[dragontamer]

> also, drones can do stupid things like fly underneath tanks

I'm not sure how this is superior to just shooting a tank with a missile.

> Or even place a charge, back off, detonate it, then place a second charge on the same spot and detonate that

Now you've halved the payload. If your drone can carry 10kg, you now have 2x 5kg bombs instead of 1x 10kg bomb. If you have a single payload, you have just a shitty, slow moving cruise missile.

> And of course a swarm can see multiple drones attack exactly the same spot on a tank's armour.

We have *guns* that attack the same spot on a Tank's armor. Let alone missiles or drones. Al Qaeda was chaining RPGs in the last war together (__literally__ a chain) that accomplishes that goal.

--------------

The __ONLY__ advantage I can see drones having is sustaining a position for hours at a time. Missiles always fly at top speed, so you can't just "wait around" an area with a missile.

A drone with a gun can sit in a location for 4 hours waiting for the tank to come, then fire the RPG when the tank comes into position. That is, the drone plays a role similar to a modern infantry, except the drone is cheaper to make.

But as soon as you're talking "hit the same spot twice", then we're back to guns / RPGs with a chain on it. Maybe a drone can fire that gun, but... don't have the drone do the job directly.

---------

EDIT: The theory of "Combined Arms" means that in practice, you'll never face a lone tank. In practice, infantry move to protect tanks, and tanks move to protect infantry.

If you are a soldier who is facing an enemy army: you only have enough strength to carry one weapon. So what do you pick? An anti-tank RPG? Or an anti-infantry machine gun?

Drones seem to fit the same conundrum on both sides. I'd expect drones to be weak against small arms (a machine gun would quickly disable a drone, even if it moves at 100 mph). While RPGs are useless vs drones. Similarly, a drone has a very small payload, so it only can have a certain number of weapons.

[marcus_holmes]

> I'm not sure how this is superior to just shooting a tank with a missile.

armour underneath a tank is usually much lighter, because it's difficult to hit. Missiles have to do fancy armour-penetration stuff to get through the main armour on a tank. If you can get a shaped charge stuck to the underside of a tank, you don't need to do the fancy stuff.

> If you have a single payload, you have just a shitty, slow moving cruise missile.

yes. exactly. Except that for the cost of a single conventional cruise missile, you now have 10,000 shitty slow-moving, intelligent, able-to-do-evasive-maneuvres missiles.

> Al Qaeda was chaining RPGs in the last war together

so it works then? Imagine 10,000 RPG grenades flying by themselves, able to chain-hit a target, with no human operator in sight.

> A drone with a gun can sit in a location for 4 hours waiting for the tank to come, then fire the RPG when the tank comes into position.

The drone is the grenade. It doesn't fire the grenade. It flies to the target, attaches itself, goes bang. Next one flies to the same point, attaches, goes bang. There's thousands of them.

[dragontamer]

> armour underneath a tank is usually much lighter, because it's difficult to hit. Missiles have to do fancy armour-penetration stuff to get through the main armour on a tank. If you can get a shaped charge stuck to the underside of a tank, you don't need to do the fancy stuff.

I'm not even sure if the air-pressures under a tank would allow a drone to fly under there. Let alone the myriad of anti-air defenses a modern tank has.

The M1A1 Abrams tank has not only the main cannon, but also a .50 Caliber M2 Browning and two M240 machine guns. In addition, there's a general expectation that a tank would be surrounded by supporting troops and equipment (and vice versa: the tank supports the troops, as per the theory of Combined Arms)

So a tank, facing a swarm of drones, probably can just fire its two machine guns and take them out. Its not like drones have any armor of any kind. Similarly, anti-personnel rifles from the supporting infantry would probably be effective against those drones.

Once we start considering weapons like air-burst grenades, I'm finding it less-and-less likely that a "10,000 Swarm" makes any sense what-so-ever. The __reason__ we mix tanks-with-infantry is because a singular weapon (ex: air-burst grenade) works only on infantry (tank armor is too thick), while a Tandem-shaped charge RPG only really works on tanks (Personnel are relatively cheap and move in groups. If you kill one, the rest of their buddies gang up and kill you).

------------

Any scenario where you're just lobbing uniformly made drones into the same area just opens them up to air-burst or machine gun fire.

-----------

EDIT: I had a lot of unnecessary words. Lets just point this out... I'm not sure if you understand how good machine guns are today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

We have machine guns that can autonomously aim and shoot-down a group of missiles that travel at 1500 mph (Mach 2). And you think a swarm of 10,000 drones flying at lol 100 mph has a chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB8d3OaFEco

Depending on the armament: you could have up to 9000 "pellets" per shot that airburst at the expected distance to maximize the chance of hitting the target.

If a missile flying at 1500mph has no chance, why do you think a drone at 100 chance or 200 mph has a chance?

Israel's "Iron Dome" machine guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaqBWXM8Ko

These platforms are "portable", for a definition of portable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAw82h-IhdQ

[marcus_holmes]

I think there's a big difference between a large, hot, predictable missile and a tiny, cold, evasive drone.

Area-effect weapons would have more impact, sure. But that's a lot of area to cover. A bit like flak vs airplanes - you've got to shoot a lot of metal into the air hoping for a bit of shrapnel to hit something vital.

It's the "big and expensive" vs "tiny and very cheap" decision - you don't mind losing 90% of your swarm to take out one tank, because the entire swarm costs less than the tank (added bonus: there's no humans in the swarm).

[dragontamer]

> I think there's a big difference between a large, hot, predictable missile and a tiny, cold, evasive drone.

Apparently this hypothetical drone you're talking about has the evasion of a missile, and the stealth capabilities of the latest $Billion stealth aircraft, while 10,000 of them put together costs less than a single M1 Abrams tank.

It can also fly at speeds to evade our aimbot CIWS or aimbot CRAM defensive guns and carries enough of an explosive payload to damage an M1 Abrams.

Color me skeptical. I find it unlikely that you can make such a device for $1000ish.

[Arrath]

It feels disingenuous to say that the OP was implying a drone would have the same LO/stealth capabilities as a B-1 of F-22.

By their nature, a drone could be harder to detect than another threat. A small drone will have a small radar return, and battery powered electric motors will generate less of a thermal signature than a rocket motor.

I'm not at all saying that a CIWS or CRAM would be totally ineffective against a drone or a swarm of drones, but that they may not be the impenetrable shield, either. There are limitations to sensors, target classification, rules of engagement (will the CRAM automatically light up a drone with 50 rounds if the backstop is an office building or residential block?), and ammunition capacity.

Let's take CRAM, AFAIK they are mostly installed to protect against indirect fires, so that may imply that they're tuned/configured against certain incoming projectile trajectory, speed profiles, and radar returns. Bird like radar signatures may be filtered out, or level flight trajectories that do not indicate an impact within the protected area. Nothing that can't be changed, of course, but such change might come after a few bloody engagements.

In a true future war scenario it wouldn't be one hobbyist drone with a jury rigged mortar round against a CRAM installation either, I would expect there to be drones flying around blasting out wide-band EM hash, dropping lines of chaff, and using other measures to clutter the battlespace and confuse and overload defending sensors to allow offensive devices to get through and damage or destroy their targets.

[dragontamer]

> In a true future war scenario it wouldn't be one hobbyist drone with a jury rigged mortar round against a CRAM installation either, I would expect there to be drones flying around blasting out wide-band EM hash, dropping lines of chaff, and using other measures to clutter the battlespace and confuse and overload defending sensors to allow offensive devices to get through and damage or destroy their targets.

Or maybe, the current state of the art of missiles, is superior to that strategy?

Consider 1 hypersonic missile, 1 supersonic missile, and maybe 10 subsonic missiles, all cruise missiles flying no higher than 100m off the ground.

Since they're so low, they can only be physically detected at a range of 10km (they're literally "behind the horizon" and cannot be detected beforehand).

With proper timing: all 12 targets pop up on the horizon simultaneously. The 10 subsonic missiles will hit the ship in 30-seconds, the supersonic missile will hit the ship in 15-seconds, and the hypersonic missile will hit the ship in 5-seconds.

They are all flying at a randomized flight pattern at ~2G lateral movements. Its not like missiles fly straight at their targets these days, they fly monte-carlo randomly to throw off defense systems.

------------

Now consider the drone swarm flying at 100mph that crossed over the horizon with the 12 cruise missiles. The Drone Swarm will arrive in 2+ minutes. Do your defense systems even care?

Do the drones have any significant amount of lateral G's that they can pull? Can they fly at 2G random flight patterns to throw off air defenses?

[dragontamer]

I think my main issue with this entire exercise is that "death drones" and "stealth drones" are already built in some unknown numbers, and that their roles in the military are seemingly well understood.

Unmanned Predator drones shoot Hellfire missiles at targets.

Stealth RQ-170 Drones stalk the enemy and obtain intelligence without tipping off the enemy.

Maybe other drones exist (maybe so stealthy that their existence is still unknown to the public), but we already know of these two strategies from public reports in Afghanistan / Iraq.

--------

We also have models for what we expect the next 10 years or 20 years of (potential) war to look like. A likely scenario is that China / Taiwan relations sour dramatically, and China decides to attack Taiwan for some reason, and the US rushes to Taiwan's aid.

Under such a scenario, the USA would be armed with whatever our Carrier Strike Groups can carry (CIWS, Cruise Missiles, a myriad of supporting destroyers and submarines, multiple air-wings, etc. etc.). While China would be armed with its huge Air Force, its increasingly huge Navy (of mostly small ships, but a few smaller carriers are on the way), and most worryingly: China's high production output can build huge numbers of cruise missiles.

----------

There's probably a few other locations in the world where USA vs Russia could get into a ground conflict. But... lets take the China vs Taiwan scenario for a sec and think.

Where does drone warfare fit? Stealth Drones for detecting enemy movements would be key: both for US and China. Carriers are fast and expensive: China absolutely would want to neutralize them. But how does China find a group of sea-vessels traveling at 40-knots in the first place?

And that's assuming that those drones aren't shot out of the air by anti-air defenses.

---------

Maybe the detection problem is solved, and now China is ready to fire upon a US Strike Group (not necessarily at the carrier, but maybe at its anti-air destroyers / cruisers in preparation for future strikes).

It seems like the obvious weapon of choice would be China's hypersonic cruise missiles: traveling at Mach 5 and with coordinated swarming AI, its the obvious way to avoid CIWS / CRAM / Patriot missile defenses.

Once the anti-air defenses are down, China can continue its attack with cheaper subsonic missiles to defeat the rest of the fleet. No drones required, aside from maybe the initial recon missions.

-------------

As far as people can tell: it seems like it will be a game of cat-and-mouse. If the US Carrier Strike group can avoid detection, the US would win the combat.

But if the US Carrier Strike group is detected: then its all over. China has more than enough cruise missiles to win.

--------

I'm not seeing how, or where, a swarm of cheap electric-motor autonomous quadcopters comes into this playbook. That's bad for stealth / recon, because the enemy knows you're watching them. (AKA: The Aircraft Carrier will just launch an F-22 and shoot down the swarm, blinding the would-be intelligence). To be successful at its recon mission, the drones have to secretly watch and pinpoint the carrier strike group, or survive a dedicated attack from the Aircraft Carrier's myriad of squadrons at its disposal.

If we're already past the detection phase for some reason, then there's no need to use drones. I think the expectation is that China's Mach 5+ hypersonic cruise missiles will instant-win the combat. Those move too fast to be shot down reliably. (Patriot missiles only fly at Mach 4)