https://warontherocks.com/2025/06/i-...-kind-of-suck/I Fought in Ukraine and Here’s Why FPV Drones Kind of Suck
In 2024 and 2025, I served for six months as an international volunteer on a first-person view attack drone team in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. My team was deployed in the Donbas region, in one of the hottest sectors of the front. When I joined the team, I was excited to work with a cutting-edge tool. By the end of my deployment, I was a bit disillusioned. Let me tell you why.
First-person view drones are unmanned aerial vehicles with four propellers located at the four corners of the craft, roughly in the shape of a square of seven to 12 inches in length on each side. They are controlled by an operator wearing virtual-reality goggles that receive the image from the drone’s forward-facing camera (hence the name first-person view). The most common types of first-person view drones are single-use: They fly directly into their target, where they detonate an explosive charge of up to 1.5 kilograms. These drones are touted as a cheap and accessible solution that can give troops on the tactical level their own organic precision-strike capability. They can supposedly react quickly and strike moving targets or targets in difficult-to-reach locations, such as bunkers, basements, or inside buildings. Proponents of first-person view drones often repeat the claim that as much as 60 to 70 percent of all battlefield casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War are now caused by drones. This statistic is probably broadly accurate, though it does not differentiate between casualties caused by first-person view drones and other types of uncrewed aerial systems.
Some authors, including experienced military officers writing in these pages, go even further and claim that first-person view drones will precipitate a revolution in how wars are fought, akin to the introduction of muskets. Among other things, they will make concealment and the massing of troops and equipment in the combat zone nearly impossible. Any concentration of troops or vehicles will supposedly be observed immediately and butchered by swarms of cheap, fast drones. Proponents of drones, especially in Silicon Valley, have claimed that drones might completely replace artillery.
...
For sophisticated NATO militaries, instead of investing heavily in the development of first-person view drone capabilities, I would, first of all, recommend ensuring that troops in the field have well-trained organic mortar support with an ample supply of ammunition. Mortars, like artillery, can’t be stopped by bad weather, jamming, or crowded frequencies. Nor can they be impeded by the dark. A well-trained mortar crew can reliably put rounds on a target in less than five minutes. Our first-person view sorties took about 15 minutes from the initial request to the moment the drone struck the target, and that was only when conditions were optimal. A mortar’s price per shot is lower than a first-person view drone. Drones can nominally have an advantage over mortars in range, but this is variable and depends on the terrain, the specific location of the mortars relative to the drone launch site, and the deployment of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets that find the targets for drones or mortars. In practice, I don’t remember a single case when we struck a target that was beyond the range of mortars, and we certainly never struck a target that was beyond the range of artillery.
Secondly, for the rare cases when troops actually need tactical-level, organic precision-strike capability, and when actually carrying out such a strike is feasible, I would recommend something a little bit more high-end than a first-person view drone. NATO countries and their allies already produce high-quality loitering munitions, like the Switchblade. Such loitering munitions provide greater precision in day and night, more ease of use, and higher resistance to electronic interference than first-person view drones. They are also more expensive, but their cost is, like first-person view drones, coming down. The investment in quality seems to justify the greater expense, especially since, at most, one in ten first-person view sorties is a precision strike.
There is no way in Russia is only spending 6% of GDP on defense. If I had to guess I would guess like 25%.
where are the sanctions Trump promised two weeks ago?
We probably burned through a lot of munitions defending Israel. It's probably a mostly legit concern.
Trumplandia stabbing Ukraine publicly now
ttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/hegseth-halted-weapons-ukraine-military-analysis-aid-wouldnt-jeopardiz-rcna216790The Defense Department held up a shipment of U.S. weapons for Ukraine this week over what officials said were concerns about its low stockpiles. But an analysis by senior military officers found that the aid package would not jeopardize the American military’s own ammunition supplies, according to three U.S. officials.
The move to halt the weapons shipment blindsided the State Department, members of Congress, officials in Kyiv and European allies, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.
https://kyivinsider.com/panic-among-...ycoons-empire/Panic among Moscow’s Elite As Putin Moves to Seize Tycoon’s Empire
...
The case reflects a broader pattern emerging from inside Putin’s wartime Russia: a systematic effort to reclaim private wealth, especially from sectors like gold, oil, and defense—industries that can be redirected to support the war economy. Strukov is not accused of disloyalty. On the contrary, he has long been viewed as a Kremlin ally and served in political roles tied to the ruling party. That loyalty no longer offers protection.
Where earlier purges targeted those who spoke out against the war or fled the country, today’s seizures appear driven by something else: necessity. Sanctions have cut off foreign investment. Oil revenues are shrinking. Budget deficits are growing. Putin’s response is to tap into the fortunes of Russia’s oligarchs—those he once empowered—as a new source of funding.
This is not an isolated incident. In recent months, several high-profile business figures have been hit with sudden legal trouble, “unexpected” deaths, or state-backed asset takeovers. For years, the Putin-era social contract guaranteed immense wealth in exchange for loyalty. That arrangement is collapsing under the weight of war.
A court hearing scheduled for July 8 will determine the fate of Strukov’s empire. But the message to Russia’s business elite has already been delivered: no one is too rich, too loyal, or too connected to be safe. As the Kremlin scrambles to sustain a war it cannot afford, billionaires may find themselves transformed overnight—from oligarchs into targets.
Ukraine!
Smh the s that think he's ever playing 4d chess.
We know he sucks at poker.
I'm thinking he would struggle with candyland.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/07/...sias-flagship/Ukraine catches Chinese spies trying to steal secrets of missile that sank Russia’s flagship
Two Chinese nationals sit in Ukrainian custody tonight, accused of attempting to steal classified do entation on Ukraine’s Neptune anti-ship missile system. The weapon that sank Russia’s flagship Moskva.
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) says it caught the pair red-handed in Kyiv. A 24-year-old former university student and his father, who resides in China but made periodic visits to Ukraine.
...
"USA should focus on China"
TACO Trump to use presidential powers to send arms to Ukraine -- including some long-range stuff
Elbridge Colby won't be happy about that and neither will MAGA
Looks like a long war is still on the menu. Major statement from Trump coming today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
