America doesn't lack direct combat experience with drone warfare, on either the side using drones or the side being targeted by drones.
In general I’m not 100% convinced by “they use drones so they’re better with them” but it’s plausible. We’re also involved with the Ukrainian side, to say the least, so I imagine we’re getting some detailed intel on their effectiveness and shortcomings.
I think people have already forgotten that many of the early small-format drone capabilities used in Ukraine were provided by the US. An issue is that many of these types of drone systems developed by the US are export controlled, particularly the sensors and electronics, which limits the types available to Ukraine. Much of the equipment given to Ukraine by the US is obsolete or downgraded prior to delivery.
Ukraine and Russia are speed-running drone warfare that the US has been trying to perfect for decades. The US military has solutions to particular drone warfare problems that Ukraine/Russia have not yet solved.
- Ukraine's drones capabilities were built internally using consumer grade hardware
- US tried to supply some cutting edge military grade drones(switchblade 300/600), but there is no much reports about them, and program has been canceled since then, I speculate those drones were having significant issues
My suspicion is that US small combat drones programs are weak and ineffective.
“Tried”?
> but there is no much reports about them,
There are lots of reports about them.
> and program has been canceled since then
US acquisition of the anti-personnel Switchblade 300 was cancelled recently, the anti-armor 600 was stepped up, both for deliveries to Ukraine and for deployment with US forces on a wide scale.
And, yes, the cancellation seems largely due to experience in Ukraine and the superiority of cheaper, adapted-from-consumer-models drones for anti-personnel use, but its important to note that's not an absence of combat experience—the 300 was rush developed and deployed to combat in Afghanistan in the early 2010s, and used extrnsively there. This is just the learning that happens with different approaches guided by different constraints finding different solutions.
I am kinda following this topic, and have seen maybe 2.
> the anti-armor 600 was stepped up
my reading of the news is that army ordered 100 units for testing
but the point is that despite claims of decades of intensive research, etc, US's only visible program is some small third party company with questionable quality, no other projects are visible, while other players (Israel with spike nlos, Russia with lancet, Iran with shahed) have several gens of battle proven tech already.
> The fighting in Ukraine has provided "reinforcement and validation" of what US troops have learned about drones in the Middle East, Gainey said at the conference, echoing Army leaders who say the drone war in Ukraine is influencing their planning — particularly for how to counter the one-way attack drones that Russia has used widely.
> "In some cases, yes, what we're sending to Ukraine are also going to fit into our future plans," Douglas Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology, said at a press conference in early August.
Further:
> "There's no one silver bullet. There's no one system that we can call out and say, 'This is a system that's going to defeat every threat,'" Parent told Insider.
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ukraine-fighting-dron...
The truth is that there is no “drone warfare” only a new class of military tools that resemble drones and are built on drone-esque platforms. They come on the sea, they come by land and they come by air, and they can be millions of dollars or 3500-5000 bucks (which is utterly nothing for US military spending) and built of cardboard like this one:
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/09/13/cardboard-drone-v...
They are using Ukraine as a providing ground for anti-drone technology for sure as there have been many reports of directed energy weapons in Ukraine and Israel as of late.
There are also sea-based systems:
https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-drone-sea-china-attack-laser...
So definitely we are in the drone warfare period and those lessons are getting learned. Have been since 2013 to 2016 when we had initial reports of drones on the battlefield and reactions in military planning discussions.
With regards to the idea, that experience is the sole predictor of Battlefield success, I would urge the original poster of that comment to read a few history books.
But empirically speaking, the idea that Russian equipment will be better than OTAN equipment because of their combat experience is pretty bold considering the current domination of OTAN equipment in the Ukraine-Russia war.
Exactly which OTAN/NATO equipment is "dominating" in that conflict?
Patriot. NASAMs. SAMP-T and IRIS. All proving themselves at least as good as any Russian SAM system.
ATACMS, GMLRS, HARM, Javelin, TOW, Gepard, PZH-2000, M-777, Paladin, SCALP/STORM, Bradley... The list goes on. Of course the Ukrainians are not being provided with enough equipment and munitions to actually win, but the equipment itself is dominating when used in even a close approximation to sound strategy.
Having stats in a spreadsheet is a lot different than what the tool is actually in the field.
i.e. equipment manufacturered to code, inspected, and maintenance schedules followed.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/2011...
I wish there was a rule that forced people to spell out an acronym the first time they use it, regardless of how much they think the acronym is common knowledge.
It kinda is common knowledge though, the French version is right on the official flag and displayed all the time.
Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord
A post I submitted 85 days ago [1], an Ukrainian drone guy talking about Russian-made drones. A more recent post [2], also from an Ukrainian POV when it comes to Russian drones' capabilities.
> OTAN equipment because of their combat experience is pretty bold considering
Direct combat experience will always have the upper hand compared to militaries which are still watching from the sidelines. Seeing how you spelled NATO I highly recommend these two books by Michel Goya talking about this in connection to France's industrial-military evolution in WW1: [3] and [4]
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/178npo...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/18zyau...
[3] https://www.tallandier.com/livre/linvention-de-la-guerre-mod..., English translation here: https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-book-rev...
[4] https://www.cairn.info/revue-defense-nationale-2020-1-page-1...
Back in the real world:
Hangar queens: http://archive.today/2024.01.09-023929/https://www.spiegel.d...
Barrel trouble: https://x.com/DcDxii/status/1731800411965645092
Death traps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC#Operational_history
And so on. If anything this war is a vindication of the Soviet approach.
You have to remember that Ukraine was provided with this gear with minimal training. It's easy to pick out small issues, (yes the Panzerhaubitze is a bit of a sensitive system to operate), but the majority of NATO gear provides better protection, and is more effective assuming the equipment is supported and maintained properly.
Russian gear is tough, can survive a lot of misuse and lack of maintenance. But compared to NATO gear, it's just not as survivable.
3x the Oryx count lol. And Ruzzia is still in the fight! Total vindication of the Soviet approach.
First Ukies were great and NATO gear was great. Then the tracks met the dirt. Now Ukies are undertrained and NATO gear is held wrongly. Can’t wait for what happens next.
it's just not as survivable
Even if it were true, having somewhat more lightly scorched tank crews sitting around isn’t going to save Ukraine.
It's less funny and more tragic that the Ukrainian soldiers themselves have come out and said that this type of discourse ("Western weapons are the best! Russians weapons are the worse!") does not help them at all on the front-lines, to the contrary, it makes them a lot more vulnerable and with bigger chances to, well, die.
This is a war that could be won with lots of artillery shells, combined with targeting computers and drone surveillance, highly mobile artillery.
FTA: In Mali they discovered a 10x breakdown rate compared to home in Germany. And that wasn’t even war. Also, they lack spare parts. The beauty of just-in-time logistics. Read up on how much of a typical NATO army is operational at a given (peace) time. '91 was a long time ago.
Old Leopard 1 tanks would have been a better choice
There goes “crew survived”.
built for a different purpose: combined arms operations
“Easy. Just win before the tanks break down. Just destroy the enemy before you ever get close.” Someone should have explained that to the Ukrainians.
could be won with lots of artillery shells
Shells that NATO can neither supply nor produce in sufficient quantities.
highly mobile artillery
They have (had) enough of those. Barrel wear ruins the range, Lancets ruin the paint job.
The war in Ukraine is showing that the West is woefully unprepared for a major conflict. We saw signs of this with NATO air forces running short of PGMs during the Libya intervention.
Shells won't be a problem in a year or so, and worldwide there's enough production to move enough to Ukraine if the political will is there. But Western defense contractors have been starved for so many years that expanding production won't occur rapidly. Look at the backlog for F-16s.
Also F16s for Ukraine is a questionable choice. Other than not being available, they need a good runway and are higher maintainance than the MiGs and Sukhois that the Ukrainians are used to. Also replacement parts need to be shipped (from the US?). The Saab Gripen is a more sensible choice for them: it can be housed in a barn and use a road to take off. No idea how many can Sweeden deliver and there are also political issues as well like Sweeden not being part of NATO yet.
The F-16 is actually the best choice. There are multiple users worldwide, so lots of training facilities, lots of spare parts depots, and almost every NATO weapon is qualified on it. The Gripen would be great if it wasn't needed for a few years; the production rate is too slow to fulfill Ukraine's needs and the Swedes have no desire to send stock from their own air force. Can't blame them really. They've been cutting back on their military like the rest of Western Europe for decades.
So what?
As someone famous said, "Quantity is a quality on its own"
> Drones offer distinct advantages over traditional weapons: they are smaller and cheaper, offer unmatched surveillance capabilities, and reduce soldiers’ risk exposure. Marines in urban warfare, for example, could be accompanied by microdrones that serve as their eyes and ears. Over time, countries will improve the hardware and software powering drones to outinnovate their rivals. Eventually, autonomous weaponized drones—not just unmanned aerial vehicles but also ground-based ones—will replace soldiers and manned artillery altogether. Imagine an autonomous submarine that could quickly move supplies into contested waters or an autonomous truck that could find the optimal route to carry small missile launchers across rough terrain. Swarms of drones, networked and coordinated by AI, could overwhelm tank and infantry formations in the field.
My take on this is that lacking direct combat experience everything the Americans (and the West more generally) will come up with in terms of drones will be hugely inferior to whatever the Russians are now building, heck, it would be inferior even to what the Ukrainians have managed to build locally (one of the targets the Russians hit recently was an Ukrainian drone factory in Kiev).
[1] https://archive.is/wvhck