JonS

This feels like one of those "pick two" triangles. Range, size, payload. Pick the two you want to optimise carefully, because the other one is going to suck.

Could be useful for the last 10-20 metres, to cope with rapid final jinxing?

@The_Capt take it up with chrisl. I already halved the size of his 22kg drone and you're quibbling with *me*? Also, those cute little whirrwhirrs you keep referring to are *extremely* handy at the tactical edge as mobile mines and for battlefield assassination, but I believe (because physics) they lack the payload, range, and endurance to be much use as part of a fire plan supporting go-forward combined arms maneauvre.

Yeah, weird, right? Now, why would I do that? Oh, right, because Steve seems to think that micro drones are a useful proxy for large drones that can carry a reasonable HE payload. Small things pack small. Micro drones and small arms ammo are examples of this. Heavy things pack heavy. Artillery ammunition is the canonical example of this. Bulky things pack bulky. Load carrying drones are an example of this. Load carrying drones are a lot lighter than artillery ammunition, but they are also bulkier. Ignoring that doesnt make the arguments in favour of drones more compelling.

Ok, well, using that logic I will now simply demonstrate how you can pack a lot of artillery ammunition into a single truck https://images.app.goo.gl/hPN4JLEuvudZ8aTo7 Checkmate, as I believe the kids say.

Defensively; yes it is. Absolutely. Offensively; it seems to be a dead end street

Those arent 10kg drones with 2kg payloads, though, are they?

I take it that the truck in this example is basically the tardis? Ie, despite external appearances it has the internal volume to hold 200 drones plus the crews and equipment required to assemble, target, and launch them, as well as being invulnerable to all types of attack.

PM me your email - I'll send your beaver tail some more recent images to dream about. (Edit: fun fact - TRHPS was written by a kiwi dairy farmer. I'm not sure what that says about the farming community, or the wider country, but I'm going to assume "something disturbing." Very fun movie though )

You do realise we're arguing the same side here? A lot of traditional systems seem broken (or wounded, or at least a bit lame due to a gammy knee) right now; navy, fast air, attack aviation, infantry, armour, engineers, logistics, and yes artillery. That's due to a bunch of things; prolific atgms, prolific pgms, lagging mil industrial capability and production, prolific isr, and yes drones. The way through this dark wood isn't going to be ditching everything and betting the farm on the whirrwhirr. We *know* that artillery is an important part of the combined arms team. We *know* that artillery is crucial to enabling go-forward offensive maneauvre. It isnt working right now, but as always it'll evolve and indirect fires will resume their place in the go-forward team.

WWI? WWII? Korea? Falklands? GWI?

Quite a bit. I havent yet seen a lot of evidence of drones being used offensively as part of go-forward combined arms maneauvre. Instead we see they're being used as mobile mines or battlefield assassination tools. Which is genuinely really problematic, but also kind of a dead end street. Edit: I'm excluding ISR above. That's already generally integrated and supplementing other systems

Drones are part of a system - the whirrwhirr flying thing is just the end point of that system. The system can be attacked anywhere along its chain, and different points in the chain will need different combinations of things to effect an attack. At the moment everyone seems exclusively focussed on knocking down the whirrwhirr. Thats part of it, but so is camouflage, dispersion, armouring up, supply chains, intelligence in its myriad forms, attacking the operators, disrupting comms, deception, etc.

Time. I can be suppressing that tree line 4 minutes from now and start supported arms moving 4 minutes after that, or keep it up for the rest of the day. Achieving either with drones is, ok, lol. This is the same argument as "you don't need to knock out a tank, you just need to knock out the truck that brings it fuel." And it's true; you don't, although it only solves the problem tomorrow rather than right-now-because-omg-the-tank-is-breathing-down-my-neck. But still. It's true. And you know what else the argument works on?

and what can be relied on to deliver that cubic mile of popcorn? Oh. Right. Artillery ... because drones will definitely not be getting that job done.

Artillery can can fire from dispersed positions. C2 is a lot easier (a LOT easier) when all the guns are within shouting distance of each other, but there is no technical reason they can't be dispersed from each other by 100s or 1000s of metres. Uh, the development of artillery during WWI totally DID ruin the trenches as systems. The offence/defence arms race during WWI was run at a sprint (at least in terms of ability to break-in. Break-through and break-out remained elusive)

Not exactly - the steel alloy used (high carbon and brittle) is chosen so as to create fragments which themselves contribute to the effectiveness of the weapon. Artillery worked quite well before drones were a thing Look, drones are great. The have capabilities that emulate or exceed other similar kinds of effects delivery systems. But drones also have limitations, and capabilites that are inferior to other similar kinds of effects delivery systems. And they most definitely aren't some magical uber weapon which has suddenly made all other military capabilities obsolete.

The gun is just the delivery system. The ammo is the weapon, and the weapon lends itself to mass production is a significant way. Artillery ammunition is practically the poster child for mass production. Artillery ammo is pretty logistically heavy, but then mass scale UAVs are going to be INCREDIBLY logistically bulky. The supply chain isn't particularly delicate or particularly long - at least no more so than any other military log chain. Ah ... artillery does chose its own targets and is given a free hand to smash ****. It's a combat support function, true, which means that it works in support of the maneauvre arms (at least ... most of the time. Sometimes it's totally off doing its own thing), but that support is - doctrinally - provided in terms of desired effects. Supported arms commander will say "I want to move from here to there, what can you do for me shelldrake?" The attached FO will say "Ok, I'm going to drop a concentration of HE on that feature where I suspect there is an enemy OP just as you start to move, then drip more rounds over the next 10 minutes - is that enough time to cross the gap?" OR the FO will say "Ok I'm going to drop a smoke screen between you and that village where I suspect there are enemy forces - it'll take 2 minutes for the screen to build up, and I can sustain it for 15 minutes - is that enough time for your move?" OR the FO will say "Ok, I'm going to pop some illum rounds just in front of that treeline where I suspect there are enemy ATGM teams, that'll blind their Gen1 night vision gear so you can move freely. I have enough illum for 14 minutes - is that enough time for your move?" Three different ways of solving the same problem, FOs choice. And, by the same token, drones aren't just the wild west off on their own gig and ignoring the larger battle. At least, they better bloody not be. They should be targeting enemy assets and applying effects in support of the wider battle. At least, they bloody well should be, otherwise they're just wasting everybodies time. Two things here. 1) about the same as a drone if you're using PGMs. 2) You're introducing additional factors ($ now, what next?) to ensure that your pre-determined conclusion remains valid.

Artillery fits all four, and handles the 50% haircut.

Well, flip that around - at what point would you prefer a global nuclear conflagration than the alternative? My partner grew up in part of Soviet Russia which now is not part of Russia. Being part of Russia sucked, absolutely (her father, for a small example, came within a whisker of being 'volunteered' for heroic cleanup duty at Chernobyl), but that's in the rear view mirror now. It wouldn't be though if WWIII had broken out.

Cheap-thing-takes-out-expensive-thing is not exactly a fresh hot take. Kipling was writing about that well over a hundred years ago. https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_arith.htm

That reminds me of the carrier landing scene from 'Hot Shots!'

Jeepers, Thanksgiving at your place must be thoroughly unpleasant then.

Asymmetric economic warfare? Cheap missiles shot down by expensive interceptors = win. Any actual damage on the ground is a bonus?

Oh gawd. 20+ years later, and we're back to MIHOP and LIHOP.