This whole drone scenario is starting to look an awful lot like air combat during ww1. Starting off as recon, slowly being used to drop small grenades / bombs at soldiers. Then slowly building into actual formal air to air weaponry/combat through small weapons.
Sort of. In WWI that was a result of new warfare and limitations in technology - this is a result of limited resources necessitating use of a commercial product. The US and western nations already have military drones that are just as capable as the current manned systems.
If I remember correctly, planes began to used to attack other aircraft in response to the use of observation recon aircraft and ballons during the First World War which extends the similarity between the two wars.
yes, at the beginning the recon planes' pilots would be shooting at each other from the cockpit with firearms, the planes themselves didnt have any weapons on them at the beginning. Pretty wild at the beginning.
@@paddington1670 i mean we have recon drones and bomber drones just like we have spy planes and bomber planes...the last area needed now are air superiority drones and interceptor drones
Ukraines ingenuity and adaptability in this war continues to impress. I reckon there are tonnes of NATO generals that have had their minds blown with how established military doctrines and tactics have just been torn to shreds over the course of this war because Ukraine has done their own thing and made it work.
NATO is a paper tiger. Yes, potentially the combined NATO military is very strong. But there's no will in the West to take risks and to fight - very much like the mighty French army in 1940.
I'm not surprised. Ukrainian engineers and senior military personnel constituted much of the brainpower of the Soviet defense establishment during the Cold War. Apparently, the Russians have forgotten this.
Very unlikely. This is a pretty conventional war, hence all the comparisons to ww1. The only difference is the higher level of tech that confines soldiers to their trenches. The root problems and solutions are all the same.
You analysis is on point, concise, and enlightening. It's heartening to see your viewership has grown to 175K viewers. I can see it expanding to ten times that. All the best to you.
Echoing Bret Devereaux, it seems worth noting that weapons tech was part of the situation that created the deadlock in WW1, but not sufficient on its own; after a year or two the combatants figured out the right way to concentrate artillery to wreck a trench quite effectively. The reason this didn't break the deadlock was because the best (commonplace) communication/transportation technologies of the time were the railroad and telegraph, which both rely on connecting infrastructure the enemy isn't going to let you run through no man's land. So if the attacker got past the trench, the defender would be shipping in boatloads of troops and ammo to prevent an unobstructed advance, and the attacker's headquarter still wouldn't even know whether the first trench line had been successfully breached.
Make things happen faster than the enemy can respond. How Ukraine got Kharkiv’s area back and Kherson. Monash playbook 1918 . Remember, that was in the face of 1 million extra troops released to the western front (after another Russian collapse) and the Fokker Dvii for the Germans
What impresses me most is that Ukrainians do all this on a shoestring budget. Where NATO countries throw enormous amounts of money onto established companies to achieve technological advances, Ukrainians warm up their soldering irons and invite hobbyists to public competitions for finding advanced stuff. Ukrainians are more successful, btw., their $500 drones appear to outperform American $50,000 SwitchBlades.
This is a bad take. _Because_ SwitchBlades are expensive, they are reserved for higher risk operations that need their edge. They would absolutely dominate the scenarios we're seeing videos of for low-tech drones dropping grenades and whatnot, but they won't get the chance because their cost is equivalent to their capabilities. The same way you wouldn't send an F-22 to go pop a balloon. ... oh wait.
I have seen some interviews when asked what they prefer all the soldiers said a DJI drone over an American 100k Nano drone. That helicopter one. Industrial complex is all about maximum profit first, effectiveness irrelevant other than for marketing.
And almost all the brilliant technical scientific minds that russia might have had have exodused themselves from russia long ago now . Hey , they crashed their moonlander but India was successful.
Ukrainians are definitely showing how the things sent to them how to make them do incredible stuff. We definitely want to keep them on our side for the future. Thank you 💛 Anders
It is more similar to WW1 than you think. In WW1 the Germans didn't reach their objectives then had to dig in to keep from getting countered. They lost and then it took another two fruitless years for them to realize that. Those turtle tanks are nothing more than a way to get through mine fields with tanks that can withstand them. They're using them like transports to move their disposable soldiers in to positions to draw fire in order to locate the Ukrainian positions. Then they shell them.
They have captured a few of those turtles and they mount ECM's on the roof and they're just made out of sheet metal. They're counting on drones being stopped by electronic jamming.
Against NATO, tanks won’t even make it to the front line. Every weapons platform on the battlefield has long-range anti-tank capabilities, from the individual soldier (javelin, etc) to vehicles, IFVs, other tanks, artillery systems, helicopters, fixed wing manned aircraft, fixed wing drones, quad rotor drones, mines, etc etc etc.
Wonder what the Russian equivalent of the schlieffen plan was? Grab Hostomel, perhaps ? Like Germany in 1918, Russia has a massive rival at their back, which is inactive at present. Interesting to see how that goes
🙏🕊🌻🔱 Excellent Analysis! Ukraine is Stronger with F16's, GMLRS, ATACMS, GLSDB, SCALP EG and Storm Shadow! Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes! The World Needs to Stand Unwaveringly Committed with Ukraine's Quest for Democracy and Retribution! 🔱🌻🕊🙏
I appreciate your valiant -- if not entirely successful -- attempt to maintain a straight face when discussing the "turtle" tank. Few of us could do any better.
This new Drone warfare is really highlighting the whole RF spectrum and the need for even better electronic countermeasures above and beyond just GPS jamming.
@@MartinLundström-l4v Technically, even an autopilot or waypoint following program would have been considered "AI" just ten or twenty years ago. You don't need AI for most of the things they are doing right now. And they don't have the resources to develop one, for example for "dogfighting". It's much easier and more effective to use FPV and remote control, even if the Russians can jam them. Then maybe they have to stay away from the jammers, but that's all.
Too true, any time Ivan has had command of the EM spectrum, he dominates, with heaps of ballistic shells. This war has shown if you can shut down EM, you really slow the enemy down
@@Bakes-z4c Nope, the Russians can't "shut down EM". At best they can jam some frequency bands, but due to the nature of physics, you can never jam or overnoise all frequencies at once. Also, the vehicles that can do that are pretty expensive. And easy targets for radiation seeking missiles. If a drone a couple km away gets confused by your EM emissions, a missile sure can track you from even further away.
Forces News showed a video of an Ukrainian Baba Yaga drone, that brought a smaller drone along for protection. The smaller drone crashed in to a Russian kamikaze drone to protect the Baba Yaga. This is similar to fighter jets protecting bombers during WW2.
Lots of Ukrainian companies are doing drones now, and I'm in contact with some of them, to improve/optimize the code (C/C++). They're also looking for more engineers and pilots of course.
Writing code in C??? That's so old! I refused a job (in 2005?) because they wanted me to be a C-coder. But maybe it's still best for low level engineering type applications? Whatever works :)
@@johnnorris3409 C/C++ is still the most efficient language for coding on embedded platforms, and although there is competition from Rust and other new languages I doubt it can be called “old”, as in outdated. I would call it “mature”.
Anders thanks for your hard work. Drones are a great way forward, especially if they can be used as decoys as a gateway to let things through. It may be probable or possible to make them with Device Jamming Tools, as well as EMP type Devices to screw up an Adversaries Electronics far behind Enemy Lines.
Their latest strategy of denying Russia the ability to produce fuel seems to be a winning one. It just takes time, and while it doesn't effect their Frontline soldiers directly, it will force them to start making cope cages for bicycles and roller blades. MUGA!
They are striking mostly those oil refineries that produce gasoline, not diesel. So all their efforts has had little effect on Russia's ability to provide its army with fuel. Why're Ukr striking gasoline plants instead of diesel ones ? IDK.
What happened in WW1 is that those defensive platforms were given mobility; tanks started as mobile pill boxes, you take the machine guns etc and put them on tracks so you can roll your defenses toward the enemies defenses. If turtle tanks, with ewar, can incorporate defensive anti-drone drones, this would repeat history...
lol, a couple months ago when they used a prop plane to shoot down drones, I predicted the next thing would be drones that shot down planes. They must have already been building the things. Gotta love Ukrainians.
I think that the turtle tank is a way to make use of substandard tanks pulled from storage. They don't need sights, a rotating turret or a working gun, just mobility.
Perhaps, the better WW1 analogy is the development of fighter aircraft when all sides realised that aerial observation aircraft spotting for artillery was a real problem.
Again Anders, your clarity of thought applied to an analysis of the situation is just brilliant. Must confess that I hadn’t even really appreciated the extent to which the drones had played a part in this kind of stalemate - but then of course it makes total sense when you understand why in the context of no one having an element of surprise anymore (or at least not for very long). This is why I love your videos so much 👍
Very good analysis. However, it is chocking that it takes a war to bring about such technological advances. Do not forget, whatever is now eveloped for use in war, also will have civilian purposes.
The situation reminds me of the eovlution of manned areal comabt in WW1. That also started out with planes and balloons as artillery observers/spotters bevore they started air to air combat that interdicted enemy surveilance.
This is the same general concept as Anduril's Roadrunner drone-hunting drone, and it makes total sense. If the enemy has tons of cheap drones, then use your own mass of cheap drones to counter it. Way more cost effective this way.
If a drone goes at 500 km/h, and can be driven remotely, it can assume a zig-zag route that will make very difficult for a cheap and slow drone to intercept it. In the interception we saw, the intercepting drone was almost still and waited for the Russian drone to come near to it, or against it. If the Russian drone had made random zig-zag movements, the probability of interception would become very slim. There are three more effective solutions to throw at the problem: Gepard, Gepard, Gepard.
If I remember my WWI history correctly, airplanes originally were used for scouting and combat between them only started later. The latest development of air-combat drones looks like a parallel type of evolution.
Technically, the US already used drones for surveillance and attack. Technically, the Ukrainian/Russian drones were carrying explosives long before they thought about air-to-air drones.
Correct, first they scouted, then they started dropping things on ground troops heads, and only after that did they start bringing shotguns to shoot each other out of the sky. History repeats.
Hi Anders. In this video your speach speed is very high. It would help me, if you could slow down a little bit in the next video. All the best from Aarhus, Denmark.
Another interesting technology I've seen getting media attention recently is the so called "Frankenstein tank" from Rheinmetall that Ukraine's getting from the Germans. It features a Skyranger turret on a Leopard 1 chassis, and it's a very efficient drone killer.
yes the drone analogy is comparisable to WW1 aerial combat. For enemy observations and signaling Balloons were already used since the napoleonic wars. During the US civil war they were already commen. The first fixed aircraft were used as recon aircraft, other aircrafts were at first used to prevent shoot down those recon aircraft with hand guns. Recon aircraft had to be protected so the fighter aircraft as a type emerged. WW1 gave an incredable boost to aviation in a short time. In every big war development goes in overdrive to get just that edge over the enemy. Jus look what 2.5 years of combat in Ukraine has already changed combat today. Rules and operational books are mostly torn to shreds and written again from scratch. Obsolete seen anti aircraft systems like the Gepard and Shilka are upgraded to shield for drone attacks.
Obsolescent, still pretty useful against Shaheds. There is a gap, for tracking glide bombs, that may just be a software thing, but I would think gephard might be able hit them with the right cues
@@Bakes-z4c modern guidance and tracking systems make those close anti air suport weapons veru vital on a modern drone infected battlefield. You can't jam a protectile
The U.S. Air Force now divides the air above a battlefield into zones based on altitude. Air superiority and air dominance in the lowest zone, likely dominated by drones, will become as critical to ground advances as manned aviation currently is. Air dominance will require dominance of all the zones with a mix of assets. We could see a situation where “contested airspace” means each side dominating different zones.
Adding light machine guns to aerial drones could make a big difference, actually. You don’t need anything fancy. You just need something with decent range that can carry a lot of ammo. Back during WWII most American fighter designers relied on the hood ‘ol fashioned .50 caliber machine guns instead of heavier autocannons for one simple reason. Machine gun ammo is a lot lighter & space intensive than cannon ammo. You can a lot more machine gun rounds than cannon rounds.
LMGs are way too heavy for drones. A PKM weighs just over 8 kilos without a bipod and western LMGs aren't much lighter. That's way more than what most drones can carry. Baba Yaga drones can carry around 15 kilos but those are absolute chonkers and not exactly common. They'd also struggle with the recoil. One shot and you completely lose control.
A few other technological improvements that led to the stalemate in world war one are often ocerlooked. Tele communication via telegraph and telephone meant that defenders could call for reinforcements and artillery support as soon as they were attacked. The attackers on the other hand, could not call back to report any advancements, until they had laid out phone lines over no-mans land. Handheld radioswere far in the future and any communication back had to be done via flags, flares and homing pigeons. Railways kept the front lines well supplied with food, ammunition and other supplies, but the attacking army hadto carry all their supplies on their backs, crossing the torn-up no mans land on foot. Mass-produced canned foods made it possible to sustain huge armies in the same place for months and years. This had simply not been possible in a time when armies had to forage to sustain themselves. Smokeless powder and the repeating rifle were fairly new unventions that gave infantry a leg up on cavalry. The cavalry charge is way less lethal when a single rifleman can fire accurate, repeated fire against charging enemy horses, whereas in the past they would in the best of scenarios have a very short window of time to fire their single shot, before the cavalry was upon them Lastly, barbed wire. Cheap, quick to deploy over large areas and it lets a single machine gun control a huge area of the battlefield.
The tech progress is so rapid, this is already out of date. I saw yesterday and UA is destroying turtle tanks by slowing down and loitering, waiting until infantry open an access into the turtle, fly through the access then boomski. The reduced visibility from the turtle tank will only make that easier.
Regarding WWI, it wasn't quite as simple as 'machine guns and trenches made attacking hard'. That's part of it, but armies in WWI actually had an answer to machine guns in trenches--lots and lots of heavy artillery. With enough firepower, initial attacks were often very successful. The problem was that the sheer quantity of artillery fire required to break into an enemy trench obliterated the ground behind the captured trench and made it almost impossible to bring up reinforcements or supplies or additional artillery or telegraph lines that were necessary to continue the attack or even hold onto that new trench. So the enemy--who knows exactly where their old trench was and probably has it pre-sighted for their own artillery--will obliterate it along with everyone of your guys who survived the initial attack and then successfully drive you out out with a counterattack. This goes back and forth until both sides have taken hundreds of thousands of casualties and expended obscene amounts of ammunition and the frontline hasn't moved at all.
Hey Anders and others Big fan of your as close to objective analysis as i have seen of the war. can you recommend other sources with equally quality information about the war?
The turtle tank captured recently, is going to be very useful regarding identifying weaknesses in the platform. Its quite a ridiculous looking vehicle....
In Australia , from space tracking research for space junk there is an anti drone weapon being developed. Called slinger or maybe it's called slingshot.
An example from WW2 and the Battle of Britain might become relevant. Both the Germans and British had fighters that were only suitable for defense because of their short range. Their lack of fuel weight allowed for the optimization of other abilities involving maneuverability and such. But it cost the Germans dearly because they were on the offensive while the British didn't need the range to defend effectively. I suspect that the first hunter drones will need to be faster than their enemy and since they're fighting in Ukraine itself Ukrainians won't need the range thus giving them a potentially permanent edge in designing better performing drones.
One other thought. The radar systems on the F16s may have the capability to spot drones - at least for some distance. If that information can get relayed to attack drones, that might make a difference.
Another possible solution is better communications and training. If you can coordinate an attack without first massing forces and do the attack quickly, the enemy may not realize what's going on until it's too late. However, these sorts of complex operations haven't been possible from either side.
I come here for some insights, and I am never dissapointed. Thanks for a great channel. I realise this channel is about the war in Ukraine - but I am curious what you think of the intel, that ukranian specialforces are present around the world fighting russian forces, incl. Wagner PMC. I have read articles stating ukranian presence in Sudan and Golan. What is the purpose of this you think? And how will it influence the war on ukranian soil and how will it effect the perception of the war in Ukraine among the world leaders supporting Ukraine.
I think that you didn't mention that air power was first used in ww1 for surveillance. It did precisely what the fibres are doing now- removed the element of surprise. Now with drones attacking drones, this is also mirroring ww1, and as you mentioned the static nature of the war... Let me also mention that Germany made massive progress in the first months of the war, then stake because of innovative French tactics... if you squint your brain you could say German incompetence... Basically this is ww1 with mobile phones...
There are more commonalities between Ukr war and WWI. Both are the start of aviation in war. * WWI started with observation ball0ons and light 1 man biplanes for observation. * Then the observation planes got bigger to carry an observer who would at first sketch the features, then photo graph them. * Some bright boy took a pistol up so he could shoot at other, (initially) unarmed observers. * Another carried a satchel full of grenades he could drop on ground troops. * Along the way these observation planes also had the bright idea to shoot up enemy observation balloons. Great fun watching them go down in flames. * These initial efforts were DIY, unofficial. * Slowly the guns and bombs got bigger as the brass got involved. * Fairly quickly the rolls became specialties: * observation planes, unarmed or just light guns. * Dedicated bombers. * Dedicated gun platforms called fighters to shoot the insidious observers and bombers * I know the allies also tried to develop long range unmanned bombs and drones in WWI. They simply did not have the technology * even in WWII, the V1 "buzz bomb" had pitifully simple "guidance". A timer that shut off the motor. * The V2, which was a true ballistic weapon also had rudimentary gyro guidance. Ukraine has followed a very similar pattern: * observation drones * bomber "Quad copter" (and Octo Copters, R-18) with downward pointing camera(s) and various "bombs" * DIY bombers using "hotwired" landing light to trigger a release. * The first "bombs" were simple hand grenades put into a plastic "beer cup" then pull the pin. When it hit the ground, the grenate bounced out of the cup, the spoon was released and eventually the grenade exploded * since then the variety of bombs has "exploded" (pun intended), DIY triggers added to bombs, "Frankensteining" various existing triggers onto bombs (including TM-62 landmines and RPG-7 warheads) they were not designed for. * 3-d printed wings added to bombs to give straighter flight, * fully 3D printed bomb casing that are filled with explosives extracted from other muntitions (like TM-62 mines) * now the government is factory mass producing drone specific bombs of various categories (simple explosive, anti-personel fragmentation, anti-tank shaped charges, thermobaric etc etc) Now Ukraine has drones that can fly unmanned up to 1800km and come close to hitting their designated targets. You mentioned the "shell hunger" this spring past giving the russians an advantage. But there was another effect. In the late winter Ukraine announced the "million drone" initiative and created a new ministry of drones to cut red tape in producing drones. One of the things they did was create lots of standardized bombs for drones. So by this summer, the observation drones were spotting for artillery, but they were also spotting for many attack drones, FPV drones. Units that used to have one or two drones now had 40 or more to use PER DAY, as needed. This wave of drones has been reported by both sides. To the glee of Ukrainian drone units and the dismay of russians on the recieving end. Drone dog fighting started more than a year ago. The attacks on Strela and Lancet drones is a new development. FPV drones may become dedicated "fighters" attacking the russian drones. Ukr already has simple, cheap drone detectors based on cell phones. We've recently started seeing video from observer drones that have been shot at by a couple of types of russian anti-air. They come close, but miss. There can be a couple of reasons. One is that they are programmed for larger targets like helicopters and fighter planes, 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the drone. They are guided into the "box" for a full size aircraft and miss the drone. The other reason could be that they recognize this and were designed to explode in proximity to the target. But the drones are not large enough to trigger the proximity explosion. So how about a "franken missile". Use the detectors to spot and locate enemy drones. Then fire a new anti-drone "franken missile" that consists of an existing launch motor, with a FPV drone "bolted on", like the GLSDB. When the missile approaches the target it automatically, or even manually deploys the standard small FPV drone to attack the enemy drone. Another way FPV can be used to down enemy drones. Rather than crashing the FPV into the enemy, deploy a wire or even a small net to drag behind the FPV. Then fly the FPV over the enemy drone so that they wire/net get tangled in the prop. The catch can be returned home, or dropped if it is too heavy for the FPV.
The element of surprise is paramount, however purpose and motivation are also essential. Drone warfare is a majer part of this war and so far the Ukrainians would appear to have the upper hand. They have de-centralised production and R&D. This enables them to adapt quickly and effectively. Ukrainians don't fight by the book, they write their own. Watching recent Magyar videos we can see that flying drones are now be used below tree lines almost at ground level to recce concealed locations and equipment. They also appear to be using more incendiary devices to completely burn out stationary and disabled vehicles. I'm not sure what the advantages of incendiary over explosive devices are but there must be reasons, otherwise Ukraine wouldn't be doing it. I sincerely hope that NATO commanders are observing these developements closely. We can all learn a lot from Ukraine.
There will probably not be "the" solution, but a package of solutions. In principle, the solution exists already: Short range air defence, which has been effective against larger drones. For small drones, there needs to be a cheaper, smaller solution. Using cheaper optical and acoustic sensors and possibly cheaper munition. Currently, a round of 30 mm air burst munition costs about 1.000 euros. A round of shotgun munition is about 1 euro. Either it is going to be near-IR lasers (CO2 is too hard to focus on long distances), or something in between a shotgun and and air burst munition. Some kind of passive air burst munition.
@@JohnDoe-420 Visible lasers are expensive. CO2 lasers are not good for long distances. Near IR (wavelength1000 nm or less) are a good compromise. To have any chance to destroy a drone, you need probably around 1 kW or more on a mm or less. We are talking here about a range of somewhere between 100 and 1000m. You would still need large (several 10cm) high-precision optics.
Anders Puck Neilsen always gets greater than 10 % Like ... 11 K Likes / 65,000 Views (11 hrs ago) = 16 % This is a high score in YT algorithm ... a Like and a Comment promotes the TRUTH one sand grain (8 bits = 1 byte) at a time.
If you want to be informed about the situation going on in Ukraine concerning the war that Russia has been waging for the last few years, listen to what Anders Puck Nielson has to say. His perspective, and analysis are spot on.
I don't know who's going to win the battle of the drones (though I'd have to give the technological and innovative edge to the Ukrainians), but I do know that this war is going to be studied for YEARS in war colleges all over the world. It's essentially the first war where drones were front and center on both sides of the battlefield.
I'm not a huge fan of the WW1 comparison for the Russo-Ukraine one. It is somewhat accurate but the Iran-Iraq war is a bit closer given the technology. The conflict soon became static after a while and became trench warfare. There's also some interesting historical parallels. Such as Saddam being concerned with revolution spreading to his country and Putin concerned with color revolution spreading to his.
WWI is the obvious comparison but I think each time a new technology/tactic is introduced it leads to tehchnonology/tactics countering it. But this time I think it is quite unigue, that the counter must not just be advanced, but also very cheap.
The countering technology/tactics of WW1 was really just taking those defensive technologies and making them mobile; being able to slowly roll your defenses toward the enemies defenses.
This whole drone scenario is starting to look an awful lot like air combat during ww1. Starting off as recon, slowly being used to drop small grenades / bombs at soldiers. Then slowly building into actual formal air to air weaponry/combat through small weapons.
Skynet and hunter killers come to mind
@@Demogrunti guess we are 30 years away at most from strategic drone forces that can kill civilisations, probably sooner.
We will see fighter drone units, reconnaissance and surveillance units and bomber units in the future.
Sort of. In WWI that was a result of new warfare and limitations in technology - this is a result of limited resources necessitating use of a commercial product. The US and western nations already have military drones that are just as capable as the current manned systems.
Always wonder what will happen to attack helicopters ... Are they now worth the expenditure and crew training... It's a challenge all round
If I remember correctly, planes began to used to attack other aircraft in response to the use of observation recon aircraft and ballons during the First World War which extends the similarity between the two wars.
yes, at the beginning the recon planes' pilots would be shooting at each other from the cockpit with firearms, the planes themselves didnt have any weapons on them at the beginning. Pretty wild at the beginning.
@@paddington1670 i mean we have recon drones and bomber drones just like we have spy planes and bomber planes...the last area needed now are air superiority drones and interceptor drones
@@paddington1670 Thank you for filling in the details that I have forgotten in my old age.
The first pilots used to wave at each other. Someone threw a brick, the other side brought a handgun and then things escalated quickly 😂
Crazy how we went from literal pistol duels in the air to radar guided remote operated exploding missiles/drones in one century 😮
Thank you Anders for posting more regularly, we mortals appreciate your content.
500000 smoked Rushins, and they cant even take 10% of Ukraine. That's what I understood him as saying.
What he said
Bot
The only question that needs to be answered about Anders is whether he is a self deluding fraud or a concious fraud.
@@alangledhill6454 truest comment ever also i think Probably the first. Most ukraind lovers are
Ukraines ingenuity and adaptability in this war continues to impress. I reckon there are tonnes of NATO generals that have had their minds blown with how established military doctrines and tactics have just been torn to shreds over the course of this war because Ukraine has done their own thing and made it work.
That’s what usually happens in war . Look at history, nothing new
NATO is a paper tiger. Yes, potentially the combined NATO military is very strong.
But there's no will in the West to take risks and to fight - very much like the mighty French army in 1940.
I'm not surprised. Ukrainian engineers and senior military personnel constituted much of the brainpower of the Soviet defense establishment during the Cold War. Apparently, the Russians have forgotten this.
Very unlikely. This is a pretty conventional war, hence all the comparisons to ww1. The only difference is the higher level of tech that confines soldiers to their trenches. The root problems and solutions are all the same.
Russia has lost this war. The entire planet is now laughing at the Rushin' army😂
Rostov-on-drone is my favorite Russian oblast. Thanks to drones, Russia is exporting most of its oil via smoke rather than pipeline now.
😅🎉
Underrated 😂
Russia just joined Venezuela in P-OPEC.... _Previously Oil Producing and Exporting Countries._ 😂😂😂
@@dpelpal😂 good one!
In other news: "India's Oil Imports Surge: Russia Hits Record High, Saudi Arabia Drops"
You analysis is on point, concise, and enlightening. It's heartening to see your viewership has grown to 175K viewers. I can see it expanding to ten times that. All the best to you.
175000 people laughing at what a joke the Rushin' army is🤭
@@dpelpalcorrect and bare minimum as we all concur
Thank you, Anders Puck Nielsen, for your analysis. Very much appreciated.
🇺🇦 Перемоги і миру всім українцям! 🇺🇦
Echoing Bret Devereaux, it seems worth noting that weapons tech was part of the situation that created the deadlock in WW1, but not sufficient on its own; after a year or two the combatants figured out the right way to concentrate artillery to wreck a trench quite effectively. The reason this didn't break the deadlock was because the best (commonplace) communication/transportation technologies of the time were the railroad and telegraph, which both rely on connecting infrastructure the enemy isn't going to let you run through no man's land. So if the attacker got past the trench, the defender would be shipping in boatloads of troops and ammo to prevent an unobstructed advance, and the attacker's headquarter still wouldn't even know whether the first trench line had been successfully breached.
Came to the comments to make this point, too :)
German army had radio equipment in 1907 already. This communications problem may have been more a problem of tactics rather than technology.
Make things happen faster than the enemy can respond. How Ukraine got Kharkiv’s area back and Kherson. Monash playbook 1918 . Remember, that was in the face of 1 million extra troops released to the western front (after another Russian collapse) and the Fokker Dvii for the Germans
What impresses me most is that Ukrainians do all this on a shoestring budget. Where NATO countries throw enormous amounts of money onto established companies to achieve technological advances, Ukrainians warm up their soldering irons and invite hobbyists to public competitions for finding advanced stuff. Ukrainians are more successful, btw., their $500 drones appear to outperform American $50,000 SwitchBlades.
This is a bad take. _Because_ SwitchBlades are expensive, they are reserved for higher risk operations that need their edge. They would absolutely dominate the scenarios we're seeing videos of for low-tech drones dropping grenades and whatnot, but they won't get the chance because their cost is equivalent to their capabilities.
The same way you wouldn't send an F-22 to go pop a balloon.
... oh wait.
@@Chiberia Sending a F-22 to pop a balloon that's flying higher than any other fighter can reach is perfectly reasonable.
Necessity is the Mother of invention
I have seen some interviews when asked what they prefer all the soldiers said a DJI drone over an American 100k Nano drone. That helicopter one. Industrial complex is all about maximum profit first, effectiveness irrelevant other than for marketing.
And almost all the brilliant technical scientific minds that russia might have had have exodused themselves from russia long ago now . Hey , they crashed their moonlander but India was successful.
I'm glad the Ukrainians are on our side idealogically. They'll be useful advisors if war breaks out in Asia.
I know I wouldn't wanna fight Ukrainians! Rusha' on the other hand, their military is a total joke🤭
they are a good rental army
@@NathansHVAC Iran and China sure are using Russia, you're correct.
I don't know about advisors. But Ukraine has indicated they want to join the west. Giving a chance, they could become the next powerhouse in the EU.
@@tazgecko Ukraine already belongs to the West my friend. You don't join the West, you are part of it.
Ukrainians are definitely showing how the things sent to them how to make them do incredible stuff. We definitely want to keep them on our side for the future.
Thank you 💛 Anders
We are all stuck on one small rock. We need to look after it. Those that don’t see this need to move on to whatever fate awaits them
It is more similar to WW1 than you think.
In WW1 the Germans didn't reach their objectives then had to dig in to keep from getting countered. They lost and then it took another two fruitless years for them to realize that.
Those turtle tanks are nothing more than a way to get through mine fields with tanks that can withstand them. They're using them like transports to move their disposable soldiers in to positions to draw fire in order to locate the Ukrainian positions. Then they shell them.
They have captured a few of those turtles and they mount ECM's on the roof and they're just made out of sheet metal. They're counting on drones being stopped by electronic jamming.
I am sure they could run a suborbital that when connection is lost it homes to the last photographed object, no connection needed
Against NATO, tanks won’t even make it to the front line. Every weapons platform on the battlefield has long-range anti-tank capabilities, from the individual soldier (javelin, etc) to vehicles, IFVs, other tanks, artillery systems, helicopters, fixed wing manned aircraft, fixed wing drones, quad rotor drones, mines, etc etc etc.
Wonder what the Russian equivalent of the schlieffen plan was? Grab Hostomel, perhaps ? Like Germany in 1918, Russia has a massive rival at their back, which is inactive at present. Interesting to see how that goes
🙏🕊🌻🔱 Excellent Analysis! Ukraine is Stronger with F16's, GMLRS, ATACMS, GLSDB, SCALP EG and Storm Shadow! Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes! The World Needs to Stand Unwaveringly Committed with Ukraine's Quest for Democracy and Retribution! 🔱🌻🕊🙏
Сального за километр видно, ничего перечислить не забыл? А то смотри не допишешь - не поставят. Страна поберушка.
I appreciate your valiant -- if not entirely successful -- attempt to maintain a straight face when discussing the "turtle" tank. Few of us could do any better.
This new Drone warfare is really highlighting the whole RF spectrum and the need for even better electronic countermeasures above and beyond just GPS jamming.
"AI" drones don't have to use radio communication....
@@MartinLundström-l4v Technically, even an autopilot or waypoint following program would have been considered "AI" just ten or twenty years ago. You don't need AI for most of the things they are doing right now. And they don't have the resources to develop one, for example for "dogfighting". It's much easier and more effective to use FPV and remote control, even if the Russians can jam them. Then maybe they have to stay away from the jammers, but that's all.
@@MartinLundström-l4v True but to get from point A to point B they do need an outside source for navigation.
Too true, any time Ivan has had command of the EM spectrum, he dominates, with heaps of ballistic shells. This war has shown if you can shut down EM, you really slow the enemy down
@@Bakes-z4c Nope, the Russians can't "shut down EM". At best they can jam some frequency bands, but due to the nature of physics, you can never jam or overnoise all frequencies at once. Also, the vehicles that can do that are pretty expensive. And easy targets for radiation seeking missiles. If a drone a couple km away gets confused by your EM emissions, a missile sure can track you from even further away.
Anders, you are one of the coolest analysts. Thank you, sir!
Cheers Anders, from Canada!
Really great video Nielsen and greetings from the US. Always enjoy you sharing your warfare information, helps keep one informed.
Forces News showed a video of an Ukrainian Baba Yaga drone, that brought a smaller drone along for protection.
The smaller drone crashed in to a Russian kamikaze drone to protect the Baba Yaga.
This is similar to fighter jets protecting bombers during WW2.
Thanks for the very interesting update. Great job!! 👍
Lots of Ukrainian companies are doing drones now, and I'm in contact with some of them, to improve/optimize the code (C/C++). They're also looking for more engineers and pilots of course.
Writing code in C??? That's so old! I refused a job (in 2005?) because they wanted me to be a C-coder. But maybe it's still best for low level engineering type applications? Whatever works :)
@@johnnorris3409Fast, robust and reliable codes are needed
@@johnnorris3409 C/C++ is still the most efficient language for coding on embedded platforms, and although there is competition from Rust and other new languages I doubt it can be called “old”, as in outdated. I would call it “mature”.
Im in the USA, can i do some training to become a drone pilot? I like the hunter- killer drones.
@@johnnorris3409 Embedded world, microcontrollers and militech is almost entirely C in 2024.
Anders thanks for your hard work. Drones are a great way forward, especially if they can be used as decoys as a gateway to let things through. It may be probable or possible to make them with Device Jamming Tools, as well as EMP type Devices to screw up an Adversaries Electronics far behind Enemy Lines.
Their latest strategy of denying Russia the ability to produce fuel seems to be a winning one. It just takes time, and while it doesn't effect their Frontline soldiers directly, it will force them to start making cope cages for bicycles and roller blades. MUGA!
Russia producing more fuel then UK and Germany combined
So they will not run short of fuel anytime soon
They are striking mostly those oil refineries that produce gasoline, not diesel. So all their efforts has had little effect on Russia's ability to provide its army with fuel. Why're Ukr striking gasoline plants instead of diesel ones ? IDK.
Do you really think that NOTHING is burning or exploding ALL over Ukraine? Seriously, gopher?
@@alexpoetov3213 because cars use gasoline, usually.
@evgeniya7853 nobody said that Ukraine is not suffering from terrorism, no.
Excellent discussion. Thank you
RS. Canada
What happened in WW1 is that those defensive platforms were given mobility; tanks started as mobile pill boxes, you take the machine guns etc and put them on tracks so you can roll your defenses toward the enemies defenses.
If turtle tanks, with ewar, can incorporate defensive anti-drone drones, this would repeat history...
lol, a couple months ago when they used a prop plane to shoot down drones, I predicted the next thing would be drones that shot down planes. They must have already been building the things.
Gotta love Ukrainians.
And yak52s! They are fun
Always thought what a “swarm” of small drones could do on a battlefield. Suppose is not so far the moment I will see the answer
To quote the Australian PowerPoint Man, "Assault Shed".
God bless 👊 Ukraine 🇺🇦!
Thanks for sharing your expert views with us.
I think that the turtle tank is a way to make use of substandard tanks pulled from storage. They don't need sights, a rotating turret or a working gun, just mobility.
Thanks, please more of that stuff!
Thank you Anders!
Great informative video. Your analysis is exceptional. Thanks, Eamon 🇮🇪
Perhaps, the better WW1 analogy is the development of fighter aircraft when all sides realised that aerial observation aircraft spotting for artillery was a real problem.
Kind of important to note that this was a lancet, not a surveillance drone. And I’m guessing they ran across it by coincidence.
I always love your videos, Anders. You bring incredible insight and analysis to developments on the battlefield. Kudos.
Brilliant analysis of the pace of the evolution of warfare.
Again Anders, your clarity of thought applied to an analysis of the situation is just brilliant. Must confess that I hadn’t even really appreciated the extent to which the drones had played a part in this kind of stalemate - but then of course it makes total sense when you understand why in the context of no one having an element of surprise anymore (or at least not for very long). This is why I love your videos so much 👍
Thank you. Again very interesting video.
Good analysis as always.
Very good analysis. However, it is chocking that it takes a war to bring about such technological advances. Do not forget, whatever is now eveloped for use in war, also will have civilian purposes.
Thank you for your excellent work. ❤
Fantastic analysis ! Thank you for sharing !
Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦✊🇬🇧🏴
My, my. Move over Darwin and you're millions of years time table. We're watching kite fighting evolve in real time. Look mom! No strings!
Insightful as always 👍
Trench warfare with aerial drone dog fights. History rhymes.
The situation reminds me of the eovlution of manned areal comabt in WW1. That also started out with planes and balloons as artillery observers/spotters bevore they started air to air combat that interdicted enemy surveilance.
This is the same general concept as Anduril's Roadrunner drone-hunting drone, and it makes total sense. If the enemy has tons of cheap drones, then use your own mass of cheap drones to counter it. Way more cost effective this way.
If a drone goes at 500 km/h, and can be driven remotely, it can assume a zig-zag route that will make very difficult for a cheap and slow drone to intercept it. In the interception we saw, the intercepting drone was almost still and waited for the Russian drone to come near to it, or against it. If the Russian drone had made random zig-zag movements, the probability of interception would become very slim.
There are three more effective solutions to throw at the problem:
Gepard, Gepard, Gepard.
If I remember my WWI history correctly, airplanes originally were used for scouting and combat between them only started later.
The latest development of air-combat drones looks like a parallel type of evolution.
Technically, the US already used drones for surveillance and attack. Technically, the Ukrainian/Russian drones were carrying explosives long before they thought about air-to-air drones.
Correct, first they scouted, then they started dropping things on ground troops heads, and only after that did they start bringing shotguns to shoot each other out of the sky.
History repeats.
Everything interesting, except it doesn't matter how ridiculous something looks, it either works or doesn't. It's not a fashion war.
No, it's not a fashion war. Thats why the Nazis lost the actual war...
Hi Anders. In this video your speach speed is very high. It would help me, if you could slow down a little bit in the next video. All the best from Aarhus, Denmark.
Another interesting technology I've seen getting media attention recently is the so called "Frankenstein tank" from Rheinmetall that Ukraine's getting from the Germans.
It features a Skyranger turret on a Leopard 1 chassis, and it's a very efficient drone killer.
yes the drone analogy is comparisable to WW1 aerial combat.
For enemy observations and signaling Balloons were already used since the napoleonic wars.
During the US civil war they were already commen.
The first fixed aircraft were used as recon aircraft, other aircrafts were at first used to prevent shoot down those recon aircraft with hand guns.
Recon aircraft had to be protected so the fighter aircraft as a type emerged.
WW1 gave an incredable boost to aviation in a short time.
In every big war development goes in overdrive to get just that edge over the enemy.
Jus look what 2.5 years of combat in Ukraine has already changed combat today.
Rules and operational books are mostly torn to shreds and written again from scratch.
Obsolete seen anti aircraft systems like the Gepard and Shilka are upgraded to shield for drone attacks.
Obsolescent, still pretty useful against Shaheds. There is a gap, for tracking glide bombs, that may just be a software thing, but I would think gephard might be able hit them with the right cues
@@Bakes-z4c modern guidance and tracking systems make those close anti air suport weapons veru vital on a modern drone infected battlefield. You can't jam a protectile
Clear as always. Thanks!
The U.S. Air Force now divides the air above a battlefield into zones based on altitude. Air superiority and air dominance in the lowest zone, likely dominated by drones, will become as critical to ground advances as manned aviation currently is. Air dominance will require dominance of all the zones with a mix of assets. We could see a situation where “contested airspace” means each side dominating different zones.
Agree. It’s a good way to frame the challenge.
Adding light machine guns to aerial drones could make a big difference, actually. You don’t need anything fancy. You just need something with decent range that can carry a lot of ammo. Back during WWII most American fighter designers relied on the hood ‘ol fashioned .50 caliber machine guns instead of heavier autocannons for one simple reason.
Machine gun ammo is a lot lighter & space intensive than cannon ammo. You can a lot more machine gun rounds than cannon rounds.
LMGs are way too heavy for drones. A PKM weighs just over 8 kilos without a bipod and western LMGs aren't much lighter. That's way more than what most drones can carry. Baba Yaga drones can carry around 15 kilos but those are absolute chonkers and not exactly common.
They'd also struggle with the recoil. One shot and you completely lose control.
A few other technological improvements that led to the stalemate in world war one are often ocerlooked.
Tele communication via telegraph and telephone meant that defenders could call for reinforcements and artillery support as soon as they were attacked. The attackers on the other hand, could not call back to report any advancements, until they had laid out phone lines over no-mans land. Handheld radioswere far in the future and any communication back had to be done via flags, flares and homing pigeons.
Railways kept the front lines well supplied with food, ammunition and other supplies, but the attacking army hadto carry all their supplies on their backs, crossing the torn-up no mans land on foot.
Mass-produced canned foods made it possible to sustain huge armies in the same place for months and years. This had simply not been possible in a time when armies had to forage to sustain themselves.
Smokeless powder and the repeating rifle were fairly new unventions that gave infantry a leg up on cavalry. The cavalry charge is way less lethal when a single rifleman can fire accurate, repeated fire against charging enemy horses, whereas in the past they would in the best of scenarios have a very short window of time to fire their single shot, before the cavalry was upon them
Lastly, barbed wire. Cheap, quick to deploy over large areas and it lets a single machine gun control a huge area of the battlefield.
The tech progress is so rapid, this is already out of date. I saw yesterday and UA is destroying turtle tanks by slowing down and loitering, waiting until infantry open an access into the turtle, fly through the access then boomski. The reduced visibility from the turtle tank will only make that easier.
Regarding WWI, it wasn't quite as simple as 'machine guns and trenches made attacking hard'. That's part of it, but armies in WWI actually had an answer to machine guns in trenches--lots and lots of heavy artillery. With enough firepower, initial attacks were often very successful. The problem was that the sheer quantity of artillery fire required to break into an enemy trench obliterated the ground behind the captured trench and made it almost impossible to bring up reinforcements or supplies or additional artillery or telegraph lines that were necessary to continue the attack or even hold onto that new trench. So the enemy--who knows exactly where their old trench was and probably has it pre-sighted for their own artillery--will obliterate it along with everyone of your guys who survived the initial attack and then successfully drive you out out with a counterattack. This goes back and forth until both sides have taken hundreds of thousands of casualties and expended obscene amounts of ammunition and the frontline hasn't moved at all.
Thank you. So interesting - I always learn something new from your vlogs.
Hey Anders and others
Big fan of your as close to objective analysis as i have seen of the war. can you recommend other sources with equally quality information about the war?
The turtle tank captured recently, is going to be very useful regarding identifying weaknesses in the platform. Its quite a ridiculous looking vehicle....
In Australia , from space tracking research for space junk there is an anti drone weapon being developed. Called slinger or maybe it's called slingshot.
Tak!
Thx
An example from WW2 and the Battle of Britain might become relevant. Both the Germans and British had fighters that were only suitable for defense because of their short range. Their lack of fuel weight allowed for the optimization of other abilities involving maneuverability and such. But it cost the Germans dearly because they were on the offensive while the British didn't need the range to defend effectively. I suspect that the first hunter drones will need to be faster than their enemy and since they're fighting in Ukraine itself Ukrainians won't need the range thus giving them a potentially permanent edge in designing better performing drones.
One other thought. The radar systems on the F16s may have the capability to spot drones - at least for some distance. If that information can get relayed to attack drones, that might make a difference.
For every measure, there is a countermeasure. For every countermeasure, there is a counter-countermeasure. For every counter-countermeasure ...
Thank youi Anders🙏🙏
Another possible solution is better communications and training. If you can coordinate an attack without first massing forces and do the attack quickly, the enemy may not realize what's going on until it's too late. However, these sorts of complex operations haven't been possible from either side.
The side that succeeds in destroying the others logistics wins the war in the end.
I come here for some insights, and I am never dissapointed. Thanks for a great channel.
I realise this channel is about the war in Ukraine - but I am curious what you think of the intel, that ukranian specialforces are present around the world fighting russian forces, incl. Wagner PMC. I have read articles stating ukranian presence in Sudan and Golan. What is the purpose of this you think? And how will it influence the war on ukranian soil and how will it effect the perception of the war in Ukraine among the world leaders supporting Ukraine.
every time I see a new video from Anders, I become happy that I will have another 10 minutes of great entertaining information :)
Thank you. I love your content!
Thanks Anders!
I think that you didn't mention that air power was first used in ww1 for surveillance. It did precisely what the fibres are doing now- removed the element of surprise. Now with drones attacking drones, this is also mirroring ww1, and as you mentioned the static nature of the war...
Let me also mention that Germany made massive progress in the first months of the war, then stake because of innovative French tactics... if you squint your brain you could say German incompetence...
Basically this is ww1 with mobile phones...
Excellent!
Tak Anders.
There are more commonalities between Ukr war and WWI.
Both are the start of aviation in war.
* WWI started with observation ball0ons and light 1 man biplanes for observation.
* Then the observation planes got bigger to carry an observer who would at first sketch the features, then photo graph them.
* Some bright boy took a pistol up so he could shoot at other, (initially) unarmed observers.
* Another carried a satchel full of grenades he could drop on ground troops.
* Along the way these observation planes also had the bright idea to shoot up enemy observation balloons. Great fun watching them go down in flames.
* These initial efforts were DIY, unofficial.
* Slowly the guns and bombs got bigger as the brass got involved.
* Fairly quickly the rolls became specialties:
* observation planes, unarmed or just light guns.
* Dedicated bombers.
* Dedicated gun platforms called fighters to shoot the insidious observers and bombers
* I know the allies also tried to develop long range unmanned bombs and drones in WWI. They simply did not have the technology
* even in WWII, the V1 "buzz bomb" had pitifully simple "guidance". A timer that shut off the motor.
* The V2, which was a true ballistic weapon also had rudimentary gyro guidance.
Ukraine has followed a very similar pattern:
* observation drones
* bomber "Quad copter" (and Octo Copters, R-18) with downward pointing camera(s) and various "bombs"
* DIY bombers using "hotwired" landing light to trigger a release.
* The first "bombs" were simple hand grenades put into a plastic "beer cup" then pull the pin. When it hit the ground, the grenate bounced out of the cup, the spoon was released and eventually the grenade exploded
* since then the variety of bombs has "exploded" (pun intended), DIY triggers added to bombs, "Frankensteining" various existing triggers onto bombs (including TM-62 landmines and RPG-7 warheads) they were not designed for.
* 3-d printed wings added to bombs to give straighter flight,
* fully 3D printed bomb casing that are filled with explosives extracted from other muntitions (like TM-62 mines)
* now the government is factory mass producing drone specific bombs of various categories (simple explosive, anti-personel fragmentation, anti-tank shaped charges, thermobaric etc etc)
Now Ukraine has drones that can fly unmanned up to 1800km and come close to hitting their designated targets.
You mentioned the "shell hunger" this spring past giving the russians an advantage. But there was another effect. In the late winter Ukraine announced the "million drone" initiative and created a new ministry of drones to cut red tape in producing drones. One of the things they did was create lots of standardized bombs for drones. So by this summer, the observation drones were spotting for artillery, but they were also spotting for many attack drones, FPV drones. Units that used to have one or two drones now had 40 or more to use PER DAY, as needed. This wave of drones has been reported by both sides. To the glee of Ukrainian drone units and the dismay of russians on the recieving end.
Drone dog fighting started more than a year ago. The attacks on Strela and Lancet drones is a new development. FPV drones may become dedicated "fighters" attacking the russian drones. Ukr already has simple, cheap drone detectors based on cell phones. We've recently started seeing video from observer drones that have been shot at by a couple of types of russian anti-air. They come close, but miss. There can be a couple of reasons. One is that they are programmed for larger targets like helicopters and fighter planes, 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the drone. They are guided into the "box" for a full size aircraft and miss the drone. The other reason could be that they recognize this and were designed to explode in proximity to the target. But the drones are not large enough to trigger the proximity explosion. So how about a "franken missile". Use the detectors to spot and locate enemy drones. Then fire a new anti-drone "franken missile" that consists of an existing launch motor, with a FPV drone "bolted on", like the GLSDB. When the missile approaches the target it automatically, or even manually deploys the standard small FPV drone to attack the enemy drone.
Another way FPV can be used to down enemy drones. Rather than crashing the FPV into the enemy, deploy a wire or even a small net to drag behind the FPV. Then fly the FPV over the enemy drone so that they wire/net get tangled in the prop. The catch can be returned home, or dropped if it is too heavy for the FPV.
Thanks for your newest, Anders.
Slava Ukraini!
Interesting as always 😊
The element of surprise is paramount, however purpose and motivation are also essential. Drone warfare is a majer part of this war and so far the Ukrainians would appear to have the upper hand. They have de-centralised production and R&D. This enables them to adapt quickly and effectively. Ukrainians don't fight by the book, they write their own. Watching recent Magyar videos we can see that flying drones are now be used below tree lines almost at ground level to recce concealed locations and equipment. They also appear to be using more incendiary devices to completely burn out stationary and disabled vehicles. I'm not sure what the advantages of incendiary over explosive devices are but there must be reasons, otherwise Ukraine wouldn't be doing it. I sincerely hope that NATO commanders are observing these developements closely. We can all learn a lot from Ukraine.
Thanks for an other interesting and informative video, as always I might add!
There will probably not be "the" solution, but a package of solutions. In principle, the solution exists already: Short range air defence, which has been effective against larger drones. For small drones, there needs to be a cheaper, smaller solution. Using cheaper optical and acoustic sensors and possibly cheaper munition. Currently, a round of 30 mm air burst munition costs about 1.000 euros. A round of shotgun munition is about 1 euro. Either it is going to be near-IR lasers (CO2 is too hard to focus on long distances), or something in between a shotgun and and air burst munition. Some kind of passive air burst munition.
not an expert on firearms but IR lasers seem like the wrong choice when pointing upwards (atmospheric effects)
@@JohnDoe-420 Visible lasers are expensive. CO2 lasers are not good for long distances. Near IR (wavelength1000 nm or less) are a good compromise. To have any chance to destroy a drone, you need probably around 1 kW or more on a mm or less. We are talking here about a range of somewhere between 100 and 1000m. You would still need large (several 10cm) high-precision optics.
Wouldn't it be great if the entire thing devolved into drones fighting each other, with nobody getting hurt in the process?
Interesting thx
Anders Puck Neilsen always gets greater than 10 % Like ... 11 K Likes / 65,000 Views (11 hrs ago) = 16 %
This is a high score in YT algorithm ... a Like and a Comment promotes the TRUTH one sand grain (8 bits = 1 byte) at a time.
Kiitos!
Interesting piece
If you want to be informed about the situation going on in Ukraine concerning the war that Russia has been waging for the last few years, listen to what Anders Puck Nielson has to say. His perspective, and analysis are spot on.
I don't know who's going to win the battle of the drones (though I'd have to give the technological and innovative edge to the Ukrainians), but I do know that this war is going to be studied for YEARS in war colleges all over the world. It's essentially the first war where drones were front and center on both sides of the battlefield.
Thank you 🙏
I'm not a huge fan of the WW1 comparison for the Russo-Ukraine one. It is somewhat accurate but the Iran-Iraq war is a bit closer given the technology. The conflict soon became static after a while and became trench warfare. There's also some interesting historical parallels. Such as Saddam being concerned with revolution spreading to his country and Putin concerned with color revolution spreading to his.
Yeah, I also often think of the Iran-Iraq war. Eight damn years and almost no territory changed hands.
WWI is the obvious comparison but I think each time a new technology/tactic is introduced it leads to tehchnonology/tactics countering it. But this time I think it is quite unigue, that the counter must not just be advanced, but also very cheap.
The countering technology/tactics of WW1 was really just taking those defensive technologies and making them mobile; being able to slowly roll your defenses toward the enemies defenses.
Nothing like some hot drone-on-drone action.
oh no!, they're doing it "drone style".
For the algorithm.
Great analysis. We appreciate your insight and expertise.