advantage) means that yes, a technologically inferior force can wear down a superior invader over time, though shear weight of numbers (though often at immense cost), as with China over Japan in WWII (Japan occupied portions of the country but simply lacked the personnel to control all but a small fraction of it), the Vietnam against the French and Americans in Indochina, and Afghanistan against the British, Soviets, and Americans from the 19th through the 21st centuries. But at the same time in an initial assault phase technological supremacy can offer overwhelming advantage, as with the US in both Iraq wars and initially in the Afghan conflict, Nazi Germany against France in WWII (most notably radio-equipped tanks overwhelming the noncommunicative French forces), and presently in Ukraine where more advanced Nato munitions seem to be giving a critical edge over Russian massed forces and dumb munitions, though that's been a relatively closer contest, given that Russian leadership seems to have little concern for its own forces' losses.
Most notoriously, Zumwalt is built around the Advanced Gun System, since Congress is obsessed with naval shore bombardment. (See also how they kept Iowa in service decades after it was obsolete)
But...
>A total of six of the systems were installed, two on each of the three Zumwalt-class ships. The Navy has no plans for additional Zumwalt-class ships, and no plans to deploy AGS on any other ship. AGS can only use ammunition designed specifically for the system. Only one ammunition type was designed, and the Navy halted its procurement in November 2016 due to cost ($800,000 to $1,000,000 per round), so the AGS has no ammunition and cannot be used. The Navy will remove the AGS from the ships in 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System
A complete dead end, a decade spent doing nothing. Meanwhile, China is launching a dozen guided missile destroyers a year.
But...
>A total of six of the systems were installed, two on each of the three Zumwalt-class ships. The Navy has no plans for additional Zumwalt-class ships, and no plans to deploy AGS on any other ship. AGS can only use ammunition designed specifically for the system. Only one ammunition type was designed, and the Navy halted its procurement in November 2016 due to cost ($800,000 to $1,000,000 per round), so the AGS has no ammunition and cannot be used. The Navy will remove the AGS from the ships in 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System
A complete dead end, a decade spent doing nothing. Meanwhile, China is launching a dozen guided missile destroyers a year.
I have absolutely no information on the viability of the Chinese military. However, I will observe that the US military a) has people with combat experience at pretty much every level b) publishes documents detailing its fuck-ups. We’re not comparing apples and oranges here.
Wow this thing could fire $300m worth of ammo in half an hour with no pauses
Which are already redundant due to boat drones
You mean torpedoes? Or are those Kamikaze boat drones?
Well, low hanging fruit is sometimes hanging very low, but if you want to move past that and reach higher, it gets exponentially harder and thus more expensive.
Also things like reliability, durability under various extreme conditions, safety for humans involved and so on can escalate times and prices dramatically, but are not massive concerns in existential situation Ukraine currently is in due to russia's war.
US is basically never aiming so low with new tech they want for its military, it wants brilliant solutions above everybody else, and has money to burn on it. And from time to time, when looking back those investments were well worth even with flops included. US global hegemony is not something that US wants to lose due to few hundreds billions not allocated as effectively as possible.
Also things like reliability, durability under various extreme conditions, safety for humans involved and so on can escalate times and prices dramatically, but are not massive concerns in existential situation Ukraine currently is in due to russia's war.
US is basically never aiming so low with new tech they want for its military, it wants brilliant solutions above everybody else, and has money to burn on it. And from time to time, when looking back those investments were well worth even with flops included. US global hegemony is not something that US wants to lose due to few hundreds billions not allocated as effectively as possible.
The Ukrainians have one very big advantage: they know exactly where they want to wage war and against who. This allows them to do all kinds of optimizations.
1) US military programs are a domestic jobs program / political pork barrelling exercise more than anything. Because of course support for the military is one of the only things left everyone can actually agree on.
2) US needs to build weapons for the future not the present. And as such the amount of cutting-edge R&D as a percentage of the total program spend will always be significantly higher than for most other countries.
2) US needs to build weapons for the future not the present. And as such the amount of cutting-edge R&D as a percentage of the total program spend will always be significantly higher than for most other countries.
Under negative points:
> Declining reusability due to the stress on the structure: the cardboard will not be strong enough to make many flights.
Which is no doubt absolutely true—but on the other hand, the cardboard isn't the valuable part of the drone. You could have a stockpile of the cardboard (which they claim is a little larger than a pizza box), and swap out the motor and electronics if a unit survives long enough that the cardboard starts to fail.
> Declining reusability due to the stress on the structure: the cardboard will not be strong enough to make many flights.
Which is no doubt absolutely true—but on the other hand, the cardboard isn't the valuable part of the drone. You could have a stockpile of the cardboard (which they claim is a little larger than a pizza box), and swap out the motor and electronics if a unit survives long enough that the cardboard starts to fail.
yeah, this struck me as strange too. the ongoing maintenance on long-lasting industrially-manufactured drones might well cost more than rebuilding a cardboard one every few weeks.
Make your own!
https://store.flitetest.com/ft-simple-cub-mkr2/
This one’s technically foam, but it’s a very cardboardy foam. With a little bit of carbon fiber reinforcement (provided) it’s surprisingly durable and MUCH simpler and easier to build that a balsa or fiberglass airplane.
After building and flying one of these, I can certainly believe that cardboard/foam construction is great for a “disposable” (single use) airplane or even for a couple of missions - knowing that the life span will be short.
https://store.flitetest.com/ft-simple-cub-mkr2/
This one’s technically foam, but it’s a very cardboardy foam. With a little bit of carbon fiber reinforcement (provided) it’s surprisingly durable and MUCH simpler and easier to build that a balsa or fiberglass airplane.
After building and flying one of these, I can certainly believe that cardboard/foam construction is great for a “disposable” (single use) airplane or even for a couple of missions - knowing that the life span will be short.
Oh man, Flitetest. About 10 years ago I got really into building those planes. Never bought any kits, just used their free plans to cut my own foam boards. I did buy some components from them; usually a bulkhead or landing gear setup.
My favorite one was the F-22 replica (https://store.flitetest.com/ft-22-mkr2/). With the right motor and prop—and by abusing the discharge rate on the battery—I think I got that jet screaming at ~60mph. Not sure what the precise speed was, but it was definitely in the “should I be buying insurance for this?” territory.
The Bloody Wonder was my favorite for aerobatics. It was easy to build, fairly tough, and easy to fly but still twitchy when you wanted it to be.
My favorite one was the F-22 replica (https://store.flitetest.com/ft-22-mkr2/). With the right motor and prop—and by abusing the discharge rate on the battery—I think I got that jet screaming at ~60mph. Not sure what the precise speed was, but it was definitely in the “should I be buying insurance for this?” territory.
The Bloody Wonder was my favorite for aerobatics. It was easy to build, fairly tough, and easy to fly but still twitchy when you wanted it to be.
I've built a few like this, and have designed a handful that haven't made it out of Fusion 360 yet.
I have a kit by an FPV pilot (Shelby Voll) that consists of a couple of pieces of pre-cut styrofoam, some carbon fiber rods for rigidity, and other various odds and ends. I think I paid $200 for it. I haven't built it yet, but I've flown friends' builds from the same kit and have built similar ones. It'll take about two hours to build with simple hand tools, and is probably the most durable "flying wing" design of which I'm aware.
I'm mostly into FPV quadcopters, but it seems most people who fly them who get into "wings" seem to prefer them.
I have a kit by an FPV pilot (Shelby Voll) that consists of a couple of pieces of pre-cut styrofoam, some carbon fiber rods for rigidity, and other various odds and ends. I think I paid $200 for it. I haven't built it yet, but I've flown friends' builds from the same kit and have built similar ones. It'll take about two hours to build with simple hand tools, and is probably the most durable "flying wing" design of which I'm aware.
I'm mostly into FPV quadcopters, but it seems most people who fly them who get into "wings" seem to prefer them.
The website seems to have been hugged to death. WebArchive has a copy, tho: https://web.archive.org/web/20230827191921/https://aircosmos...
I would expect Ukraine could learn how to produce their own in a couple of weeks. Have patterns and a press to cut out the pieces and mass produce them. The effect of thousands of these would be similar to massive volleys of arrows in medevil battle, only in this case each has targeting and 5kg warhead
The Ukranian drone industry has rocketed (no pun intended) since the invasion. I'd highly recommend checking out this video[1] from the FT on the tech industry that has popped up around this, inside Ukraine itself.
Just such a travesty that they need to do this at all.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voPCPhzmL10
Just such a travesty that they need to do this at all.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voPCPhzmL10
The kind of know-how they are building up there is making them a force to be reckoned with, it is one of those if-it-doesn't-kill-you-it-will-make-you-stronger things.
Obviously Russia can do anything that Ukraine can do but Ukraine has a very large and wealthy contingent of the world behind them and they are motivated far beyond the Russians. I really hope they will be able to force some kind of breakthrough to the point that even Putin realizes that giving up is the better outcome.
Obviously Russia can do anything that Ukraine can do but Ukraine has a very large and wealthy contingent of the world behind them and they are motivated far beyond the Russians. I really hope they will be able to force some kind of breakthrough to the point that even Putin realizes that giving up is the better outcome.
Russians are motivated by the fact that several million holders of Russian citizenship are living in the area that Ukraine is set to reconquer.
Most of whose did not live under Ukrainian control for a decade now.
Most of whose did not live under Ukrainian control for a decade now.
They are free to move back to where they came from and if they lived there before they are equally free to stay.
Those who did not live under Ukrainian control have lived under occupation.
Those who did not live under Ukrainian control have lived under occupation.
Maybe that prospect is good enough for you. For all of it, you do not care about any consequences, as you did not care about the fate of ethnic Serbs in Kosovo.
Russians understand what's going on here and are motivated to not let that happen. At the moment they are successful.
Russians understand what's going on here and are motivated to not let that happen. At the moment they are successful.
> Russians understand what's going on here
That's just funny. Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling or serious but on the off chance that you are serious: you're so misinformed it is tragic, at the same time you are apparently able to fix that and refuse to do so. Which makes me wonder why. I have enough contacts in former USSR countries and inside Russia itself to know that this sentiment is prevalent, wilful misunderstanding as some kind of defense mechanism. But in the modern day with ample access to information you really have no excuse.
Serbia will have to come to terms with the degree to which Russia has been using them at some point. This probably won't happen until Russia itself has gone through an enlightenment and shaken of the current crop of mobsters. I'm not holding my breath for that one.
That's just funny. Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling or serious but on the off chance that you are serious: you're so misinformed it is tragic, at the same time you are apparently able to fix that and refuse to do so. Which makes me wonder why. I have enough contacts in former USSR countries and inside Russia itself to know that this sentiment is prevalent, wilful misunderstanding as some kind of defense mechanism. But in the modern day with ample access to information you really have no excuse.
Serbia will have to come to terms with the degree to which Russia has been using them at some point. This probably won't happen until Russia itself has gone through an enlightenment and shaken of the current crop of mobsters. I'm not holding my breath for that one.
Please don't take HN threads further into this kind of flamewar. It doesn't lead anywhere good.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thriftwy(4)
Yes, if there's anything we've learned from this war is how motivated Russians are /s
Russia doesn’t give a shit about those people.
Russian citizenship is not something that people cherish or want. Most of the Russian territory and population has been occupied at some point: Siberia long time ago, Caucasus in the past centuries, Crimea in 2014. Russians don't care about those people the same way the care about their own.
[deleted]
4 out of 5 Russian citizens are ethnic Russians, and those are prevalent in Siberia, in Russian Far East, in Crimea and (arguably) in the "new territories" also.
Russian citizenship is a prized asset in the post-USSR countries to the extent that people spend effort to move to Russian Federation and pay money to engage in shady schemes to obtain it.
Russian citizenship is a prized asset in the post-USSR countries to the extent that people spend effort to move to Russian Federation and pay money to engage in shady schemes to obtain it.
jacquesm(1)
If it's that easy, the Russians can do that too. They are not cave people. Although such drones might be much more useful for the Ukrainians.
If drones are widespread in Ukraine, they're overwhelmingly likely to be used against Russian aggressor targets.
If drones are widespread within Russia ... that logic might not hold so well.
A blade cuts two ways, and much of that is at the initiative of the wielder.
If drones are widespread within Russia ... that logic might not hold so well.
A blade cuts two ways, and much of that is at the initiative of the wielder.
Sure, but the Russians can move them into the war zone through their supply route almost as easy as the Ukrainians can, that isn't a huge advantage. What is an advantage is that the Russian supply lines are somewhat vulnerable and that Ukrainians don't have to work around any sanctions.
Let's be happy the Germans didn't have access to any of this tech in the middle of WWII, their V weapons were bad enough as it was.
Let's be happy the Germans didn't have access to any of this tech in the middle of WWII, their V weapons were bad enough as it was.
Ukraine's supply lines and staging areas are largely Nato nations and resources.
Direct attacks on them would trigger Article 5.
This is one case where asymmetric advantages favour Ukraine over Russia.
As to general availability: I'm presuming individuals or non-governmental entities would have access to the technology. Again, in Ukraine there seems to be far greater alignment against a common enemy, as illustrated by Russia's failure to avert open rebellion within its own allied forces, and apparent organic resistance and sabotage withing Russia and Belarus against Russian forces and logistics infrastructure.
Direct attacks on them would trigger Article 5.
This is one case where asymmetric advantages favour Ukraine over Russia.
As to general availability: I'm presuming individuals or non-governmental entities would have access to the technology. Again, in Ukraine there seems to be far greater alignment against a common enemy, as illustrated by Russia's failure to avert open rebellion within its own allied forces, and apparent organic resistance and sabotage withing Russia and Belarus against Russian forces and logistics infrastructure.
Absolutely, absent the - ridiculous - propaganda it is clear who is driving the war from the Russian side, the Ukrainians don't really have a choice: fight back or be wiped out. Everybody has seen what Grozny looked like and what has already been done to some Ukrainian cities.
Agreed.
The Russians are a little bureaucratic though.
The logical conclusion (maybe in quite a near future) will be something like the space opera engagements in Honorverse ([1]). TL;DR: space battles involve fighting typically beyond the ship's main directed-energy armaments' range. Instead, massive (hundreds, thousands and more) missile salvos are exchanged. Due to the quirks of how their propulsion works, missiles are easy to track and target with counter-missiles and point-defense lasers... but launch enough of them (laced generously with EW platforms and decoys) and the enemy task force's systems become overwhelmed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorverse
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorverse
Looking at it, I'm also curious if you could substitute corrugated plastic, like Coroplast. They have products that match the weight/size profiles of typical cardboard.
That would work but: more expensive, slightly harder to work. As long as it doesn't get wet cardboard would be the better option though, and depending on the availability it might be the only option.
Cardboard can be easily plastic coated. Foilwrapped
Probably a quick coat of spray paint on a finished model would already give it better water resistant properties without adding a lot of weight. It isn't going to help against immersion or catching a downpour but it will help to hold it together just a bit longer.
Small drones are generally individually piloted. You can find plenty of footage of them trying to take out individual vehicles or troops. Generally pretty successful.
But a volley of explosives they are not. If that’s all you want, it’s still much cheaper to use artillery. Which both sides are fond of
But a volley of explosives they are not. If that’s all you want, it’s still much cheaper to use artillery. Which both sides are fond of
Yeah but where are the Ukrainians going to get the electronic components? I’m sure some pieces of cardboard are not the limiting factor here.
From their western allies, unlike russia who is limited to shady deals with iran, india and china.
FWIW the level of transparency between those "shady deals" is probably identical to presumably "not shady deals" of NATO.
I mean the US Democrats voted down even the mere notion that maybe the most surface-level audit of US aid to Ukraine could be allowed[1].
[1]https://theintercept.com/2023/08/02/ukraine-aid-special-insp...
I mean the US Democrats voted down even the mere notion that maybe the most surface-level audit of US aid to Ukraine could be allowed[1].
[1]https://theintercept.com/2023/08/02/ukraine-aid-special-insp...
It's already audited at several levels so it was voted down because it was a case of the Republicans wanting to add another layer. For the record almost all Republicans favor helping Ukraine just like the Democrats. What we are witnessing is Politics with Ukraine caught in the middle. Zelensky is putting a vote in front of the government that classifies any corruption as treason against the Nation and a minimum of 15 years in Prison with all assets seized.
> It's already audited at several levels so it was voted down because it was a case of the Republicans wanting to add another layer.
Can you provide a source, because everything I've seen says otherwise.
Even Democrat-friendly media, has been essentially forced to reluctantly report that indeed, the US government has no idea where billions of dollars of weapons and aid are ending up[1]. And there is always a delay with these things, so we can only assume the amount is exponentially larger and will never be truly known.
Clearly, if the material and monetary aid is already being audited, it's not being done well or correctly, so an actual auditor was more than warranted.
---
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/14/us-ukraine-aid-cabl... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/27/...
Can you provide a source, because everything I've seen says otherwise.
Even Democrat-friendly media, has been essentially forced to reluctantly report that indeed, the US government has no idea where billions of dollars of weapons and aid are ending up[1]. And there is always a delay with these things, so we can only assume the amount is exponentially larger and will never be truly known.
Clearly, if the material and monetary aid is already being audited, it's not being done well or correctly, so an actual auditor was more than warranted.
---
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/14/us-ukraine-aid-cabl... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/27/...
https://www.dodig.mil/Ukraine/
The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) is committed to conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and investigations to promote efficiency and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in DoD support provided to Ukraine.
In addition, the DoD OIG coordinates closely with the OIGs of the Department of State (DoS) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and chairs a joint working group with representatives from multiple Federal oversight agencies to ensure a whole-of-government approach to Ukraine oversight.
The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) is committed to conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and investigations to promote efficiency and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in DoD support provided to Ukraine.
In addition, the DoD OIG coordinates closely with the OIGs of the Department of State (DoS) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and chairs a joint working group with representatives from multiple Federal oversight agencies to ensure a whole-of-government approach to Ukraine oversight.
> almost all Republicans favor helping Ukraine just like the Democrats
That's a bit overstatement, no? I mean we have Trump who is very visibly admirer of Putin and his practices and various other dictatorial murderers like MBL and strongly supports current apartheid in Israel, no change there since invasion. If he wins the next elections, which seems more and more probable, Ukraine is going to lose all western support overnight with corresponding results for war.
I don't get it at all, republicans should be as anti-russian as possible historically since current russia is much more Soviet russia rather than anything else, but they keep voting for him and he was very clear on the topic in the past. That says more about real opinions of republicans rather than anything else.
Or am I missing something as an US outsider?
That's a bit overstatement, no? I mean we have Trump who is very visibly admirer of Putin and his practices and various other dictatorial murderers like MBL and strongly supports current apartheid in Israel, no change there since invasion. If he wins the next elections, which seems more and more probable, Ukraine is going to lose all western support overnight with corresponding results for war.
I don't get it at all, republicans should be as anti-russian as possible historically since current russia is much more Soviet russia rather than anything else, but they keep voting for him and he was very clear on the topic in the past. That says more about real opinions of republicans rather than anything else.
Or am I missing something as an US outsider?
> If he wins the next elections, which seems more and more probable, Ukraine is going to lose all western support overnight with corresponding results for war.
I'd bet that it will not. Because America can not afford to be dragged into the much larger war that will follow if that were the case. Ukraine is - cynically - the cheap option.
I'd bet that it will not. Because America can not afford to be dragged into the much larger war that will follow if that were the case. Ukraine is - cynically - the cheap option.
If he wins the next elections... Ukraine is going to lose all western support overnight
I reckon Poland will still be pretty much in favour of helping Ukraine push Russia back. Probably a bunch of other European nations too.
I reckon Poland will still be pretty much in favour of helping Ukraine push Russia back. Probably a bunch of other European nations too.
What you're missing is that all aid packages have had more or less bipartisan support from mainstream members.
The issue with most of the news on the matter is that it's so deluded by partisan politics that even those reporting on their own poll results don't interpret them sanely.
For example, on the surface polls might say that Republicans generally oppose aid to Ukraine. However, if you plainly ask them if they support aiding Ukraine they might be in favor, but if you ask them if they support Biden's handling of the war in Ukraine, they'll be more likely to be opposed.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/americ...
The issue with most of the news on the matter is that it's so deluded by partisan politics that even those reporting on their own poll results don't interpret them sanely.
For example, on the surface polls might say that Republicans generally oppose aid to Ukraine. However, if you plainly ask them if they support aiding Ukraine they might be in favor, but if you ask them if they support Biden's handling of the war in Ukraine, they'll be more likely to be opposed.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/americ...
The MAGA wing of the party is anti-war in general, much like the liberals of the early 2000s. At some point these positions flipped. It's not that these Republicans are "anti-Ukraine," or "pro-Russia" or even "not anti-Russia." It's that they don't want to send hundreds of billions of unaudited dollars to weapons manufacturers and highly corrupt foreign governments, especially given the glaring contrast with the lack of spending on problems much closer to home. From a geopolitical perspective, the position is simple: war is bad, we are prolonging the war in Ukraine by funding it, therefore funding it is bad. And further, it's a misdirection of resources when the real foreign threat is China, not Russia, and that's before considering the many domestic problems going unaddressed while the gang of neocons and neolibs ("the uniparty") redirects our tax dollars into the coffers of the Ukrainian military and Raytheon stockholders.
> It's not that these Republicans are "anti-Ukraine," or "pro-Russia" or even "not anti-Russia." It's that they don't want to send hundreds of billions of unaudited dollars to weapons manufacturers and highly corrupt foreign governments, especially given the glaring contrast with the lack of spending on problems much closer to home.
The vast majority of aid to Ukraine is in weapons that are either going to be scrapped or only a handful are purchased, it’s a bit hard to feed children on surplus DCPIM munitions.
> the position is simple: war is bad, we are prolonging the war in Ukraine by funding it, therefore funding it is bad.
Not funding Ukraine won’t stop the war it will only allow Russia to move the war in the direction that it wants.
If you’re anti war then you should want Ukraine to have all the weapons they need to end the war, so they can win the war as soon as possible and put an end to it.
If your for ending Ukrainian aid you’re not for ending the war or anti war you are for feeding Ukrainians into the wood chipper and giving Russia exactly what it wants.
The vast majority of aid to Ukraine is in weapons that are either going to be scrapped or only a handful are purchased, it’s a bit hard to feed children on surplus DCPIM munitions.
> the position is simple: war is bad, we are prolonging the war in Ukraine by funding it, therefore funding it is bad.
Not funding Ukraine won’t stop the war it will only allow Russia to move the war in the direction that it wants.
If you’re anti war then you should want Ukraine to have all the weapons they need to end the war, so they can win the war as soon as possible and put an end to it.
If your for ending Ukrainian aid you’re not for ending the war or anti war you are for feeding Ukrainians into the wood chipper and giving Russia exactly what it wants.
? Those dollars stay in the US? It's researched and manufactured there. And you can't sell that stuff on the open market anyway. Ukraine even adds value by showing it works.
Isolationism won't solve your problems. America was isolationistst before ww1 and poor as hell. The good times came when the sovjet union forced large companies to bargain with unions.
Isolationism won't solve your problems. America was isolationistst before ww1 and poor as hell. The good times came when the sovjet union forced large companies to bargain with unions.
"Stay in the US" is not a great consolation when it really means "paid to a cartel of weapons manufacturers."
A lot of the stuff we would send them comes from the same places.
digikey, mouser, aliexpress, amazon, banggood, ebay?
> autonomous flight (GPS) through an interface that can be installed on an Android tablet. In case of jamming, the flight continues because the drone can locate itself according to its speed and direction.
In case anyone is wondering how that works, it uses on-board IMS (Inertial Navigation System) in the absence of GNSS signal, which usually has several sensors like accelerometers (to measure motion in 3D directions) gyro (to stabilize pitch roll yaw drift) and magnetometer (compass for yaw direction), these sensors will provide the drone pointing directions and how long it moved since it started, couple this with on board maps and you have a flight with no GNSS. Is it accurate like GNSS? Not cm or even meters level, but that depends on how good the IMS is. Also, you can have plenty of these cardboard models, or even 3D printable one of you are into this hobby!
In case anyone is wondering how that works, it uses on-board IMS (Inertial Navigation System) in the absence of GNSS signal, which usually has several sensors like accelerometers (to measure motion in 3D directions) gyro (to stabilize pitch roll yaw drift) and magnetometer (compass for yaw direction), these sensors will provide the drone pointing directions and how long it moved since it started, couple this with on board maps and you have a flight with no GNSS. Is it accurate like GNSS? Not cm or even meters level, but that depends on how good the IMS is. Also, you can have plenty of these cardboard models, or even 3D printable one of you are into this hobby!
Seems like another example of the importance of battery improvements. With enough thrust-to-weight I've heard you can get a Buick to fly. Thus, some of the marginal aerodynamic optimizations that necessitate more complicated builds maybe can be dispensed with.
Single-use also dramatically expands the envelope of workable chemistries.
One-way travel also at least doubles effective range, which increases the targetable area by a the square.
For battery-powered craft, where there's no appreciable reduction in propellent mass over the course of the flight, this is a direct scaling. For fuel-based craft (which I'm surprised are not more heavily used), the fuel mass falls as it's consumed, such that the effective net mass is somewhat less than 1/2 the total launch fuel load (less fuel mass -> less lift and drag load).
In the extreme case, ballistic missiles consume virtually their entire fuel load early in the flight ("boost phase"). Cruise missiles / drones might fly to a higher altitude and glide to their targets. Even battery-powered drones might jettison their primary battery (retaining a small navigation power source) and glide to targets by first climbing to a high altitude.
Another option is solar-powered (or assisted) drones, which for small payloads (most especially surveillance, though directed weapons / shaped charges would be another option) could achieve long ranges, high loiter times, or both.
For battery-powered craft, where there's no appreciable reduction in propellent mass over the course of the flight, this is a direct scaling. For fuel-based craft (which I'm surprised are not more heavily used), the fuel mass falls as it's consumed, such that the effective net mass is somewhat less than 1/2 the total launch fuel load (less fuel mass -> less lift and drag load).
In the extreme case, ballistic missiles consume virtually their entire fuel load early in the flight ("boost phase"). Cruise missiles / drones might fly to a higher altitude and glide to their targets. Even battery-powered drones might jettison their primary battery (retaining a small navigation power source) and glide to targets by first climbing to a high altitude.
Another option is solar-powered (or assisted) drones, which for small payloads (most especially surveillance, though directed weapons / shaped charges would be another option) could achieve long ranges, high loiter times, or both.
and if you can consider lipo batteries to be dispensable, you can over-discharge them, to extract a lot more capacity. It destroy the cells for resuablity, but you can get waay more Watt.hours from them.
> where there's no appreciable reduction in propellent mass over the course of the flight
Staging?
Staging?
More common seems to be use of a launch system of a catapult or slingshot, where early-phase acceleration is provided by ground-based infrasturcture. This can be extremely basic, e.g., surgical tubing and a support framework. The Zipline drone-based delivery system utilises this, as well as parachute-based drops (its payloads, unlike those of the Ukrainian drones, are presumed to be shock-sensitive), and a dragline-based capture mechanism (not required for one-way flight missions). Zipline's catapult accelerates the drone from 0 to 60 kph in 0.3s: <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c&t=3m50s).
Those drones, incidentally, have a 6 kg payload capacity and 160 km range (one-way).
But yes, staging or jettisonable batteries might be another option, at an increased complexity cost.
Those drones, incidentally, have a 6 kg payload capacity and 160 km range (one-way).
But yes, staging or jettisonable batteries might be another option, at an increased complexity cost.
As in: drop spent batteries? That would require another mechanism that can fail.
Indeed, zinc air batteries (used in hearing aids) are more energy dense than lithium ion, and are cheap. Lithium air would be much better again (close to gasoline) but a harder material to work with, and more expensive.
Metal-air batteries have the somewhat unusual property of gaining mass as they discharge (they fix oxygen from the air). How significant that mass gain is I'm uncertain of, but it confounds the diminished-mass-with-flight logic of fuel-based powerplants.
In one-way drones for once the less nice properties of Lithium Ion batteries would be an advantage.
[deleted]
minor nitpick but why would you paint a drone in jungle camo? seems like it would be easier to spot that way given that its very easy to see in the sky
Also in Ukraine I've seen recently a bigger plane like drone carrying 4 DJI copter drones that it can drop. So a drone-carrier.
Do you have any source pls?
Who controls the DJI copter drones? Does the plane act as a relay for the radio signals?
Who controls the DJI copter drones? Does the plane act as a relay for the radio signals?
But the front will fall off if you use cardboard or cardboard derivatives?
Yeah, not sure this one is even going to uphold the minimum crew requirements.
For non-Australian readers: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?feature=shared
For non-Australian readers: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?feature=shared
Here’s a video of a cardboard one from 10 years ago https://youtu.be/0stHV0s7XaU
Ukraine has been going through about 10,000 drones a month. This should up the rate of production.
No rear areas. No safe fire bases. No Green Zone. Another major change to war.
No rear areas. No safe fire bases. No Green Zone. Another major change to war.
Another weapon that will be used by both sides. Who can stop Russians to produce the same drones?
The lack of engines for one. So far they've been unable to match the Ukrainian drone production, the trend I assume will continue.
Well, this seems like a natural evolution from the cardboard tanks we used in North Africa in WW1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank
Ikea assemble your own drone when
"You will live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension." - Tesla
The prospect of low cost swarms of AI enabled drones terrifies me. If you've watched any drone combat footage from Ukraine you know it's just around the corner, and this is another step in that direction.
The prospect of low cost swarms of AI enabled drones terrifies me. If you've watched any drone combat footage from Ukraine you know it's just around the corner, and this is another step in that direction.
Does it terrify you more than long rage artillery and cluster bombs? All I see is a more efficient anti-personnel weapon that should be better at discerning between combatants and non-combatants. If it becomes a ‘better’ weapon than say cluster bombs, that’s a great outcome.
I’m somewhat gloomy about all of this. It’s just that war is war, it means killing people. Once it’s on, it’s on. So you need to be able to kill the enemy as efficiently as possible while minimizing non-combatant casualties before and after the conflict.
I’m somewhat gloomy about all of this. It’s just that war is war, it means killing people. Once it’s on, it’s on. So you need to be able to kill the enemy as efficiently as possible while minimizing non-combatant casualties before and after the conflict.
That's just emotional reaction to something very in-your-face, in same vein some folks are terrified of flying planes, despite it being consistently safest method of travel but can hop on a car and drive day and night without much of a worry.
Long range artillery is the killer in Ukraine in terms of numbers, combatants consistently say so on both sides. But it doesn't have that wow effect of drone drop videos.
It has been the same say in WWI, anybody who read for example All Quiet on the Western Front would see it there. Not typical US wars against some poor fuckers with rusty AKs, but this one is very different and much more symmetrical. Something tells me that any symmetrical non-nuclear conflict these days wouldn't look that different to Ukraine.
Long range artillery is the killer in Ukraine in terms of numbers, combatants consistently say so on both sides. But it doesn't have that wow effect of drone drop videos.
It has been the same say in WWI, anybody who read for example All Quiet on the Western Front would see it there. Not typical US wars against some poor fuckers with rusty AKs, but this one is very different and much more symmetrical. Something tells me that any symmetrical non-nuclear conflict these days wouldn't look that different to Ukraine.
Using a cluster bomb against a political rival has a lot more friction than using an autonomous drone.
If you don't become collateral damage then why would you care for that political rival? There are many ways to kill a single person and most of them won't target you.
You make some great points and I agree. Low cost autonomous drones swarms aren't scary because they're more lethal than 155mm shells, they're scary because there's no effective defense (yet).
This capability is mostly open source already isn’t it? Granted the AI isn’t fancy but it’d be reasonably trivial to adapt some foamboard or cardboard designs to carry a small payload and turn them into GPS guided bombs. Probably doesn’t happen often more due to it being substantially easier to do what people inclined towards this action want another way.
If we have made an area that can't be traversed by humans on either side, doesn't this benefit the defenders the most?
Yes, a software stack to turn these drones into autonomous area denial or autonomous trench clearing tools could be readily cobbled together using mostly open source components. It would be such a tide changer that it's only a matter of time, and god help the poor souls on the front lines.
Exactly this is our future: https://youtu.be/TlO2gcs1YvM?si=bp-PL5tIEku_HXfO
I find this movie fascinating -- I wonder how far we are from building the hypothetical autonomous drone swarms in the movie.
You can find cheap disposable drones for £15 on Chinese sites. Weaponizing them should be pretty easy.
The only problem is that the novelty of the approach would be such, that it would bring too much visibility to the attack. Most bad actors don't want to be detected: "he fell from the window" or "his plane crashed" leaves the door open to coincidental causes. Drones are noticeable, particularly in swarms. They would be useful only in "showy" attacks, i.e. open terrorism, a tactic that is largely out of favor after 20+ years of substantial failure.
The only problem is that the novelty of the approach would be such, that it would bring too much visibility to the attack. Most bad actors don't want to be detected: "he fell from the window" or "his plane crashed" leaves the door open to coincidental causes. Drones are noticeable, particularly in swarms. They would be useful only in "showy" attacks, i.e. open terrorism, a tactic that is largely out of favor after 20+ years of substantial failure.
Honestly, it's about as far away as you or I want it to be.
There's nothing stopping a group of motivated people from building a drone assembling factory that fits in a cargo container.
There may come a time where we have to stop outdoor festivals and parades because of people like that Las Vegas shooter from a couple years ago.
The real concern is when people can build a factory that can build the factory...
There's nothing stopping a group of motivated people from building a drone assembling factory that fits in a cargo container.
There may come a time where we have to stop outdoor festivals and parades because of people like that Las Vegas shooter from a couple years ago.
The real concern is when people can build a factory that can build the factory...
It's not any AI that I'm scared of. It's the assembly line that produces thousands per month, and all it takes to deploy and launch them all at once, is one nondescript semi truck with a 40ft container. The saturation attacks will be real. And just as scary as AI sci-fi, even if the individual vehicles are simply waypoint controlled.
[deleted]
71a54xd(4)